Bogle was certainly very lucky to escape even a booking.
The foul happened in strange circumstances. Bogle was positioning his body to challenge Tel with his right foot, and in trying to plant his left foot he stood on the ankle of the Spurs player.
At full speed it looked innocuous, which is probably why referee Brooks chose not to show a card after giving the foul.
Once the slow-motion replays were looked at it became apparent that the nature of the contact on Tel was very ugly, with the twist of the ankle.
It could easily have resulted in the VAR, Tony Harrington, sending Brooks to the pitchside monitor for an on-field review for a red card.
Harrington spent far too long looking at the replays, probably feeling he had more time while Tel received treatment. But longer reviews only tend to cause doubts about process.
Harrington eventually told Brooks: “I’m confirming the on-field decision of no red card. There’s a lack of speed going into the challenge and he’s stepping into the tackle. Confirming a reckless challenge.”
A reckless challenge is a yellow card, but the VAR is unable to intervene and advise that Bogle should be booked.
Something else Harrington said is important – “stepping into the challenge”.
It does not mean a player cannot be sent off, but this is far less likely to result in a VAR review for a red card because such challenges naturally come with less force.
How about comparisons with Mateta’s VAR red card against Spurs last week?
There is an argument that Mateta, who was booked on-field, made less forceful contact on the ankle of Micky van de Ven. Yet it is the nature of the challenge that is crucially different.
Mateta made a lunging, stretching tackle with studs leading, the kind generally considered to come with a higher degree of force and potential danger to the opponent.
That said, and even though Bogle was not really making a challenge, the nature of the contact means many may feel there should have been a VAR review for a red card.