Graham Potter was told his diplomatic view of Chelsea being denied a penalty vs West Ham showed his inexperience at the top level.
The Blues were forced to settle for a point at the London Stadium after Joao Felix’s opener was cancelled out by Emerson’s equaliser. There was then late controversy as the Hammers had a goal ruled out by VAR, before Chelsea were denied what appeared a clear penalty.
In the 89th minute of the game, substitute Conor Gallagher fired a shot towards goal, with Tomas Soucek getting in the way. However, replays showed the midfielder had clearly blocked the effort with his hand.
Referee Craig Pawson waved away the initial protests, with VAR Neil Swarbrick quickly backing up the on-field official and allowing the game to continue. Studio pundits Rio Ferdinand and Joe Cole ripped into the decision, with Potter opting to instead focus on the performance.
He told BT Sport: “It looks like it [an obvious penalty]. These are the little things you need to go in your favour and at the moment they're not. That’s life and there’s nothing to complain about there. But you've got to keep working.
“There were positives in terms of how we wanted to play and some good attacking moments from players still adapting to the Premier League. That’s where we are at and we have to keep moving forward.”
Chelsea’s official Twitter account didn’t take the decision lying down however, posting shortly after the incident: “Soucek makes a great save from Conor Gallagher.”
Ex-West Ham players Ferdinand and Cole were similarly forthright with their viewpoint of the flashpoint at the end of the game.
“He more or less saved it! It was a great save,” Ferdinand said. “If you see the next angle there is no wonder Chelsea are going bananas. What a save! I can’t believe it hasn’t been given. Unbelievable. It’s a definite stonewall penalty and I don’t see how you can’t give that."
Cole added: “The crucial thing was the distance, if he was two yards away you could argue no penalty. But he knows what he’s doing and it’s a penalty.”
Asked about Potter’s response to the decision both Cole and Ferdinand said a more experienced manager would have pinned the blame on officials and stolen the narrative away from yet more dropped points.
Cole added: "He’s always diplomatic, he’s going a fantastic job, but I think if he had someone in his staff who’s maybe been at that level, managed at that level, you need to cause a bit of an uproar because it does two things. It takes the deflection from the bad elements of your performance, and it also puts it on VAR.
"Let these Chelsea fans leave the stadium feeling hard done by instead of thinking ‘why didn’t we beat West Ham? We’ve signed all these players.’ It changes the narrative of the story."
Ferdinand agreed, replying: "Mourinho would have been at it in that presser today and it would have been the story of tomorrow. The back page would have been ‘Mourinho slams VAR,’ and it takes the gloss off what happened on the pitch.
"There were some bits you could improve on with Chelsea, that would not have been the focus but probably will be now with the money spent, the influx of players, etcetera. You can negate that by controlling the narrative from that presser there."
Potter did offer a more pithy response away from the cameras, telling reporters: “I thought it was a good save. You need your goalkeeper sometimes to get you the points.”
Ex-Premier League referee Peter Walton admitted he was disappointed in the process which meant Pawson wasn’t given the chance to go and review the handball on a pitchside monitor.
“The law is clear. The law says about getting unnaturally bigger,” Walton explained. “VAR clearly thinks it is in a natural position to break his fall. When you analyse it in slow motion, I'm disappointed VAR didn't give the ref another chance to look at it.”
