Eberechi Eze scored a sumptuous free-kick against Chelsea, only for it to be ruled out by a bad rule that is applied inconsistently
Chelsea 0-0 Crystal Palace
STAMFORD BRIDGE — Crystal Palace fans are pretty sick of technicalities.
John Textor’s failure to follow the fine print of Uefa’s rules cost them a place in the Europa League last week, and Darren England’s decision to enforce a rarely-used rule on Sunday potentially cost them a first win over Chelsea for eight years.
Eberechi Eze’s free-kick did hit the back of the net after just 13 minutes, so who knows what might have happened after that, but to end a 0-0 draw after what appeared a legitimate goal is deeply frustrating to everyone except Chelsea fans. And even the less partisan Blues might see that this was not an incident to celebrate.
“I was a little bit surprised, because VAR is handled very, very cautious here in England,” said Palace manager Oliver Glasner.
“And what I really appreciate, it’s always about supporting the on-field decision.”
But in this case it was not. VAR James Bell spotted what he thought was an infraction and called the referee over to the screen.
‘VAR feels anti-goals’
Part of Law 13 states that “all attacking team players must remain at least 1m from the wall until the ball is in play”.
“After review, away number six [Marc Guehi, who was battling Moises Caicedo for position] is less than one metre away from the wall as the shot is taken,” explained referee England to the stadium.
“Therefore, it’s an indirect free kick and a disallowed goal.”
Referees sometimes mark a one metre line with vanishing spray, when attacking players have taken up position near the wall. Sometimes they don’t.
Later in the Palace-Chelsea game, England was at pains to do so. But the horse had already bolted. Eze’s fine goal, a rare bright spark on an otherwise stultifying afternoon.
“There can’t be any complaints but it feels like VAR is anti-goals,” Micah Richards said on Sky Sports.
“However, with the letter of the law it is the correct decision.”
It does rather sum up the whole frustration with VAR, where decisions that are right feel wrong; goals that almost everyone agrees should stand do not.
It’s hard to argue logically for “vibes-based” refereeing, but that is what a lot of fans are starting to believe would make for a better spectacle.
‘No legitimate tactical justification’
The anger at England and Bell on Sunday is misplaced, since all they did was enforce the laws as they are.
The rule about being a metre away from the wall has been in place since 2019, but even just a few minutes after Eze’s disallowed goal, social media became littered with examples of previous free-kick goals where attacking teams were hanging onto the wall and not penalised.
It is those referees of Christmas past that fans should be cursing today. Instead, those who got it right get the flak.
Last season, Reece James scored a late free-kick for Chelsea with Marc Cucurella literally touching the end of the wall – let alone being 1m/yard away.
Same stadium, same end, pretty much same spot as Eze. Different outcome. #CFC #CPFC pic.twitter.com/OpdxOfyq5o
— Sam Blitz (@SamBIitz) August 17, 2025
And even when this rule was introduced in 2019, it was done so for the wrong reasons. At the time, lawmakers Ifab said there was “no legitimate tactical justification for attackers to be in the wall” and they “often cause management problems and waste time”.
Except of course, there is a tactical reason for them to be there, either to block the goalkeeper’s view or disrupt the wall. When lawmakers don’t understand the game they govern, they make bad rules which are then inconsistently enforced because they are bad rules.
Your next read
Crystal Palace defender Chris Richards summed it up best.
“I think everyone in the stadium thought it was a goal and somehow VAR saw something else,” he said.
“You live and die by VAR, today we died by it.”
On Sunday’s evidence, the Premier League is dying of it too.