Everyone associated with Chelsea was left frustrated by the decision to not award the Blues a penalty late on during their 1-1 draw away at West Ham on Saturday afternoon.
Graham Potter's side have won just one game in 2023 and pressure is mounting on the former Brighton boss to turn things around as manager of Chelsea, especially because of the £323million the club spent on new additions in the January transfer window last month.
Therefore, a win at the London Stadium would have gone a long way and a late spot-kick would have handed Chelsea the chance to seal a much-needed victory. Joao Felix put the visitors a goal up in the first half, before Emerson Pamieri equalised soon after for the Hammers against his old side.
Late on in the second-half, Conor Gallagher's effort clearly struck the hand of West Ham midfielder Tomas Soucek but despite a huge protest from Chelsea's players claiming a handball, Craig Pawson was unmoved and opted against pointing to the spot.
The moment was subject to a VAR check, but those officials at Stockley Park didn't see anything in the replays of the incident to overrule Pawson's on-field decision.
The Premier League has since explained why a penalty wasn't given, as the PGMOL - the officials group for all FA competitions - have claimed that because the hand that the ball struck was the 'the hand that broke the fall', a Soucek a spot-kick should not have been given.
HAVE YOUR SAY! Should Chelsea have been given a penalty against West Ham? Comment below
After the game, Potter discussed the decision and jokingly claimed Soucek had made a good save.
"It was a good save," he quipped. "You need your goalkeeper sometimes to give you the points. It looks like one of those that if it was given it wouldn’t have been overturned, but obviously it wasn’t given.
"You have to earn your luck. We can’t complain or wait for luck to turn for us, we have to keep working. It looked quite a handball and, like I said, I didn’t know Tomas could get down so easily and save like that."
Ex-Premier League official Peter Walton admitted he thinks Pawson was wrong to not point to the spot despite the VAR review.
"The law is clear, the VAR clearly thinks the arm is in a natural position and that he is going down to break his fall," Walton told BT Sport.
"If you analyse it in slow motion, you can see the ball is past his knee and then his arm is there. For me, I think it is a deliberate act and am disappointed the VAR didn’t give the referee the opportunity to go and have a second look at it.
"Football, I think, as a community, would want that given as a penalty. As a former Premier League referee I think that was the wrong decision today."
