Former Premier League referee Graham Poll has told the Daily Mail that he thinks West Ham should've had two penalties against Leicester City - but the last-minute decision against Andy Carroll was a correct one.
In an entertaining 2-2 draw between Leicester and West Ham on Sunday afternoon, contentious refereeing decisions dominated proceedings, with a host of calls sparking debate.
Just before Jamie Vardy put Leicester 1-0 up, West Ham felt they should been awarded a penalty after Robert Huth brought Winston Reid down inside the penalty area, before Vardy was send off for two bookings.
West Ham did then receive a penalty when Reid was dragged down by Wes Morgan, with Leicester paying the price for repeated holding at set pieces, and after Andy Carroll converted from 12 yeards, Aaron Cresswell then gave West Ham a 2-1 lead.
Slaven Bilic's men then avoided giving away a penalty at the other end when Angelo Ogbonna hauled Huth down from a long throw-in, but the Foxes did get a penalty in the end, with Carroll fouling Jeffrey Schlupp - and Leonard Ulloa rescued a last-minute point for Leicester.
Poll suggested that West Ham should have had a penalty in the first half for the incident on Reid, meaning they would have had two penalties in the game - but despite the complaints, Poll also thinks that the decision to give a last-minute penalty to Leicester was the correct one, as Carroll had no intention of playing the ball when he barged Schlupp over.
"The antics inside the penalty area began with Robert Huth blocking Winston Reid with his forearm," said Poll. "A clear foul and a penalty for West Ham which was not given. West Ham's run of bad luck with refereeing decisions continued and were exacerbated by Leicester scoring within seconds of the Reid/Huth clash."
"Andy Carroll ran across the penalty area and knocked Jeffrey Schlupp over with no intention of playing the ball; contact occurring just inside the penalty area," he added.
What did you think of the refereeing decisions during Leicester v West Ham?