The annulled free-kick taken by Eberechi Eze for Crystal Palace in their match against Chelsea has sparked bewilderment among numerous football observers.
Eze believed he had propelled the Eagles ahead in the 13th minute at Stamford Bridge, as his powerful strike surpassed goalkeeper Robert Sanchez, much to the joy of Oliver Glasner and the Palace supporters who had made the journey.
However, soon after the celebrations subsided, VAR official James Bell informed referee Darren England of his assessment that an infringement had occurred during the execution of the set-piece.
Why was Eze’s free-kick ruled out against Chelsea?
Due to some ambiguity regarding the reason for the rejection of Palace’s apparent opening goal, referee England was prompted to review the incident on the pitch-side monitor, focusing on what the officials deemed to be a foul committed by Marc Guehi.
The assessment proved accurate, as Guehi had pushed Chelsea midfielder Moises Caicedo to create space for the ball’s trajectory, thus encroaching within the one-meter limit from the Chelsea defensive wall when Eze struck the ball.
After reviewing the footage on the monitor, England decided to disallow the goal, announcing his decision at Stamford Bridge, stating: “Upon review, Crystal Palace No.6 [Guehi] was positioned less than one meter from the wall at the moment the shot was taken. Consequently, the ruling is an indirect free-kick, and the goal is disallowed.”
Interestingly, it seems Chelsea may have benefited from a similar situation previously, specifically during last season’s 2-2 draw against Bournemouth at Stamford Bridge. In that instance, Marc Cucurella and Tosin Adarabioyo stood within one meter of the Bournemouth wall, yet the goal scored by Reece James in the 96th minute was allowed to stand, despite the fact it arguably should have been disallowed.
Following the conclusion of the match, Palace’s manager, Glasner, voiced his dissatisfaction, emphasizing the necessity for heightened consistency in applying the regulations concerning defensive walls and permissible distances.
“I am aware of the one-yard distance requirement from the wall,” he stated. “It is possible that we encountered a scenario where we attempted to create a blocking formation, a tactic employed universally. Evidently, the initiation of the block occurred prematurely.”
“Nonetheless, the Premier League should exercise caution when nullifying goals of this nature, as blocking formations are a prevalent feature in virtually every direct free-kick situation. However, we are obliged to accept the decision, as it is enshrined in the regulations.”
“I was somewhat taken aback, considering that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system is typically administered with extreme circumspection in England, a practice I genuinely value, as it generally aims to reinforce the referee’s original judgment on the field.”
“My accomplished team, which consistently monitors all set-piece plays, will scrutinize the incident again and devise a solution to prevent a recurrence of goal disallowance in similar circumstances, allowing us to celebrate and, hopefully, secure a victory.”
Do you believe the goal should have been permitted, or were the officials correct in their judgment? Share your opinions in the comments section below…
