Oliver Glasner has defended Crystal Palace’s controversial goal at Anfield and revealed he was prepared to let Liverpoolscore if the situation had been more serious.
Palace’s 3-1 defeat to Liverpool on Saturday included one of the game’s biggest talking points when Daniel Muñoz pulled a goal back in the 71st minute while Liverpool goalkeeper Freddie Woodman was still on the ground following an earlier save.
The goal sparked immediate anger inside Anfield, with Liverpool players appealing to the referee and home supporters accusing Palace of poor sportsmanship.
But Glasner saw it differently.
Oliver Glasner backs referee decision over Palace goal
Speaking after the match, the Palace boss insisted the officials made the correct call by allowing play to continue.
His argument was straightforward.
If referees stop play every time a goalkeeper stays down after contact, it creates a dangerous precedent, especially from set-pieces where physical challenges are common.
“I think the referee has to stop immediately if he believes it is a serious injury.” — Oliver Glasner
Glasner’s point was about consistency.
He suggested Woodman was able to continue and that, in real time, there was no obvious sign of a serious issue that demanded an immediate whistle.
That interpretation ultimately allowed the phase of play to continue, with Muñoz reacting fastest.
Daniel Munoz criticism dismissed by Palace boss
The Palace defender faced heavy criticism from sections of the Liverpool support after finishing the move.
But Glasner defended his player.
From his view, Muñoz simply reacted to a live ball rather than exploiting an injured opponent.
“The keeper saved the ball with his leg. Then the ball goes to Munoz and he takes the finish.” — Oliver Glasner
That matters because intent changes perception.
In Glasner’s version of events, there was no deliberate attempt to take advantage of an injured goalkeeper. It was instinct.
Still, it remains the kind of incident that divides opinion.
Based on recent Premier League matches we’ve covered, these situations often come down to referee judgement rather than black-and-white law.
Glasner admits Palace discussed giving Liverpool a goal
The most striking part of Glasner’s comments came afterwards.
He confirmed Crystal Palace did discuss allowing Liverpool to score immediately after the incident.
But only under one condition.
If Woodman had been unable to continue and needed to be replaced, Glasner says Palace would have intentionally restored Liverpool’s two-goal lead.
“If the keeper was to be subbed, I would definitely score an own goal.” — Oliver Glasner
That admission adds important context.
It suggests Palace did recognise the ethical question, even if they believed the actual goal itself was valid.
However, because Woodman stayed on, Glasner felt the situation did not justify that step.
Why the incident matters beyond Anfield
These moments rarely stay contained to one match.
They often influence how referees and players react in future games, especially around goalkeeper collisions and injury stoppages.
Having followed Premier League officiating closely this season, consistency has been one of the biggest talking points. Incidents like this only increase that scrutiny.
However, it remains unlikely the result itself will be revisited.
The goal stood, Liverpool still won, and the focus now shifts to what comes next.
Key insights
- Oliver Glasner defended Crystal Palace’s controversial goal at Liverpool
- Daniel Muñoz scored while Freddie Woodman was down injured
- Liverpool players protested immediately after the goal
- Glasner says Palace discussed giving Liverpool a goal back
- That would only have happened if Woodman had been substituted
What’s next?
Liverpool move forward with another important Premier League win, while Palace are left reflecting on a result overshadowed by controversy.
The debate around the goal is unlikely to disappear quickly, particularly given the emotional reaction inside Anfield.
For Glasner, though, the case is closed.
He believes the officials got it right and, crucially, that football’s broader principles were protected.
But was he right, or should Palace have stopped themselves before scoring?
0 Comments
First read message
Leave a comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *