Chelsea vs Barcelona: The Best Argument for Video Replay This Side of Vicarage Road
“Football defeated anti-football,” raved the Catalan press on Wednesday night. “Pain and recrimination,” cried the English. In one of the most bizarre Champions League matches in recent memory, Barcelona managed to draw 1-1 with Chelsea and advance to the final in Rome on the away goals rule.
The ninety-six minute stomach churner began with promising play from both sides, saw a handful of penalties ignored, handballs denied, and even a red card that wasn’t, and finally ended with an undeserved injury-time wonder strike that led to complete chaos on the pitch.
Wednesday night’s referee, Tom Henning Ovrebo, had to be smuggled out of England by the police after allegedly receiving death threats from fans and very nearly getting ripped to pieces by a thunderous Michael Ballack on the pitch. Though the Catalan press may smile on the result, it leaves dozens of questions unanswered.
However, one was resolved: does European football need video replays in order to better justify referee decisions? The answer is a resounding yes, and Wednesday’s match is all the proof UEFA and FIFA should need.
It’s difficult to decide where to begin, but it would probably be best to determine who among the officials was at fault for the terrible decision making. Most seem to be on Ovrebo’s shoulders, although Abidal’s controversial red card was apparently decided by the assistant referee. So what caused Ovrebo’s shocker of a match? One could play devil’s advocate and point out the consistency and blatancy of Dani Alves’ and Didier Drogba’s dives during the game, and argue that Ovrebo was simply trying to crack down on immoral behavior.
His blindness to their weak free-kick appeals could have led to, well, blindness in general. However, it turns out that he has a history of poor judgment in high-pressure situations. Ovrebo refereed the controversial Italy-Romania match during Euro 2008, in which he incorrectly ruled a Luca Toni goal offside. This decision cost Italy the three points, and the game ended in a 1-1 draw. Ovrebo later admitted he had been mistaken, and was relieved of his Euro 2008 duties.
Therefore, although Ovrebo may well release a statement attributing his lapses in judgment to stress, nerves, poor vision, or lack of communication with the other officials, viewers of the Chelsea-Barcelona game would do well to note that this is hardly his first offense. And it likely won’t be his last: Ovrebo has been pre-selected as a World Cup 2010 referee. If he is allowed to keep his place in the tournament, his games would certainly be worth watching.
Although Ovrebo made clear mistakes, and this was an important match, football is entertainment at heart and should never, ever jeopardize anyone’s safety, especially not an official who was attempting to bring order to the whole affair. The Chelsea players’ reaction towards Ovrebo at the end of the game and the supposed death threats sent in by fans are unfortunate and could have been avoided with simple video replays. If Ovrebo had had this benefit, we would know for sure whether or not he was a “thief”, as Jose Bosingwa elegantly put it.
Those who argue against video replays claim that taking the time to review tapes would ruin the flow and integrity of the game. While replays would certainly take some time to review, they could hardly take more time than the players of both teams spent arguing fruitlessly with Ovrebo. And as for the integrity bit, if football fans think making improper calls and consequently having to be smuggled out of a G8 member nation in order to avoid bodily harm is integrity, then we might as well call the whole sport off.
Video replays, even if only used in moderation, could have spared Chelsea an undignified Champions League exit, Barcelona some questionable player suspensions, and Ovrebo his career and safety. And these replays would have taken up less time than the unruly chaos that broke out on the pitch after the final whistle.
So the Catalan press can coo, the English press can wail, and footballing fans the world over can scratch their heads. But the only way to possibly bring these groups together is to introduce video replays into crucial matches like the one that was just sullied by poor decision making. In a match where the only genuinely impressive bits were the classiness of Pep Guardiola’s suit and the vivacity of Michael Ballack’s end-of-match tantrum, in a match where Dani Alves sent more balls into Row Z than to his teammates and Nicolas Anelka and Samuel Eto’o unceremoniously disappeared, video replays would have added some much-needed class and certainty.
Topics: Barcelona, Chelsea, UEFA Champions League
Football News 24/7
well said! i couldn’t agree more.
May 7th, 2009 @ 17:16Video replays appear to be the solution in cases where there is controversy as to whether a penalty should be given or not. The problem however is that if video replay becomes a staple of the game, it may be used for everything. Should “x” player have been awarded a free kick in minute 3 outside the penalty area? The ball that rolled over the bi-line was deflected off a defender and a corner should be given – wait, let’s go to the replay. The disruptions will be endless. If Barça had lost, I’m sure that I’d be clamouring for video replay, but objectively, if the door is open for video replay, what are the parameters and the limitations? For judging if a ball went over the line or not? For judging handball in the box? For judging if a foul was a foul? For judging whether a corner or goal kick should be awarded? Was the second yellow justified? Was the first justified? It can be endless. That’s the danger I think in opening up this option.
Assuming (in arguendo) that the penalties were given. It’s likely that they would have been scored, but there’s no guarantee either. We’re talking statistically and hypothetically. I can sympathize with Chelsea supporters. However, on the other hand, had Drogba taken his advantages at the Camp Nou (on the 1 chance he had in the first half) and last night after making Pique look like he was a careening car out of control and taking that shot, maybe the scenario wouldn’t have come down to this. There was a lot of praise for the defensive tactics employed last week (to a dizzying and exaggerated degree in my opinion since defensive tactics aren’t exactly the hallmark of the excitement of Premiership football). But the price was that with no goal scored away Chelsea were left open to an opportunity where 1 away goal was enough. The question was whether it should have been that way in the first place. Again, if the handball on Pique was deemed a penalty, can anyone say with absolute certainty that Chelsea’s penalty taker (Lampard) steps up and puts it into the net (as opposed to missing, hitting woodwork, or even having Valdes save the shot)? Just like a judge who disallows evidence to be introduced at trial which results in conviction; on appeal, if the introduction of that very evidence can’t guarantee a different outcome, we have “harmless error.” I’m not going to say last night was “harmless” for Chelsea. But perspectives have to be balanced here.
BTW: “More balls into row Z?” A bit of borrowing from Derek Rae’s commentary? And Boswinga retracted the “thief” allusion. And death threats to the referee, although we all imagine at some point killing a wayward referee, seems to be a past-time with Chelsea. Anders Fisk will tell us that.
May 7th, 2009 @ 17:44Maybe instead of changing the flow of the game, which is essential to soccer, they should just fire bad referees? You put in replays it’s just a matter of time before you got commericals.
“Undeserved” goal for Barca? Well in a sense they had almost no other shots on goal, so yes, but oh yeah they were playing with ten men off an “undeserved” red card, so that means the goal was far from undeserved. BTW, which was the luckier goal of the night, Iniesta’s or Essien’s? Iniesta’s came off a play, a nice pass, from a ten man squad in the 93rd minutes. Essien’s goal came off a deflection with haphazardly set the ball on his foot. Both shots were great, but Essien’s was luckier.
In fact, if Chelsea had won it would have been undeserved, unless you admire negative tactics, flopping, and whining. You cannot pretend the flopping last night was equally divided between the teams. It was not. And also I don’t think anybody claimed that the blues got worse of the bad calls in the first leg.
May 7th, 2009 @ 17:44UEFA will never want video technology – how would they get away with orchestrating anti English results under such scrutiny. The referee saw everything – sadly he was also under pressure to ignore it – in my view.
May 7th, 2009 @ 19:08Sorry mate but if there’s to be video replay because Chelsea were ‘robbed’ of penalty decisions then I want harsher discipline on players like Drogba who have a tendency to make the most of just about every challenge.
What goes around comes around Chelsea.
May 7th, 2009 @ 20:19i agree alot with with video replay, but barca is used to get alot of help in spain too…the UEFA is going down.
May 7th, 2009 @ 20:49Daniel chung; you trying to write a book?! And on to the others, what the hell… Having the football’s ways of playing and rulings are exactly what makes it the BEST SPORT IN THE WORLD! The excitements and controversies… The blissfulness and shouts… Leave Football the way it is!
May 7th, 2009 @ 21:47Ooh! I forgot… Then the expulsion of Barza’s player over an inexistent foul, events it up!
May 7th, 2009 @ 21:52Ooh! I forgot… If the uncalled penalty is at issue, then the expulsion of Barza’s defender over an inexistent foul is too… Moreover, this expulsion evens it up. So, Chelsea’s fans take it like men!!!
May 7th, 2009 @ 21:58Stop crying brit fans… It’s all good and fair, because the referee did not call the penalty, neither saw the fact that Anelka tripped himself to the ground but expelled the Barza’s player! It just even it up.
May 7th, 2009 @ 22:15“UEFA will never want video technology – how would they get away with orchestrating anti English results under such scrutiny. The referee saw everything – sadly he was also under pressure to ignore it – in my view.”
Sam Horrocks I couldn’t agree more with you. My thoughts exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ref had a call from Michel Platini before the game telling him to favour Barca.
I’m not a Chelsea fan but this is outrageous!
May 7th, 2009 @ 22:19I think video replays could really help soccer, however they do present some difficulty. I do often wonder though why we don’t just stop the clock when the ball is not in play. It would take care of stoppage time and most time wasting, which are both sticky situations that end up frustrating the audience more often than not.
May 7th, 2009 @ 22:47My cynical side definitely agrees with the writers of “UEFA will never want video technology…”. They have soooo much control over everything in the game and results are the only things they have “NO Control”?!? over. In the Chelsea game it was hard to see how some decisions came about but they were bad both ways. Most of the contraversy was in the goal area and this is where football needs to get up to speed with the rest of the world of sports. How often does the result of a game depend on a split second action and decision in the 18 yard area? It is the hardest area for a referee or assistant to police. The action moves the so fast, the referee can’t be on the spot and only one assistant is at each end. Often officials have a poor view. We, on the other side of the world get a clearer picture of what has happened before anything further happens on the pitch! Pity the ref. FIFA give them a hand ( replay). These should be available to the referee in the 18yard area to bring some accuracy to results. And then dives will be seen and ball to hand doesn’t result in a penalty. And an appeals process for players in Darren Fletcher’s situation. He should not be suspended for his legal goal saving challenge which we could clearly see but the referee had no chance of seeing!
May 8th, 2009 @ 02:13I am so sick of the argument that the undeserved red card off-sets anywhere from two to five wrongly denied penalty kicks, half of which occurred before the red card while Chelsea was already leading 1-0. You’re comparing multiple, virtually guaranteed goals to the expulsion of a single player! Did the red card of Abidal cost Barca two, three, or maybe four damn goals?? No, obviously not. They aren’t the same thing…they are not even remotely comparable. Barca fans need to sac up and accept the fact that they were out-played and advanced only due to advantageous refereeing. Deal with it. Chelsea was better.
May 8th, 2009 @ 02:40Cant agree more to that, how many time such awful decision took in 2sec ruin the season of a team or players, take Chelsea as team and Fletcher as player. How come could this happen, dont UEFA think that better referee are present on the continent ??
For the Barca goal, nobody can say its undeserved, it’s against the flow of the game but whatever Ovrebo made this final-whistle mess happen by itself.
I dont give a damn if he say afterward he made mistake, and apologize cause he left us with nothing but anger and frustration.
May 8th, 2009 @ 06:04While I’m all for video replays, it must be said that:
“While replays would certainly take some time to review, they could hardly take more time than the players of both teams spent arguing fruitlessly with Ovrebo.”
Not really. They could and probably would have taken more. Besides, most likely the players would still have argued with the ref, though maybe not that much.
My take is that video review could and should be done in parallel with the play, that is not stopping it until an offense is determined. You can see the details at
http://www.fairfootball.com/video_ref
“Video replays, even if only used in moderation, could have spared Chelsea an undignified Champions League exit, Barcelona some questionable player suspensions, and Ovrebo his career and safety.”
Now now, would this be a win-win-win situation ? Hardly. If Chelsea are in the final then Barca are out of it, obviously.
“And these replays would have taken up less time than the unruly chaos that broke out on the pitch after the final whistle.”
Unfortunately, what matters most is what happens *before* the final whistle.
May 8th, 2009 @ 06:271) I agree that Chelsea got what they deserved. They spend more time diving than playing the game. That is blatant cheating.
2) The best way forward is a similar system to cricket. If the ref makes a decision and the opposing captain disagrees with the decision, they have the right to appeal it. Only then would the decisions be referred to video replay. Each captain has one unsuccessful appeal, meaning if it turns out that the ref was correct, they may not refer any more. That will discourage erroneous referrals by teams and ensure the game flows more often than not.
May 8th, 2009 @ 08:56Ok guys, for all of you that want video replays, how could you introduce it and govern it? nearly 90% of penalties are iffy at best, how can you remain unbiased? it’s almost impossible, it’s not like NFL or rugby, checking if the ball was over the line or not, it’s a totally different kind of sport, i can understand if you want to implement goal line technology but in terms of penalties and recards? Fletcher for example made contact with the ball, so that would be what? not a penalty? not a red card? yellow for Fabregas? there are so many questions to answer, after reading about this topic on many many forums, i would actually like to see one person explain how video replays would work, everyone is crying for it but not saying how it would be implemented, and for any chelsea fans out there, if you were truely the better team han you would have burried the numerous chances you had over both legs of the match…
May 8th, 2009 @ 09:59Half of you guys aren’t even commenting on the issue at hand, “video replay.” Go vent somewhere else! I’m neither a Chelsea or Barca fan — just a football fan.
Possible Solution: Each team is allowed 1 video replay per half. You use what you want, when you want. It doesn’t eat up too much time, and it’s your own fault if your manager uses them up when possibly you need it even more in the last few minutes of a match.
May 8th, 2009 @ 11:50i think the march should be replay because i cant even imagine what the uefa believe in it is a cheating to England it has being common
May 8th, 2009 @ 14:46The ONLY reason FIFA and UEFA dont want video replays is that it makes people angry, frustrated and feel injustice has been done, it all makes football seem an awful lot more important which is what those slime balls want
May 8th, 2009 @ 15:55Well, well… Here’s an alternate solution: “2 more referees; one on each goals area”
May 8th, 2009 @ 16:34Well, well quit crying… Now we all are going to have a Real Champions Final; between two different nations! And, if a solution is what you want, here it is: “TWO REFEREES MORE; one on each’s team goal areas” Huh?
May 8th, 2009 @ 16:38I was always for video proof except in this case I don’t think it would have solved anything.
All of the decisions by the ref were debatable. There were only two justified penalty appeals, Malouda and Pique. Malouda was a stronger case but you could argue if that was a foul on, or by, Malouda. That the ref gave a foul but outside the area was bizarre but a video review would probably find it wasn’t a foul at all.
Pique handball – was unclear whether the hand came to the ball or vice versa, but what would be the motive? There was nothing to gain for Pique for his handball in this situation. Therefore we have to assume it was not intentional and the ball just hit his hand.
The point is, even after studying the video, there would not be a clear decision. There will be people arguing this and others arguing that, and we’d end up exactly where we are now, except we wouldn’t have the ref to blame.
The other two supposed clear penalties are ridiculous. Just because Ballack freaks out doesn’t mean anybody can get away from a 100km/h ball when hit at 2m distance. Drogba was falling over in the pen area all night and the only thing that’s surprising is that he didnt get a yellow card for his failed attempts at play-acting. A joke, and the real disgrace in this game. But if you play-act so much, you can’t be surprised if the ref doesn’t give a foul when you are really fouled (in addition it didn’t look like a foul to me either).
Back to the point of video “proof”: Let’s decide on using video proof after a panel of 10 experts discuss the video to this game and when 10 out of 10 agree on every decision. They will discuss for hours, and they will never be unanimous.
The ref on the field is faster and better at making this decision, the many bad decisions by this particular ref non-withstanding.
May 9th, 2009 @ 08:15very very good to have video replays in footballmatches..so that some basketball team like Barccelona cannot play football..
May 9th, 2009 @ 13:03To me it is a clear cheating to chelsea side,cos the ref wont tell me he didnt see all those penalties,he just did it on his personal intensions ,we know we were the clear winner of that match, and the ref must not go unpunished.
May 9th, 2009 @ 15:05nikolaus heger:
> Just because Ballack freaks out doesn’t mean anybody can get away from a 100km/h ball when hit at 2m distance.
Not really. Eto’o knew he was going to shoot at him, that’s why he turned around in the first place. He should have kept his arm stuck to his body. Besides, it was more like 5 – 6 meters.
> But if you play-act so much, you can’t be surprised if the ref doesn’t give a foul when you are really fouled
With video replays this should change, that’s exactly the point. The decisions would be more accurate regardless whether the player in question is a diver. And players would have much less to gain from diving so maybe, just maybe, it would stop.
May 10th, 2009 @ 04:03> Back to the point of video “proof”: Let’s decide on using video proof after a panel of 10 experts discuss the video to this game and when 10 out of 10 agree on every decision. They will discuss for hours, and they will never be unanimous.
So it’s either perfect or we don’t want it ? With this philosophy we’d still be living in caves. It *would* be a major improvement over the actual state of things, so let’s put it to work as quickly as possible.
May 10th, 2009 @ 04:06i really think chelsea were deserved to be out ! ! firstly they fall for all minor touches ! ! tats pathetic ! ! is tat why u train ur phsical fitness for?? u play fairly n decisions will go ur way…clean ur own back first chelsea ! Man Utd to thrash Barcelona in finals ! ! !
May 10th, 2009 @ 11:12BTW, I forgot to mention: on FairFootball it’s Chelsea that win. If that’s any consolation.
May 11th, 2009 @ 08:02Yes, yes, yes… agree completely with what your saying.
There is also one more point I’d like to bring up, football violence today might not be as wide spread as was but having video replays would also help dicipate anger from players/fans alike. The feeling of being robbed due to the poor decisions of one man is a terrible one and should not exist in a modern professional sport.
May 11th, 2009 @ 10:02There is no doubt about video replays’ presence in games like cricket have always brought the deserving team ahead. Keeping football game’s pace in mind, it can help judging if foul is foul or not; replay hardly takes 30-60 second to judge what is what, at least better than the players’ arguments with referee for more than 30-60 seconds, which are always fruitless of course … it can’t harm the pace, enthusiasm or passion of the game; infect it can bring more of that; as only deserving teams will go through…
Talking about Chelsea n’ Barca’s game; there were clearly fouls and handball against Chelsea; which from 6 mtr behind the referee couldn’t see, or if he saw then he couldn’t judge. But as a fan of football game; it strike me as he was blind or has predefined Barca’ as winner… watching the game I was wondering if Barca’ are playing with 3 goal keepers or the referee was from some Rugby Premier league, that he didn’t react over any fouls/handball; this poor performance of referee caused Chelsea a big blow… those who saw that match; can easily judge who deserved to be in final but who went through; just because of blind referee’s performance… there is much to say more abt it… but I think its enough for now…
May 13th, 2009 @ 10:04‘
There is no doubt about video replays’ presence in games like cricket have always brought the deserving team ahead. Keeping football game’s pace in mind, it can help judging if foul is foul or not; replay hardly takes 30-60 second to judge what is what, at least better than the players’ arguments with referee for more than 30-60 seconds, which are always fruitless of course … it can’t harm the pace, enthusiasm or passion of the game; infect it can bring more of that; as only deserving teams will go through…
Talking about Chelsea n’ Barca’s game; there were clearly fouls and handball against Chelsea; which from 6 mtr behind the referee couldn’t see, or if he saw then he couldn’t judge. But as a fan of football game; it strike me as he was blind or has predefined Barca’ as winner… watching the game I was wondering if Barca’ are playing with 3 goal keepers or the referee was from some Rugby Premier league, that he didn’t react over any fouls/handball; this poor performance of referee caused Chelsea a big blow… those who saw that match; can easily judge who deserved to be in final but who went through; just because of blind referee’s performance… there is much to say more abt it… but I think its enough for now…
May 13th, 2009 @ 10:29American football uses the replay to judege decisions. So who mans the viedo replay, other refrees that usually have the same way of thinking as the ref on the field. Most calls from the field are upheld after viedo review. So all that is accomplished is one hour of playing time turns into three or four hours of watching very little action on the field. I really do not want to see soccer change to a 3 hour game of watching the refs making a decision through viedo.
June 7th, 2009 @ 22:02I hate barca. the referee was corrupt. Chelsea should
March 17th, 2010 @ 16:35won the game at least by 4-0. that’s all.