[Albion] Premier League 30/12 - 31/12

[Eggman]

Haha

 

[Dick Head]

Haha!

 

[WhingForPresident]

Hahaha!

 

[BBassic]

Or not

 

[WhingForPresident]

I can't think of a bigger cheat in world football than Zaha; why cheat when you clearly have talent? The fact he is Palace doesn't even come into it, the FA have to ban him.

 

[Dick Head]

Puncheon should have got red. It should be 10 v 10.

 

[BBassic]

If Benteke had any idea where the goal is he could have at least two in this game.

 

[theboybilly]

A decent point for Palace but in the great scheme of things thats 5 home points dropped in the last few days. Away form is far from good. They are still in a mess

 

[LamieRobertson]

9/1 Palarse 5/1 draw

Few quid in the bank..in a way pleased it wasn’t more

 

[Dick Head]

Got to hand it to Palace, that was annoyingly good.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Got to hand it to Palace, that was annoyingly good.

They’ve played that way for a while ..hence results have changed..I do think City missed Spanish Silva

 

[Bozza]

I just wish we would play like this against the bigger teams. Palace may lose now but the crowd is buoyed and it surely breeds confidence in the players. All this playing not to lose must become a habit.

I really don't think there's a great deal of difference. Palace were sitting back, soaking it up, crossing their fingers that City couldn't score and hoping they'd get a chance at some point or another. I think the main difference is that in Zaha they have a credible threat when they break. We just can't move the ball at that kind of speed and beat a man when it can make a real difference.

Palace v Man City: Possession 28%, Shots on Target: 1
Albion v Man City: Possession 22%, Shots on Target: 2
Arsenal v Albion: Possession 35%, Shots on Target: 1
Man Utd v Albion: Possession 42%, Shots on Target: 2
Albion v Liverpool: Possession 43%, Shots on Target: 2
Spurs v Albion: Possession 25%, Shots on Target: 4

 

[perseus]

That makes four 0-0 draws on TV this weekend. It could be five as well?

 

[Mr Putdown]

A decent point for Palace but in the great scheme of things thats 5 home points dropped in the last few days. Away form is far from good. They are still in a mess

You think that three draws and a win in their last four away games is ‘far from good’?

How would you describe away form of three defeats and a draw then?

 

[Beach Hut]

Puncheon should have got red. It should be 10 v 10.

That was an assault not a tackle, hopefully reviewed post match

 

[Bozza]

That was an assault not a tackle, hopefully reviewed post match

It can't be reviewed can it - the ref saw it and gave a foul (and a yellow card, I believe). No further action can be taken.

It was a full on assault though and merited a red card.

 

[Mr Putdown]

It can't be reviewed can it - the ref saw it and gave a foul (and a yellow card, I believe). No further action can be taken.

It was a full on assault though and merited a red card.

Agree with all of that, it was a dreadful tackle.

 

[Motogull]

Hope they frisked Puncheon for offensive weapons before he came on.

He is the offensive weapon. And by weapon I mean todger.

 

[Acker79]

It can't be reviewed can it - the ref saw it and gave a foul (and a yellow card, I believe). No further action can be taken.

It was a full on assault though and merited a red card.

I think the FA introduced something last year or possibly just before this season started, that allowed them to look at fouls a ref has judged, but I'm not sure what the requirements were. It might be something that the ref himself has to refer.

Just looked, came in at the start of 2013/14 season.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/12/fa-retrospective-disciplinary-action

In a statement issued on the FA website, the governing body outlined the changes but said they would be used sparingly and would not take any power away from the match officials.

"From the start of the new season the FA will reserve the right to take retrospective action when match officials are not in a position to fully assess a 'coming together' of players," the statement read.

"Prior to this change, which was ratified by the Football Regulatory Authority, the FA was only able to take retrospective action when none of the match officials had seen the 'coming together' or when the incident was truly exceptional, for example in the case of Ben Thatcher's challenge on Pedro Mendes (in 2006).

"This change is not intended to usurp the authority of the match officials who are, in the vast majority of cases, best-placed to deal with incidents at the time they occur.

"It will be utilised only in the rare circumstances outlined above."

I'm not sure that reads like they would take action. I don't know if they can argue the ref wasn't in a position to fully assess the challenge. Maybe if the press make a big enough issue of it?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I really don't think there's a great deal of difference. Palace were sitting back, soaking it up, crossing their fingers that City couldn't score and hoping they'd get a chance at some point or another. I think the main difference is that in Zaha they have a credible threat when they break. We just can't move the ball at that kind of speed and beat a man when it can make a real difference.

Palace v Man City: Possession 28%, Shots on Target: 1
Albion v Man City: Possession 22%, Shots on Target: 2
Arsenal v Albion: Possession 35%, Shots on Target: 1
Man Utd v Albion: Possession 42%, Shots on Target: 2
Albion v Liverpool: Possession 43%, Shots on Target: 2
Spurs v Albion: Possession 25%, Shots on Target: 4

Precisely this. Palace did very little different to everyone else who plays City apart from have big bucks pace up front.

City fluffed their lines individually a few times and collectively they had one of those days...

Predictable that the media prefer a narrative about a miracle combination of the Selhurst wall of noise and Roy Hodgson's wizardry but the truth is more boring.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk