Crystal Palace vs Brentford match thread

[Ame]

Crystal Palace XI: Henderson, Munoz, Richards, Lacroix, Guehi, Mitchell, Hughes, Lerma, Eze, Sarr, Mateta

Subs: Turner, Nketiah, Schlupp, Clyne, Kamada, Esse, Umeh, Devenny, Kporha

Brentford XI: Flekken, Roerslev, Van Den Berg, Collins, Lewis-Potter, Janelt, Norgaard, Damsgaard, Schade, Mbeumo, Wissa

Subs: Valdimarsson, Jensen, Carvalho, Mee, Yarmoliuk, Ajer, Konak, Maghoma, Ji-Soo

Honestly with everything all said and done, this game was pretty good, good showing by Esse, however, I think this game highlights the over-aggression Palace has in their box, the players get too jumpy and they risk unnecessary bookings and set pieces.

 

[Wilesy01]

Correct, BUT as Guehi had encroached(or any other player), it doesn't matter.

BTW, it's LAWS, not rules. 😉

And for emphasis on words one should use italics not block caps! 😀

 

[Eaglecoops]

Honestly with everything all said and done, this game was pretty good, good showing by Esse, however, I think this game highlights the over-aggression Palace has in their box, the players get too jumpy and they risk unnecessary bookings and set pieces.

I wouldn’t call it over aggression, I think I would call it misunderstanding with a bit of panic thrown in.

I’m not sure if training has changed over the years but centre half’s are supposed to play close to one another. As we play with 3 then if the ball goes Guehi’s side then Lacroix should move closer to him and towards Richards if the ball is the other side.

The defending for the penalty and again for the headed goal was poor. Glasner won’t be happy and you can bet this will be looked at on the training pitch this week.

 

[JHB]

I wouldn’t call it over aggression, I think I would call it misunderstanding with a bit of panic thrown in.

I’m not sure if training has changed over the years but centre half’s are supposed to play close to one another. As we play with 3 then if the ball goes Guehi’s side then Lacroix should move closer to him and towards Richards if the ball is the other side.

The defending for the penalty and again for the headed goal was poor. Glasner won’t be happy and you can bet this will be looked at on the training pitch this week.

We were panicky all game at the back. All it needed for the pen was somebody to take charge and clear it. Easy to say but not so easy to do in the heat of battle.

The second was a bit of a shocker all round. Started with players chasing up the pitch when the press wasn’t on which left us short handed and vulnerable to a long ball. Mitchell let the cross in a bit easily. Richards was asleep so let his man have a pretty free header and got their late. Still think we are missing a bit of leadership and organisation at times.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The absurdity of the rules exposed today.

Had Mbulemo scored the rebound of the post from the penalty, it would have been a free kick to us. The man who stopped him, Guehi, was penalised for encroachment. That is bonkers. It was a dubious penalty to begin with.
Other than that, we were bang average today.

 

[PatrickA]

As usual Glasner was commendably honest about the game, acknowledging that we deserved to lose.
He was realistic about the team that scored the first goal would have a significant bearing on the game, and it was Brentford that got it.
He pointed out our mistakes in the lead up to the penalty i.e it was self inflicted.
He also suggested there wasn't enough variation in our approach play.

Sadly if the game was played next week there is no reason to suspect there wouldn't be a similar result and that we wouldn't struggle against their system again.

In the absence of Wharton and with Eze's lack of form we need need our wing backs to have greater attacking involvement and be the spare man to create from wide.
This didn't happen today.

 

[DenTyler]

I ask this as somebody who desperately wants all our players to perform well…

How long does Eddie get? He really doesn’t look happy and is just not offering anything when he comes on. I agree with the other poster, he is either trying too hard or playing for himself. He does not appear to fit OG system and let’s face it, OG is never changing his philosophy.

Is there an argument that Eddie needs a run in the team? But this would mean JPM is either injured or bang out of form (both too miserable to consider).

At what point does he get put out of his misery and moved on and who other than us would buy a non scoring £30 million forward.

Frustrating. Very frustrating

 

[BromleyMonkey]

I know we weren’t great today, but it still feels like we’ve been robbed twice by Brentford now this season

 

[JHB]

I ask this as somebody who desperately wants all our players to perform well…

How long does Eddie get? He really doesn’t look happy and is just not offering anything when he comes on. I agree with the other poster, he is either trying too hard or playing for himself. He does not appear to fit OG system and let’s face it, OG is never changing his philosophy.

Is there an argument that Eddie needs a run in the team? But this would mean JPM is either injured or bang out of form (both too miserable to consider).

At what point does he get put out of his misery and moved on and who other than us would buy a non scoring £30 million forward.

Frustrating. Very frustrating

We will only be able to move him on at a significantly lower fee than the £25m we paid. At the moment I’d suggest something like £10m would be what we’d get. That would be a significant hit against financial fair play if nothing else.

As you say we just paid over the odds for a player without a strong track record who doesn’t fit the system. Even if JPM got injured I actually would rather see Sarr playing in the centre forward role. Better fit for the system and has more to offer

 

[jpegnall]

Not sure I follow the discussion on the penalty. The rules (FA website law 14) states that the encroachment has either got to have impacted the kicker (obviously not) 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

I don't see how it's possible this second test is satisfied as all he prevented was a foul and it certainly wasn't clear and obvious because then all returned to the kicker without touching another player thus preventing him from playing the ball.

Like I posted during the game I don't understand the decision and it seems to be a massive error in my view.

 

[JHB]

Not sure I follow the discussion. The rules clearly state the encroachment has either got to have impacted the kicker (obviously not) 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

I don't see how it's possible this second test is satisfied as all he prevented was a foul and it certainly wasn't clear and obvious because then all returned to the kicker without touching another player thus preventing him from playing the ball.

Like I posted during the game I don't understand the decision and it seems to be a massive error in my view.

But he clearly satisfied the criteria because he got to the ball first and knocked it out of play. That is clearly stopping the opponents from attempting to score. Granted, it is weird that if Mbeumo had got their first it would have been a free kick to us. However, these seems one of those where it’s a wrinkle in the laws rather than a mistake.

 

[kennybrowns leftfoot]

Not sure I follow the discussion on the penalty. The rules (FA website law 14) states that the encroachment has either got to have impacted the kicker (obviously not) 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

I don't see how it's possible this second test is satisfied as all he prevented was a foul and it certainly wasn't clear and obvious because then all returned to the kicker without touching another player thus preventing him from playing the ball.

Like I posted during the game I don't understand the decision and it seems to be a massive error in my view.

Unfortunately the decision is correct as Guehi 'plays the ball' ie he puts it out of play when it comes back off the post therefore it fulfills the law that you've mentioned.

Like I said in an earlier post the bizarre thing about it all is if Guehi hadn't of played the ball and had let Mbuemo tap it into.an empty net then the goal would of been disallowed as nobody else touched it... Ridiculous really.

 

[jpegnall]

But he clearly satisfied the criteria because he got to the ball first and knocked it out of play. That is clearly stopping the opponents from attempting to score. Granted, it is weird that if Mbeumo had got their first it would have been a free kick to us. However, these seems one of those where it’s a wrinkle in the laws rather than a mistake.

But they have to apply the rules by materially of the encroachment, so if two palace players were at the ball and one had not encroached and the other cleared the ball, it wouldn't have had a material impact so the encroachment should not result in a retake (as all he did was prevent the second player from clearing it).

Here the impact is also not material as I don't think MG did prevent a goal scoring opportunity.


See below

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

 

[jpegnall]

Unfortunately the decision is correct as Guehi 'plays the ball' ie he puts it out of play when it comes back off the post therefore it fulfills the law that you've mentioned.

Like I said in an earlier post the bizarre thing about it all is if Guehi hadn't of played the ball and had let Mbuemo tap it into.an empty net then the goal would of been disallowed as nobody else touched it... Ridiculous really.

The bit you highlighted is only part of the test, it is the "and" afterwards that carry's into the second part of the test. This is fleshed out in the guidance interpretation below

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

 

[kennybrowns leftfoot]

The bit you highlighted is only part of the test, it is the "and" afterwards that carry's into the second part of the test. This is fleshed out in the guidance interpretation below

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

It's not only part of the test that I've highlighted. It doesn't say 'and' afterwards it says 'or'... Therefore by Guehi playing the ball the offence of encroachment is complete.

 

[JHB]

But they have to apply the rules by materially of the encroachment, so if two palace players were at the ball and one had not encroached and the other cleared the ball, it wouldn't have had a material impact so the encroachment should not result in a retake (as all he did was prevent the second player from clearing it).

Here the impact is also not material as I don't think MG did prevent a goal scoring opportunity.


See below

"To be penalised for encroachment, the player must have a material impact on the outcome of the kick. For example, this could be when a defender who encroaches clearly prevents a goal from being scored or impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If the encroaching player has no impact, there is no offence."

But kicking the ball out is very clearly a material impact. By putting it out for a corner he has clearly impacted the ability of the opponent to play the ball. After all you can’t play the ball once it is off the playing area

 

[jpegnall]

It's not only part of the test that I've highlighted. It doesn't say 'and' afterwards it says 'or'... Therefore by Guehi playing the ball the offence of encroachment is complete.

No, the or refers the the alternative (challenging the ball) then the and applies to both statements. If you read the identical language for the reverse it reads the same way and it's impossible for the and not to apply to them both. Also without the and applying to both playing the ball and challenge, their own interpretation would make no sense.

• 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

Probably better demonstrated by this which shows clearly how the "and" must be read

• 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

 

[JHB]

But kicking the ball out is very clearly a material impact. By putting it out for a corner he has clearly impacted the ability of the opponent to play the ball. After all you can’t play the ball once it is off the playing area

I would add that VAR, the studio pundits, our players and OG all accepted this was the correct decision

 

[kennybrowns leftfoot]

No, the or refers the the alternative (challenging the ball) then the and applies to both statements. If you read the identical language for the reverse it reads the same way and it's impossible for the and not to apply to them both. Also without the and applying to both playing the ball and challenge, their own interpretation would make no sense.

• 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

Fella I'm not gonna split hairs with you over this.
He encroached. He played the ball. Offence complete. Penalty had to be retaken..... End of story really.

 

[JHB]

No, the or refers the the alternative (challenging the ball) then the and applies to both statements. If you read the identical language for the reverse it reads the same way and it's impossible for the and not to apply to them both. Also without the and applying to both playing the ball and challenge, their own interpretation would make no sense.

• 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

Probably better demonstrated by this which shows clearly how the "and" must be read

• 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

Ok. Look at it this way. For what you say to be true you must then have to believe that a defender putting the ball out of play has no material impact on the opponent’s ability to play the ball. As that is clearly nonsense Guehi must have impacted hence the decision was right.