Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. 06 May '09 21:13 / 3 edits
    "An Enemy of Football": Sep Blatter on Jose/Chelsea

    Chelsea outwitted Barca tactically and should have won tonight but for 4 extrordinary decisions by the ref. We've all seen poor desicions for and against our teams, and I can accept defeat when outplayed, but what happened at Stamford Bridge tonight was the footballing equivalent of a coup d'état by FIFA/UEFA to exclude Chelsea from the European crown.
  2. Standard member cadwah
    ¯\_(^.^)_/¯
    06 May '09 21:18
    Originally posted by divegeester
    "An Enemy of Football": Sep Blatter on Jose/Chelsea

    Chelsea outwitted Barca tactically and should have won tonight but for 4 extrordinary decisions by the ref. We've all seen poor desicions for and against our teams, and I can accept defeat when outplayed, but what happened at Stamford Bridge tonight was the footballing equivalent of a coup d'état by FIFA/UEFA to exclude Chelsea from the European crown.
    That's why we all love football so much.
  3. 06 May '09 21:40
    Originally posted by divegeester
    "An Enemy of Football": Sep Blatter on Jose/Chelsea

    Chelsea outwitted Barca tactically and should have won tonight but for 4 extrordinary decisions by the ref. We've all seen poor desicions for and against our teams, and I can accept defeat when outplayed, but what happened at Stamford Bridge tonight was the footballing equivalent of a coup d'état by FIFA/UEFA to exclude Chelsea from the European crown.
    there was 2 bad decisions in that match.

    TWO.

    one for the sending off (what?) and the other for the first hand ball by roland rat...erm i mean pique. the way ballack and especially drogba reacted at the end of the match was a disgrace.
  4. 06 May '09 22:05 / 1 edit
    Poor Ovrebo, he's probably going to get lots of death threats from chelsea 'fans' just like Anders Frisk a couple of years ago.

    The idea that the UEFA wanted to exclude Chelsea from the final is laughable. Why on earth would the ref then give a red card to Barca, who were already 1-0 down and struggling? Chelsea ought to have scored at least another goal, they had enough opportunities to do so.

    That Barca scores the equalizer in the 91st minute when they have had maybe 1 or 2 scoring opportunities the whole game, well, that's just football.
  5. 06 May '09 22:29
    Originally posted by trev33
    there was 2 bad decisions in that match.

    TWO.

    one for the sending off (what?) and the other for the first hand ball by roland rat...erm i mean pique. the way ballack and especially drogba reacted at the end of the match was a disgrace.
    Agreed.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 May '09 22:36
    I have no sympathy for Chelsea, but the refereeing was shockingly bad for a semi-final.
  7. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    06 May '09 23:24
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I have no sympathy for Chelsea, but the refereeing was shockingly bad for a semi-final.
    I concur
  8. 07 May '09 06:18
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    Poor Ovrebo, he's probably going to get lots of death threats from chelsea 'fans' just like Anders Frisk a couple of years ago.

    The idea that the UEFA wanted to exclude Chelsea from the final is laughable. Why on earth would the ref then give a red card to Barca, who were already 1-0 down and struggling? Chelsea ought to have scored at least another goal ...[text shortened]... they have had maybe 1 or 2 scoring opportunities the whole game, well, that's just football.
    Football is not a logical game (unlike chess). By all accounts Chelsea deserved to be in the final, but it didn't happen and is hard to accept but there isn't anyone to blame. Essien could've at least touched the ball instead of taking a swing to have a big clearance, and it would've been enough.
    Pardoxically, the biggest mistake Ovrebo made by sending off Abidal helped Barca, because it changed the internal logic of the game and made it less predictable (not to mention making the referee more sympathetic to Barca to compensate for this harsh decision).
  9. 07 May '09 09:15
    Originally posted by infomast
    By all accounts Chelsea deserved to be in the final
    I don't agree. I think the match was quite balanced over 180 minutes. In the end Chelsea was simply less lucky.
  10. 10 May '09 09:32
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    I don't agree. I think the match was quite balanced over 180 minutes. In the end Chelsea was simply less lucky.
    This is not about Chelsea - this is about football and its integrity as a global sport.

    You were obviously watching a different game and not understanding the point of my OP.

    The game was NOT balanced. Evidence: Barcelona had the majority of possession. Chelsea had the majority of the chances on goal. Chelsea had 4 penalty appeals turned down (albeit Barca had one in the first leg) two of which were obvious infringements that even a 5 year old would have called. Barca had the only sending off - which was another poor decision.



    CONSPIRACY?

    There could have been a conspiracy. Firstly, does anybody here really believe football is above corruption? No? Good, so we agree that this is within the realms of possibility.

    The money, prestige and power associated with football is incredible. The head of Fifa publicly called Jose (and Abramovich by association) the enemies of football. Platini has made no secret of his desire to see an end of the English Premierships domination of the European game. Platini sits on Sep Blatters lap in terms of power and ambition. Blatter has been investigated in 2002 over financial irregularities and accusations of bribes.

    http://soccerlens.com/fifa-sepp-blatter-and-bribes/13909/


    So you want to swing a game - what do you do? You put an inexperienced ref in place and set him up as the patsy. He is encouraged to favour one side but only in the difficult but match deciding decisions. In the fall-out Uefa ban him from refereeing top games - this is not a problem as he didn't do that before anyway! The post match death threat stories are scaled up after the match and the poor ref takes early retirement and a big payoff in sympathy from Uefa. No risk and everybody is happy.

    Also, why do you think that FIFA have not introduced pitch-side replays for referees? It works well in rugby. The answer is that as soon as you bring them in, there is more visibility and accountability to ensure ALL decisions are fair and accurate – and FIFA/UEFA loses some control and influence.

    Wake up football fans - it's happening!!
  11. 10 May '09 10:53
    Originally posted by divegeester
    CONSPIRACY?

    You put an inexperienced ref in place and set him up as the patsy. He is encouraged to favour one side but only in the difficult but match deciding decisions.
    Chelsea where the better team over the 180 minutes but often in football the better team doesn't win!

    I think this game shows why they definitely should bring technology into the game as the referee had a shocker and should of given you's two peno's!

    Talking about a conspiracy though sounds more like sour grapes!
  12. 10 May '09 10:55
    Originally posted by Jamesqt
    Chelsea where the better team over the 180 minutes but often in football the better team doesn't win!

    I think this game shows why they definitely should bring technology into the game as the referee had a shocker and should of given you's two peno's!

    Talking about a conspiracy though sounds more like sour grapes!
    No sour grapes I assure you. It's just a genuine observation. Corruption is possible anywhere even in football.
  13. 10 May '09 17:33
    Originally posted by schakuhr
    I don't agree. I think the match was quite balanced over 180 minutes. In the end Chelsea was simply less lucky.
    Definitely less lucky in the end, but more deserving over 180 minutes. They knew exactly what Hiddink wanted them to do and executed it almost till the end. It would've been a suicide to play end-to-end match in Barcelona giving Barca's offensive talent, so Chelsea's players became an anonymous bunch protecting their goal.

    The second match was almost perfect for Chelsea. Quick goal, lots of chances up front, no shots on goal for Barca and no chances either. Chelsea was in control throughout and their game plan was working. That's why it was so hard to take at the end. Obviously, they wanted a revenge vs Man United too.
  14. 10 May '09 20:17
    It's the champions league right? CHAMPIONS. That means no runners up or lesser. Plus the defender of the last years title and that should be it. No poule system, two games, best one (or luckiest) wins.
  15. 11 May '09 09:54
    Originally posted by Sake
    It's the champions league right? CHAMPIONS. That means no runners up or lesser. Plus the defender of the last years title and that should be it
    Don't be silly, in that case then Liverpool and Chelsea shouldn't be their but both teams have already proven that their two of the best teams in the world and far better than the vast majority of other champions of their country