Chelsea v Barcelona called for better rules, not more referees
A month has passed now from the famous (and for many infamous) Chelsea – Barca semifinal of the Champions League. There’s been plenty of time to reflect on it, so I feel it’s worth adding a few words about it.
In the meantime, Barcelona went on to become champions, beating Manchester United in the final pretty comprehensively. There are also rumors that the next season of the UEFA Cup (Euro League, as it will be called from now on) will experimentally feature 2 more assistant referees each game, one for every penalty area. If true, it likely has something to do with the Chelsea – Barca game and the outcry it generated.
In a nutshell, my opinion on this game is that it’s first of all an extreme case of the gray area in action.
The way I saw it, there were 5 penalty cases Ovrebo could and IMO should have called, but decided not to in all of them. 4 of them would have been for Chelsea, one for Barca. The numbers are somewhat debatable; however many people think that there were at least 2 penalties that should have been called for Chelsea (2 more than for Barca, that is).
The point is, none of these calls was a must. They could have been given, but choosing not to isn’t out of line with the general reffing style. No one but the hardest-core Chelsea fans would argue that any of the non-decisions were outrageous on their own. Likewise, nobody other than some Barca fans would think that calling some of them would have been out of order. In other words, they were in the gray area.
You can see the most controversial moments of the game here.
The problem was they were too many for a single match. Had there been only one or two of them, most likely nobody would have thought twice about it (except maybe for some lunatics who make it their business to keep records of such things). Since they were 4 or 5, and since the score was so tight and with so much at stake, the nerves of the players and the fans alike gave in. But, as much as one can dislike Ovrebo’s performance in this game, he can’t be blamed for treating the 3rd and 4th incident the same way as the first 2. It’s called consistency.
The long-term problem of the governing bodies might be that we might have gotten to the point where things need some clarifying. If the current “everything goes” policy continues unchanged, we might see 3 or 4 games like this in the upper rounds of the UCL next year. Maybe even in the World Cup.
A good example incident to look at is the handball of Eto’o in the dying minutes. There’s no denying the ball hit his arm. I doubt anybody would have considered it a mistake if the ref had called a penalty. So, was his non-call decision wrong, according to the laws and customs ? Hardly. (Incidentally, he was perfectly positioned to see this action, as if he had expected it to come; no penalty-box assistant ref could have been in a better place.)
The law for handball specifically says there’s no offense unless the player deliberately handles the ball. Which, judging from the arm movement, didn’t appear to be the case. So Ovrebo just gave the player the benefit of the doubt. Everything perfectly legal, nothing outrageous. Many refs would have done the same.
Many but not all. Maybe equally many, maybe a little more, maybe a little fewer, there’s no way to know for sure, would have taken the stricter approach. That is, as a ref I’m not convinced there was no intent unless the player does everything he reasonably can to avoid the contact, or keep his arm stuck to his body. If he doesn’t, I tend to believe there was intent, without being too sure, but I find it reason enough to call a handball. Could Eto’o have kept his arm to his body ? Easily. So the ref would have been in his right to think like this and call the penalty. Nobody, and I believe really nobody, would have thought it outrageous had he done so.
Both approaches have their followers, and both are accepted by the bodies. Which of course makes for the greatest possible confusion to players and fans alike. One of the main causes of the gray area IMO. Ballack’s reaction, especially considering the circumstances, is perfectly understandable, though there’s no argument he deserved the booking he got for it.
I think it’s about time FIFA chose one and only one of the approaches and changed the law accordingly. I’m not going to tell them here which one I think would be better; suffice it to say that, IMO, it’s much easier for the ref to judge whether the player could have reasonably avoided the contact, than to assess intent.
If games like this one are to be avoided, I doubt it can be done by just having more assistant refs. Unfortunately, not even the video ref would probably do the trick. Not alone anyway. The obvious first step seems to be to get rid of some of that gray area, which cannot be done without some form of tightening the rules.
Most likely this will have to be limited to top level competitions like the Champions League and the World Cup, at least for the time being. It would be a little too difficult to also do it say in Greenland. But, as I think it’s obvious, what’s acceptable in Greenland may not be acceptable in the Champions League. You can’t have Greenland play like in the Champions League, which shouldn’t mean we make the Champions League play like Greenland.
(The handball rule change I mentioned above is an exception, I think it should apply to everybody, not just the top competitions.)
This alone might solve the problem or at least get it to acceptable levels; I doubt it. I doubt also that more assistant refs will be enough. In the long run, I still think some form of video ref will be unavoidable. But that’s for another time.
Also See: Chelsea vs Barcelona – the best argument for video replays this side of Vicarage Road
I disagree with this writer intoto. What is needed in such a high tempo match is a top quality ref. There are a good number of referees that can be as exceptional as Colina or the Argentine that officiated the World Cup final between Italy and France. The writer showed his absolute hatred and bias towards Chelsea in his article. If not how and where did he manufacture the supposed 4 penalty decisions that could have gone in Barcelona’s favour when almost every observer was unanimous that Chelsea were denied at least 3 clear penalties? Why was he silent on Dani Alves foul on Malouda which even a blind man can see it was committed inside box but the referee awarded a free kick outside the box? Why did he mention Eto’o’ s handling of the ball and ignored Gerard Pique’s deliberate handball in the box?
i agree, 2 more people on the sidelines wouldn’t be worth it. add another central ref to roam the field like in american sports. provides more checks and balances, adds a stable thought, and aids in the prevention of a ref throwing a game in one teams favor.
> The writer showed his absolute hatred and bias towards Chelsea in his article. If not how and where did he manufacture the supposed 4 penalty decisions that could have gone in Barcelona’s favour when almost every observer was unanimous that Chelsea were denied at least 3 clear penalties?
It’s a misunderstanding. I was ambiguous there, granted. I said 4 of the non-calls were in favor of Barca. That is, not calling them favored Barca, that is they would have been for Chelsea. I’ll change the wording there.
sorry mr M. K. Usman but you are so obviously a chelsea fan. Now im not one way or the other i have watched both teams many times and been to wembley to watch chelsea play in the FA cup semis. but if you watch the replays of Gerard Pique’s hand ball yes the ball does indeed hit his hand but if you watch it again and look at his hand before the ball is hit towards him, his hand doesnt move hence he made no atempt to handle the ball. i think the biggest mistake the ref made was sending the barca lad off. i think the rest were very good desisions. I think he should of tightend the game up earlier aswell as soon as players started running after him ie ballack drogba they should of been booked straight away, Chelsea werent the only ones doing this though barca players ran after the ref and abused him aswell. but what happened at the end of the game was unforgiveable and Drogba should of been banned. but instead wa sonly issued with a yellow card. so yes the ref did make mistakes but not with the penaltys
Great article and I completely agree with you. The stricter interpretation of the hand ball would provide more consistency in top matches. The Grey Area was certainly a big problem.
However, remember Ovrebo did not give penalties that were non-hand balls. How should those be interpreted? I would argue strict as well as it would allow for more goals and defenses would be more cautious knowing that foul play in the back will not be tolerated.
nige – do u watch football? Good desiscions? Are you a massive Barca fan? I think so. It was an amazingly poor game by the ref, the worst I can remember. He should never ref again, simple. Drogba reacted how I would, cause he was right it was a disgrace. But….. before u all go at me… Barca can probably point to the fact Ballack should of got sent off in the Camp Nou, and Henry should have got a penalty in the Camp Nou. Abidal should not of got sent off at the Bridge. So although this ref was utter c*ap. Still in the end things were evened out. Odd game aint it.
Well, finally somebody who comments on what the article is about. Thanks for your appreciation.
As for fouls, sure, I’m on the strict side as well, however the first problem is to define them better. The question is, when is a push / pull / tackle strong enough to warrant a foul (especially a penalty) and when is it “just a touch” ? This is left for the ref to appreciate, but unfortunately they’re too inconsistent about it IMO, taken as a whole. One ref’s push is the other one’s touch. Of course it’s never going to be defined 100%, but doing nothing about it doesn’t seem like a very good option either. Somewhere there should be a set of official example videos of acceptable vs. unacceptable actions. At least for the refs, but ideally we should have access to them as well, they should be viewed as part of the laws which are for everybody to know. It would go a long way towards trimming the gray area. Personally I don’t know of anything of this sort.
(My previous comment was about Alex Bogatiryov.)
Mistakes happen, suck it up.
Football is the easiest sport in the world with the least amount of rules yet people still dont understand hand balls and offsides.
The two things that really irked me (Drogba is a punk so he was par for the course) was the dive that led to the Barcelona expulsion. Cheaters should be made examples of and we should see clips of divers before every game on video to remind fans and officials who is on the field (as you can tell I despise italian football)
The other was the lack of card for Ballack.
Ballack especially should have controlled his emotions since as a national team captain he has to do the same. I guess if his own players can slap his face in a game, he probably feels he can act like an idiot as well.
The rules are fine as they are and penalizing someone because a shot coming at 130km hit their hand unintentionally will NOT make the game better. It might give a few more undeserved goals but it will not make the games themselves better while they could change the course of games.
not a barca fan well not a big fan anyway and like i said i have watched both teams and even saw chelsea at wembely. And HAVE WATCHED football for years, longer than i care to remember. And if you start giving penalties for every slight push in the area then you are basicaly asking for people to cheat. I saw a game involving Newcastle and Fulham at the end of the season which cost NUFC there prem status (ok maybe the other 37 games didnt help lol) but the ref disallowed a goal late on which would of given Newcastle a draw and it was disallowed for the slightest of pushes on the keeper. so where do we draw the line a slight push down the other end wouldnt of been a pen either and the goal should of stood. So the ref was wrong that day but i still belive the worst desision the ref made in the barca and chelsea game was to send the barca player off
Very good article, I think the officials were briefed by Fifa to favour Barca in some subconscious manner and the ref then simply followed his instincts. Virtually the whole footballing world agrees that Chelsea should have had at least 3 penalties and again the whole world including the ref saw that incident well inside the penalty area where only a free kick outside the area was awarded. Can Fifa explain this, no they cant and yet they want to punish the victims
what a load of crap (the whole footballing world) belives they should of had atleast three pens. Then you woke up. try watching the game again with the tv switched on. The whole footballing world conected to chelsea maybe thought that. But they would be wrong. Ask any neutral what they thought and im sure at most (at the absoulute best)they would of given one. I really must go back and read the rules again. because if you get a pen for falling over in the area then you should of had three pens
> The rules are fine as they are and penalizing someone because a shot coming at 130km hit their hand unintentionally will NOT make the game better. It might give a few more undeserved goals …
Yes it will. In this instance, it would mean Eto’o would have kept his arm stuck to his body, which might have resulted in a goal. A deserved one. He could have easily done this, since he knew Ballack was going to shoot at him, that’s why he turned around in the first place. So either he keeps his arm to his body, or he concedes a penalty, which is still a deserved one.
An there’s no way to know for sure he didn’t extend his arm intentionally to try to block the shot. Neither you nor I nor the ref can say that for sure.
First of all, great article…. How about these additional thoughts: The instant replay is a must in soccer (we leave in 21st century after all). Is this fair that the teams that fight so hard loose just because…, whatever it is… This is soccer and everything could be changed by a single ref’s mistake and that’s the fact. One goal change everything, strategy, attitude…good example of this is the final of the same Champions League. I couldn’t recognize MU after the first goal (I am not their fan). But what if, just for example, the goal wouldn’t be deserved?
I would give every coach 3 shots per game to call an evaluation of ref’s decision. Look at NFL, the instant replay had changed the game and made fans and players happy in an instant as they feel not being screwed anymore….
The new rules minimizing “gray” is a great idea, but I would go further and would propose free kicks in penalty area with the penalty only for a 100% type of situation. Why call the penalty if there was no danger (Malouda situation). As the author said there always will be grey, but why give the penalty for everything just because it’s in the area, where is the logic for that?
Something must be done!!! For sure, as the game is losing fans. I personally felt stupid watching my team ZENIT being illuminated from UEFA cup this season for 2 penalty calls. One against (on the last seconds regular pushing and shaving during a free kick and away from the ball). And the other when the other team player clearly and openly stopped the ball from crossing the goal line with his hand (after the game he admitted to do it on purpose). The coaching staff and the whole stadium saw this but refery prefer not to see anything…. No additional comments are needed; at least Chelsea fans will understand me perfectly.
As far as Chelsea game I agree that the whole neutral world of soccer fans thought that Chelsea got screwed… And Anelka had tripped himself probably from the fear of obvious goal situation but clearly unintentionally…, speaking of a crazy Barka fan
> This is soccer and everything could be changed by a single ref’s mistake and that’s the fact. One goal change everything, strategy, attitude…good example of this is the final of the same Champions League. I couldn’t recognize MU after the first goal (I am not their fan). But what if, just for example, the goal wouldn’t be deserved?
Absolutely agree with you on this one. In football more than in any other game one ref mistake can change everything. That’s why it’s the one game that needs any help it can give to the refs, and, believe it or not, it’s precisely the game that won’t hear anything about the video ref, and probably with the most unspecific and ambiguous laws. This is what makes matters unbelievably worse. I tell you, in 20 years from now (hopefully much sooner), after people will get accustomed with the video ref and hopefully with some clarified laws, they’ll have a hard time believing football could ever be played like it is now. What the hell, a goal can stand that was scored with the hand (God or no God) and determine the winner of the game and ultimately the world champion, to name just the single most absurd situation.
Yes, recently I’ve also come to the conclusion that an appeals system would be the first video ref variant to be tried. It might be enough, for fouls and handballs. The other offenses, that is offside, ball in / out of play and yellow / red cards, should be called by an independent video ref. With the appeals system, it would be a must that a correct appeal doesn’t count against the number of allowed ones.
> but I would go further and would propose free kicks in penalty area with the penalty only for a 100% type of situation. Why call the penalty if there was no danger (Malouda situation). As the author said there always will be grey, but why give the penalty for everything just because it’s in the area, where is the logic for that?
I’m not with you on this one. The logic is that defenders would feel free to foul at will in the box, risking just a free kick. 100% situations are very rare, most of the times a professional defender, especially at higher level, will know how to do it to leave enough doubt for the ref.
You have a good point…
It is hard to isolate biasedness from objectivity when writing an article on so controversial an event, and when commenting on such. The author of this article is, understandibly, slightly biased to referees, being a referee himself. Then I can safely say that nobody would have commented on the article had they not some kind of passion for either team, be it love or hate. I concede to being a supporter of Chelsea, and I think what this article does is make excuses for referees who are undertaking this task by the choice of nobody but themselves. The fact that he had too little guidance, or there were grey areas does not render him blameless. And what leaves a very bad taste in the mouth is the fact that Bosingwa and Drogba now face bans (because they reacted the way most of us would, to be fair, ALTHOUGH once again, they play the part of role models via the choice of nobody but themselves) but the true controversial character, who accepted to referee a match he should have, by hindsight, declined, gets off scot-free. He even had the audacity to lobby to referee the final! But to say he was in the right, or Uefa was in the right for allocating him such an important game, is in my opinion an inaccurate claim. He did a disgraceful job. He was too weak to make the important calls, while any competent referee would have.
> The author of this article is, understandibly, slightly biased to referees, being a referee himself.
I’ll take this as a compliment.
Thanks. The truth is though I’m not one.
> and I think what this article does is make excuses for referees who are undertaking this task by the choice of nobody but themselves. The fact that he had too little guidance, or there were grey areas does not render him blameless
You can think like this, but the truth remains that the laws are too vague and unspecific. If the handball rule was worded as I’d like it to be, and if there was a comprehensive set of examples of what is and what is not a foul, then his personal blame had he taken the same decisions would have been much bigger. Hopefully this would lead to a better and more consistent way of reffing, at least in the 2 top competitions.
> He did a disgraceful job. He was too weak to make the important calls, while any competent referee would have.
I didn’t like his performance either, as I said here as well as on my site. But I stand to my opinion that had he had to make just 1 – 2 such calls, instead of 4 or 5, nobody would have considered it out of the ordinary.
> Yes, recently I’ve also come to the conclusion that an appeals system would be the first video ref variant to be tried. It might be enough, for fouls and handballs.
I’m not sure about this any more. There might be problems. The most important one, as it seems, it’s unfair. ManU and Chelsea would be able to afford better video ref teams than smaller clubs, and hence they’ll have an advantage with challenges. Even though generally rich teams do have the edge over poor ones, there’s no point in fooling ourselves that it’s not so, it would still be unfair if the decision process itself was also biased towards rich teams.
So, for the time being I’ll stick to my own video ref proposal. Possibly implemented in smaller steps. See my site for details:
http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref.htm