Ex-refs chief hits out at VAR over West Ham penalty controversy vs Bournemouth: 'It's obvious'
Samuel Barrott should have awarded a late penalty to West Ham during their goalless draw with Bournemouth on Saturday.
That is according to former PGMOL chief and ex-FIFA referee, Keith Hackett, who exclusively told Football Insider that the Hammers were allowed to feel disappointed at the London Stadium on 21 February.
Nuno Espirito Santo and Andoni Iraola were both content with a point, with the Irons taking an important step towards Premier League safety, moving two points behind Nottingham Forest.
Crysencio Summerville and Taty Castellanos had opportunities to score the opener, but it was Jarrod Bowen who was at the centre of controversy in the final stages of the game.
Jarrod Bowen deserved a last-ditch penalty vs Bournemouth
With almost the last kick of the game, Summerville fed the ball to Bowen, who burst into the Cherries' penalty area, only to skew his effort into the stands. Then the final whistle blew.
However, upon watching replays of the England international's last-gasp chance, it could be argued that Adrien Truffert should have been punished for his challenge inside the penalty area.
It is believed that VAR reviewed the incident, decided not to send Barrott to the pitch-side monitor, before the sides had to settle for one point each.
While it has been argued by the away fans that Truffert won the ball, a goal-kick was awarded to Bournemouth, and Hackett believes that it's a stonewall penalty.
VAR failed to help Samuel Barrott in West Ham draw
Speaking exclusively to Football Insider, the former referee said: "He's wiped him out, hasn't he? It's an absolute penalty. It doesn't matter. There's a fallacy that if the ball goes out, it can't be a penalty.
"The way I see it, the ball is still in play; therefore, West Ham are very unlucky not to be awarded a penalty kick. That really should have been reviewed.
"There's a continuing dilemma as far as VAR is concerned. They're clearly being told by PGMOL to improve the clear and obvious and reduce the interference. But this is what VAR is there for - this type of situation.
"VAR should have called the referee over to the screen and let him decide. But they're trying to be too clinical. It's an obvious penalty."