Controversial Eze goal, Estevao red card, missed penalty - Chelsea vs Crystal Palace ref review

Chelsea were unable to find a way past a stubbornCrystal Palace side with a growing record of taking top-level scalps in their opening Premier League game of the 2025/26 season. With four trophies between them since May, it made for an interesting matchup.

However, Oliver Glasner's resolute three-man defence stood firm and allowed Chelseavery little room to play in, leaving the game as mostly a damp squib. Neither goalkeeper was seriously called into action and the biggest talking point was undoubtedly a disallowed goal.

With wins over Liverpool (via penalties), Manchester City, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Fulham, and Brighton in the past four months, Palace travelled across London with confidence. They had kept bothMarc Guehiand Eberechi Ezeand came in much more prepared than Enzo Maresca's undercooked Blues.

READ MORE: Chelsea handed Nicolas Jackson transfer update as fresh exit route emerges amid £77m claim

READ MORE: Chelsea dealt new injury worry as Enzo Maresca crisis continues and transfer plan impact revealed

As it happened, neither side would play at their best, shutting each other down. The 0-0 draw could have been quite different, though.

Here, football.london goes through some of the biggest talking points from referee Darren England's afternoon at Stamford Bridge.

Fernandez penalty shout

Although Chelsea were lacking in cutting edge for most of this game, they did start as the brighter of the two teams and caused several problems from early corners. Marc Cucurella had a flicked near post header cleared off the line by Ismaila Sarr beforeEnzo Fernandez was left in a heap on the floor in the box shortly after.

He had been pushed in the back by none other than Sarr as he tried to head in at the back post from yet another Cucurella first contact. The Chelsea vice captain went flying as he jumped for the ball with several players asking for a penalty.

The Shed End behind the goal were also up in arms but nothing was given and VAR did not opt for an on-field review.

football.london verdict: This is definitely one of those that you have seen given. Fernandez is in front of Sarr and had been preparing to leap for the header. As he is in the air there is an extension of Sarr's elbows, forcing Fernandez forward.

The Chelsea midfielder was underneath the ball and never winning it anyway. He was already stooping to try and get into a good position to attack the ball mid-flight.

There wasn't too much in this but when the ball is so clearly going over both players and Sarr made no attempt to get to it, laying his hands on Fernandez, there is risk involved.

Cucurella foul

This is the tackle that leads to the free-kick for Eze's disallowed goal. It all stems from a loose Josh Acheampongpass into midfield where Eze picks the ball up and dribbles at the Chelsea defence.

It is never truly cleared from Daniel Munoz's resulting cross and Will Hughes ends up arriving on the edge of the box. Cucurella comes through to get the ball away but can only go through the Palace man.

England watches for a few seconds as Jean-Phillipe Mateta takes control in the area but loses possession. As soon as this happens, England blows up without Palace getting an advantage.

football.london verdict: Cucurella tried to plead his case but this is a foul. He goes through Hughes with force, missing the ball and late into the tackle. There are a few questions from Palace players (namely Guehi) who says that Cucurella was over the top as he came through.

There is not enough contact for a red card, though. Cucurella doesn't time his swing right and Hughes is sliding in himself. It's just a foul, but nearly a costly one.

Eze free-kick

This is what we're here for, really. The Palace disallowed goal as Eze initially slams the ball through the Chelsea wall and pastRobert Sanchez from close range.

The free-kick is taken from a central position inside the 'D' and Eze blasts it through a gap and straight past Sanchez. There was too much force in the strike for the Chelsea goalkeeper to react as it powered into the net.

Eze dropped to his knees in celebration and Palace shirts crowded him. There was no complaint from Chelsea on the pitch but off it, set-piece coach Bernardo Cueva was quick to point out that Guehi had gotten too close to the wall.

Initially it seemed like the calls were for a foul on Moises Caicedo, who had been pushed by Guehi from his position that created a gap in front of goal for Sanchez to see through. Chelsea lined up with a wall of four (Reece James, Acheampong, Trevoh Chalobah, and Joao Pedro, while Pedro Neto was lying on the floor as a draught excluder to stop Eze from going underneath as the players jumped).

Caicedo was then around one-and-a-half players worth away from Pedro on the end of the wall on the right. Guehi was between Caicedo and Cucurella. Fernandez stood next to him. Sarr and Mateta were situated behind the Chelsea pair.

As Eze runs up to strike the ball, Guehi shoves Caicedo into the gap Sanchez had been seeing through and then into Pedro.It created a much larger opening for Eze to shoot into, unsighted Sanchez, and was eventually why the goal was ruled out.

football.london verdict: By the letter of the law, this is the right decision. It was not clear just why the goal was being reviewed, though.

Was it for a foul on Caicedo? Had Guehi been offside and in Sanchez's eyeline? No. He had gotten too close to the Chelsea wall.

IFAB rules state that there must be at least one metre between the wall where three or more players are standing. Until the ball is in play, the gap must remain at one metre, otherwise an indirect free kick will be issued.

When Guehi pushes Caicedo, whether it is a foul or not (which is up for debate) is not relevant as he ends up too close to the Chelsea wall.

Chelsea got away with this in January when James himself scored late in a 2-2 draw to Bournemouth. On that occasion, two Chelsea players were too close (Cucurella and Tosin Adarabioyo) but no review was recommended by VAR.

Sanchez punch

It was Sanchez and Guehi involved again later in the half for another moment of controversy. This time from a Palace long throw.

The Chelsea goalkeeper rushed out to try and punch clear from the edge of his six-yard box and only made minimal contact with the ball. As he leapt over a crowd of bodies, Sanchez skimmed the ball and collided with Guehi's head.

The incident was, as ever, checked. It was cleared despite Guehi staying down and there being some appeals from Palace players.

football.london verdict: Sanchez does not impact with any real force into Guehi, even if he does end up partially punching his head (which is a strange sentence to read and write). It wasn't the cleanest piece of work, and Guehi made first contact with the ball, but on this occasion, there wasn't much going for it.

Estevao tackle

Nothing saidEstevao Willian was ready for Premier League football more than his cynical tackle on Munoz in the last 15 minutes.

As Palace tried to spring a counter from a Chelsea free kick, Estevao was left to chase back to stop Munoz from running through on goal. He was second to the ball and scissored down the Palace man, ending all chance of a one-on-one.

The tackle took place inside the Chelsea half and there was some central cover. A yellow card was given and Palace could only be frustrated at having a promising opportunity taken away from them.

football.london verdict: This is some senior stuff from Estevao. He has to stop Munoz as soon as he realises he isn't going to beat the wing-back for pace or to the first touch.

It's a perfectly timed foul. Estevao needed to act decisively here and did. Munoz is so far from goal that it is never going to be a red card and there were Chelsea bodies sprinting into position, even if it would have been a great chance for Palace.

That's how to endear yourself to the fans. A good old crunching tackle.