This video can not be played
Brighton Secures Dramatic Draw Against Bournemouth with Late Goal
Charalampos Kostoulas etched his name into Brighton folklore with a moment he will never forget.
The 18-year-old Greek forward delivered an acrobatic, overhead-kick equalizer in stoppage time, marking a spectacular debut goal at the Amex Stadium for the Brighton player.
The substitute, a summer acquisition from Olympiakos for £29.78m, struck at a critical juncture when the Seagulls appeared destined for defeat after trailing Bournemouth due to a contentious first-half penalty.
Brighton manager Fabian Hurzeler lauded his young player’s brilliance but maintained his discontent regarding the penalty decision that resulted in Marcus Tavernier’s goal, following a video assistant referee (VAR) review that deemed goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen had fouled Amine Adli.
Hurzeler commented, “It was a nice goal. We recognize his potential. However, our preference is always to secure a victory.”
When questioned about the penalty, the German coach stated, “No, I do not believe it was. Engaging in dialogue with referees is challenging, as they hold firm to their perspectives. While we may disagree, we must accept their decisions.”
He further explained, “A mere touch or contact is insufficient grounds for a foul, a principle communicated by the referees before the season’s commencement. Yet, in certain instances, this standard is not upheld, which is the reality.”
Hurzeler concluded, “Contact alone does not constitute a foul. In this scenario, there was contact, albeit minimal, and it did not warrant a foul. It lacks logical consistency.”
Kostoulas, a Greece Under-21 international, began his professional career in 2024, having progressed through Olympiakos’ youth system. He scored seven goals in 22 league appearances for the first team last season.
Should an additional £1.7m be paid during his tenure at Brighton, the transfer would become a record deal for a Greek player.
Since joining Brighton, Kostoulas has made 17 appearances and scored two goals, with captain Lewis Dunk describing him as a “special talent”.
Dunk remarked, “I’ve witnessed even better goals from him in training, but that was truly exceptional.”
He added, “We have seen glimpses of his potential, and there is much more to come. He is adjusting to the country and the new league, and he has demonstrated his capabilities. That goal exemplifies his potential.”
Controversy arose when Amine Adli was judged to have been fouled by Bart Verbruggen.
The incident occurred around the half-hour mark when Bournemouth‘s Adli was initially cautioned for simulation by referee Paul Tierney after going down under a challenge from Verbruggen.
However, following a recommendation from VAR official Jarred Gillett, Tierney reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor, reversed his decision, and awarded a penalty, citing contact.
Tavernier subsequently converted the penalty, giving the visitors the lead, which appeared to be the winning goal for Bournemouth until Kostoulas’s late intervention.
Replays indicated minimal contact from Verbruggen’s raised foot, but with the ball seemingly drifting harmlessly away from the goal, Brighton‘s staff, players, and fans were outraged by the decision.
Following a weekend marked by Arsenal‘s frustration over a denied penalty and Manchester City‘s anger over Diogo Dalot’s non-dismissal in their Manchester derby loss, this decision became another central point of discussion on Monday night.
Unsurprisingly, Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola believed the decision was correct.
He stated, “Upon reviewing the replay, it was evident that Verbruggen’s elevated leg made contact with Amine. Therefore, I anticipated the decision.”
Former Arsenal striker Thierry Henry concurred on Sky Sports, stating, “It is a penalty. The leg is raised, and contact is made while the ball is still in play. Whether or not he could have reached the ball is irrelevant, as it was still in play.”
Henry continued, “In today’s game, with the benefit of slow-motion replays, the contact is clear. Instead of contesting the decision, it is evident that the contact could have been avoided.”
Ex-Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher added, “Penalties of this nature were unlikely to be awarded a decade ago. However, the ball was in play, and contact was evident. Adli was unlikely to reach the ball.”
Errors involving the Video Assistant Referee had increased during the first half of the Premier League season.
Data compiled by BBC Sport from the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel indicates a 30% rise in mistakes season-on-season, from 10 to 13, prior to the weekend’s matches.
This figure represents a marked improvement compared to previous years, with 20 errors recorded at the same stage in the 2023-24 campaign and 23 in 2022-23.
This video can not be played
Hurzeler Believes Brighton’s Equalizer Was Deserved
The question for Brighton is whether Bournemouth‘s VAR penalty was a “clear and obvious” error.
Had referee Tierney deemed Verbruggen’s contact on Adli to be inconsequential and refrained from awarding a penalty, a pitchside review would have been improbable. Such a judgment would have been a defensible interpretation.
The VAR’s intervention stemmed from Tierney’s initial misjudgment in booking the Bournemouth attacker for simulation. This incorrect assessment opened the door for a review.
Nevertheless, the VAR had to determine whether the incident met the threshold for a penalty. Arguments could be made that the contact was minimal and insufficient to cause Adli to fall.
A key factor was Verbruggen’s unorthodox challenge, which involved a high boot making contact with Adli’s thigh after he had advanced past the goalkeeper.
Regardless of whether Adli could have maintained possession, the decisive factor was that the ball remained in play at the moment of contact.
This video can not be played
Iraola Deems Late Goal Harsh on Bournemouth
Sam, Brighton: The decision to overturn the penalty was appalling, with barely any contact made, and the player was already falling. The referee and VAR’s actions were disgraceful.
Simeon, Woking: Another week, another poor VAR decision – time to abolish it!
Russ, Upton: Is football even worth watching anymore? Why did the referee reverse his decision on the penalty? The striker a) was not in a position to shoot, b) could not reach the ball after pushing it forward, and c) did not experience enough contact to warrant a fall! It seems that when referees are as incompetent as they are today, having more of them only exacerbates the problem!
Phil, Toronto: The issue lies in the interpretation of “clear and obvious.” It appears that any minor infringement is now deemed as such. Technology can be beneficial in certain situations, such as determining whether the ball crosses the goal line or in semi-automated offside decisions. However, in cases involving tackles and handballs, the referee has a direct view of the game and is best positioned to make a judgment. Any instance where players are standing around waiting is not clear and obvious.
Tom, Innsbruck: Let’s put an end to this “there was contact” nonsense. Does the player fall because he is genuinely brought down, or does he throw himself to the ground upon the slightest touch? Football is transforming into a sport for divers.
Get news, insight and fan views on your Premier League team
All your football quizzes in one place
Premier League index
Premier League table
Premier League fixtures
Comments can not be loaded
To load Comments you need to enable JavaScript in your browser