Keith Hackett reveals why West Ham penalty wasn't retaken despite 'clear' Charlton encroachment

Keith Hackett believes that in his era of refereeing, West Ham United's penalty against Charlton Athletic would've been retaken.

Saturday turned out to be a disastrous way for West Ham to make their home debut in the 2026-27 Championship season.

A 2-1 defeat to London rivals Charlton Athletic is set to pile considerable pressure on manager Nuno Espirito Santo.

The big flashpoint of the match came in added time at the end, when Taty Castellanos struck the post with a penalty kick that would've earned the Hammers a point.

It wasn't the miss, however, that was the big talking point to emerge from that moment in the game.

Rather, it was the fact Charlton looked to have committed an obvious encroachment foul as Castellanos was taking his spot kick.

Why Andrew Kitchen was right to award West Ham penalty

The Castellanos penalty miss summed up West Ham's start to the new season.

It was yet another missed opportunity for the Hammers, after throwing away a two-goal lead against Burnley on opening weekend.

Former West Ham talent Conor Coventry was the guilty party, with his outstretched arm blocking a goalward-bound shot inside the Addicks' box.

Hackett, an ex-FIFA referee, exclusively told West Ham Zone that referee Andrew Kitchen did at least get the original penalty decision right on Saturday.

"Referee Andrew Kitchen is in a good position to accurately judge that the defender has committed a handball offence and leaves the referee with an easy decision to award a penalty kick," he said.

But, when it comes to what happened after that, Hackett has offered a double-edged verdict on whether or not the Hammers' should've had the penalty retaken.

What is the law Kitchen applied to justify no West Ham penalty retake?

Given how egregious the encroachment was from Charlton, many West Ham fans are understandably shocked as to why the penalty wasn't taken again.

But, as explained by Hackett, Kitchen has interpreted a particular part of the encroachment law to deny the Hammers with a second go.

"There is clearly encroachment and in my era of officiating under a different law the kick would be retaken," he continued.

"The current penalty kick law states: If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: A teammate of the player taking the penalty kick is penalised for encroachment only if:

"The encroachment clearly impacted on the goalkeeper; or
the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores, attempts to score or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

"A teammate of the goalkeeper is penalised for encroachment only if:
the encroachment clearly impacted on the kicker; or
the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and this prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity.

"Referee has judged that the encroachment has not impacted on the goalkeeper so play is allowed to continue."

West Ham's case also wasn't helped in this scenario due to the ball going running straight out for a throw-in after crashing back out off the post.

If, however, the ball had came directly back into the box and was contested by both sets of players, then surely Kitchen would've had justification to award a retake.

Regardless, West Ham can't afford to be relying on refereeing decisions to help them out, as this group of players need to use this as a reality check.