Chelsea vs. Crystal Palace match thread

Complete b*llocks again.

Look at the video. His movement is very similar to MG and by the time it is kicked he is right next to the last man in the wall.

You need to stop commenting on this as you are digging a big hole for yourself.

With respect, I have consistently stated that Law 13 was applied correctly yesterday.

I cannot comment on each and every incident in the past involving other teams as, believe it or not, I have not conducted a forensic examination of thousands of free kicks when a 'Wall' has been formed !!
There is always 'Nuance' on the basis that there are variations to such dead-ball incidents and I was discussing this whole matter last night with a former official.
 
Plenty of defending teams have. There hasn't been a single incident and VAR has not intervened ONCE in over 2200 games since it was introduced.

Meanwhile, last season, Curecella hits the Bournemouth wall for the late equaliser by Reece James, in the same goalmouth.
View attachment 1776
The irony of it being Chelsea. It’s the rules we hear. We should know a thing or two about rules that everyone else pisses on.
 
With respect, I have consistently stated that Law 13 was applied correctly yesterday.

I cannot comment on each and every incident in the past involving other teams as, believe it or not, I have not conducted a forensic examination of thousands of free kicks when a 'Wall' has been formed !!
There is always 'Nuance' on the basis that there are variations to such dead-ball incidents and I was discussing this whole matter last night with a former official.
Just confirming that Gallagher stated this afternoon on Sky that the ref missed the Cucarella incident and the goal should have been chalked off.
 
Just confirming that Gallagher stated this afternoon on Sky that the ref missed the Cucarella incident and the goal should have been chalked off.
With the "Cucurella incident", Reece James bent his free kick around the wall away from his Chelsea teammate.
Yesterday, Guehi's movement created a gap which Eze used to fire home, accordingly it was very much in focus and Law 13 was applied correctly.
I shall leave this discussion as I am about to accompany my dear wife to Waitrose.
 
Furthermore... when the opposition place a wall in front of the kicker, have the equal amount of players stand 1m in front of them. I presume this is ok. Then feigning to shoot pass the ball quickly out wide and from there put a hard low cross into the box which will be met by your players that were standing 1m in front of the wall. The wall will be broken and confused. I think this is a valid tactic that will pay dividends. One for the training ground.
 
Top Premier league free kick goals last season - i stopped after about 3 minutes, but based on this it appears about 50% 'may' have been incorrectly awarded as the attacking team appear to have at least one player within 1 yard of the wall


I have no issue with any law disallowing a goal as long as the law is applied consistently.
 
With the "Cucurella incident", Reece James bent his free kick around the wall away from his Chelsea teammate.
Yesterday, Guehi's movement created a gap which Eze used to fire home, accordingly it was very much in focus and Law 13 was applied correctly.
I shall leave this discussion as I am about to accompany my dear wife to Waitrose.
Just to clarify. Gallagher also addressed the fact it went in the other side of the goal. He said, it’s irrelevant and the same encroachment call should have been made. Nobody is disputing the fact law 13 was applied correctly, they are saying:

1) law 13 has not been known to be used to disallow a goal in the PL since introduction.
2) law 13 is not part of the VAR remit and should have been left for the ref to deal with.

So, the big question is, why did VAR request he look at the screen in the first place? If it’s to look at law 13 then they have acted outside their remit which is extremely poor.
 
Just to clarify. Gallagher also addressed the fact it went in the other side of the goal. He said, it’s irrelevant and the same encroachment call should have been made. Nobody is disputing the fact law 13 was applied correctly, they are saying:

1) law 13 has not been known to be used to disallow a goal in the PL since introduction.
2) law 13 is not part of the VAR remit and should have been left for the ref to deal with.

So, the big question is, why did VAR request he look at the screen in the first place? If it’s to look at law 13 then they have acted outside their remit which is extremely poor.
Nut meet shell.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top