FC Barcelona Fans

[Mariner]

From the top of my head:

1st (obvious) penalty claim: Malouda is clearly pushed over well inside the box but the referee inexplicably awards a free-kick outside the box.
2nd penalty claim: Drogba goes through on goal, clearly has his shirt pulled (don't remember if it was Toure or Abidal) in the box then is tripped before Valdes collects the ball. If the penalty was awarded it would also have been a red card for the defender.
3rd (obvious) penalty claim: Anelka knocks the ball past Pique and only a blatant handball stops a shooting opportunity. Again, a certain penalty and a possible red card.
4th penalty claim: In the final seconds, Eto'o dives in to block a goalbound shot (well, it looked on target in any case) with his arm. You could say that this was accidental but, for me, if you dive in with your arms well above your head you should expect to be punished.

I've a feeling there was also another penalty claim after a tackle in the box but, if I remember correctly, it looked as though enough of the ball was won by the defender to turn this one down.

After Chelsea's overly-defensive performance in the first game, I expected Barcelona to go through because Chelsea deserved nothing at all.

However, in the game at Stamford Bridge, Barcelona were poor, created absolutely nothing (one shot on target is less than Chelsea managed at the Nou Camp), and relied on the referee's poor decisions to save them.

I'd honestly say that, had we been back in the dark old days of the 1960s or 1970s, you'd have said the referee had been bribed on that performance. I obviously don't believe this is the case here and think he is normally a good referee which leaves me baffled how he could get so much wrong in that game.

As I've already said though, the Manyoo vs Barcelona final is my preference in any case (actually Arsenal vs Barcelona was) because I see plenty of Premiership games every season already!

 

[Need 2 Know]

From the top of my head:

1st (obvious) penalty claim: Malouda is clearly pushed over well inside the box but the referee inexplicably awards a free-kick outside the box.
2nd penalty claim: Drogba goes through on goal, clearly has his shirt pulled (don't remember if it was Toure or Abidal) in the box then is tripped before Valdes collects the ball. If the penalty was awarded it would also have been a red card for the defender.
3rd (obvious) penalty claim: Anelka knocks the ball past Pique and only a blatant handball stops a shooting opportunity. Again, a certain penalty and a possible red card.
4th penalty claim: In the final seconds, Eto'o dives in to block a goalbound shot (well, it looked on target in any case) with his arm. You could say that this was accidental but, for me, if you dive in with your arms well above your head you should expect to be punished.

I've a feeling there was also another penalty claim after a tackle in the box but, if I remember correctly, it looked as though enough of the ball was won by the defender to turn this one down.

After Chelsea's overly-defensive performance in the first game, I expected Barcelona to go through because Chelsea deserved nothing at all.

However, in the game at Stamford Bridge, Barcelona were poor, created absolutely nothing (one shot on target is less than Chelsea managed at the Nou Camp), and relied on the referee's poor decisions to save them.

I'd honestly say that, had we been back in the dark old days of the 1960s or 1970s, you'd have said the referee had been bribed on that performance. I obviously don't believe this is the case here and think he is normally a good referee which leaves me baffled how he could get so much wrong in that game.

As I've already said though, the Manyoo vs Barcelona final is my preference in any case (actually Arsenal vs Barcelona was) because I see plenty of Premiership games every season already!

seriously, my response in bold

1st (obvious) penalty claim: Malouda is clearly pushed over well inside the box but the referee inexplicably awards a free-kick outside the box. The ref looked at the 1st offence which was outside the box therefore free kick awarded
2nd penalty claim: Drogba goes through on goal, clearly has his shirt pulled (don't remember if it was Toure or Abidal) in the box then is tripped before Valdes collects the ball. If the penalty was awarded it would also have been a red card for the defender. Come of it, when Drogba 1st got the ball him and Toure were all over each other. Toure makes a good sliding tackle making contact with the ball but Drogba over reacts like a girl
3rd (obvious) penalty claim: Anelka knocks the ball past Pique and only a blatant handball stops a shooting opportunity. Again, a certain penalty and a possible red card. Cant argue here, should have been a penalty
4th penalty claim: In the final seconds, Eto'o dives in to block a goalbound shot (well, it looked on target in any case) with his arm. You could say that this was accidental but, for me, if you dive in with your arms well above your head you should expect to be punished. Absolute rubbish, goal bound shot. . No case for a penalty kick here as Eto was not making direct contact with ball to hand.


Chelsea fans should just get over it and stop blaming the Ref, the goal which Iniesta scored was desrving for Barca to go to the Final

 

[Mariner]

Regarding the 1st penalty claim, if the referee pulled play back for the first foul, why was the free-kick awarded just next to the goal-line instead of 5 or 6 yards further upfield?

Regarding the 2nd penalty claim. I didn't realise that a defender clearly pulling the shirt of a striker in the box isn't worthy of a penalty any more. Can you let me know when the rule regarding penalties changed to allow shirt-pulling? I suppose that this would negate Henry's penalty claim in the first game too.

Regarding the 4th - if a player dives at the ball to attempt a block, turns his back so he can't see the ball then stops a shot with his arms, why shouldn't he be penalised?

Incidentally, the term 'goalbound' means heading towards the goal, which it certainly was. No way of knowing if it would have gone in because Eto'o stopped it with his arm.

I am anything but a Chelsea fan but Barcelona were surprisingly poor at Stamford Bridge and wouldn't have reached the final if the referee had been halfway near competent.

 

[infinity4]

Looking over two games, Barcelona played better football. Yes they played poor on tuesday, but at least they tried to attack unlike Chelsea who played 1-9-1 last week. They had shots though off target. Chelsea on other hand, only had chances when Barca made mistakes at the back. I would not consider that as due to attacking football.

That said, refereeing was so poor if Barcelona would have gone out, it wouldn't be fair either.

 

[Need 2 Know]

Regarding the 1st penalty claim, if the referee pulled play back for the first foul, why was the free-kick awarded just next to the goal-line instead of 5 or 6 yards further upfield?

Regarding the 2nd penalty claim. I didn't realise that a defender clearly pulling the shirt of a striker in the box isn't worthy of a penalty any more. Can you let me know when the rule regarding penalties changed to allow shirt-pulling? I suppose that this would negate Henry's penalty claim in the first game too.

Regarding the 4th - if a player dives at the ball to attempt a block, turns his back so he can't see the ball then stops a shot with his arms, why shouldn't he be penalised?

Incidentally, the term 'goalbound' means heading towards the goal, which it certainly was. No way of knowing if it would have gone in because Eto'o stopped it with his arm.

I am anything but a Chelsea fan but Barcelona were surprisingly poor at Stamford Bridge and wouldn't have reached the final if the referee had been halfway near competent.

How can a Team be poor and still have the highest amount of passes, amount of completed passes and overall 68% of the ball possession. Answer me this, how can any team attack when their is 9 men behind the ball. Regards the Ref being poor, yes i agree but its not the 1st time nor will be the last time that a Ref will make the wrong choice in a match. Final note is Barca deserve to be in that Final not thru the Ref but thru sheer determination.

 

[Mariner]

How can a team be good yet have just one shot on target in the 93rd minute of a game, only getting the chance because of a sliced clearance from Essien? Cech didn't need to make a single save all game! How can a team be good yet defend so poorly that they should have given away a few penalties and also needed to rely on their goalkeeper to make a couple of one-on-one saves?

Possession for possession's sake is worthless as Wednesday's game showed. Barcelona simply weren't a threat despite the amount of possession they had and the number of short passes completed. Interestingly enough, Arsenal play with a similar style and they often have games where they simply don't look a threat despite all their ability.

In the first leg, Barcelona passed the ball similarly well but got into dangerous attacking positions doing so and really should have won the game. Chelsea were rubbish in that game, barely attempting to do anything but defend and deserved nothing (though Drogba still missed a very good chance to score).

However, in the second leg, Barcelona passed the ball around well without ever getting into similar attacking positions. I don't doubt that Barcelona are a good team, as their goalscoring record this season shows, but they simply didn't play well enough to deserve anything out of the game on Wednesday.

If Iniesta's shot hadn't gone in, would you seriously have claimed that Barcelona deserved to reach the final on their performance? I realise you're partisan here, but surely you'd have to admit that they were very, very lucky to go though the final.

 

[Need 2 Know]

How can a team be good yet have just one shot on target in the 93rd minute of a game, only getting the chance because of a sliced clearance from Essien? Cech didn't need to make a single save all game! How can a team be good yet defend so poorly that they should have given away a few penalties and also needed to rely on their goalkeeper to make a couple of one-on-one saves?

Possession for possession's sake is worthless as Wednesday's game showed. Barcelona simply weren't a threat despite the amount of possession they had and the number of short passes completed. Interestingly enough, Arsenal play with a similar style and they often have games where they simply don't look a threat despite all their ability.

In the first leg, Barcelona passed the ball similarly well but got into dangerous attacking positions doing so and really should have won the game. Chelsea were rubbish in that game, barely attempting to do anything but defend and deserved nothing (though Drogba still missed a very good chance to score).

However, in the second leg, Barcelona passed the ball around well without ever getting into similar attacking positions. I don't doubt that Barcelona are a good team, as their goalscoring record this season shows, but they simply didn't play well enough to deserve anything out of the game on Wednesday.

If Iniesta's shot hadn't gone in, would you seriously have claimed that Barcelona deserved to reach the final on their performance? I realize you're partisan here, but surely you'd have to admit that they were very, very lucky to go though the final.

on your comment in bold, nothing to do with the fact that the clearance was poor. It still give enough time for Messi to pick up the ball and pick out Iniesta who finished it very well.

As for the rest of your reply, yes the ball play and passing was not up to Barca's high standard as it was in the 1st leg and Chelsea's did get their tactics right, overall Chelsea did have the better chances and in 1 case should have finished the game but Drogba went for placement instead of power. Though the fact remains that 1 shot on target and the only shot was all it takes. Football is a very funny game but in this case if Barca did go out on Weds night then I would be gutted as I strongly believe that they have had an impressive season and deserve to be in that Final

 

[infinity4]

Remember they were also robbed in 2005 when Carvalho pushed Valdes as Terry scored.

More attacking team won the tie, just because a shot is off the target it doesnt mean you were defending with hopeless shots from 40 yards out. Those shots could have been finished better.

 

[Mariner]

The stats show that Barcelona had 9 shots, 1 of which was on target.

Chelsea also had 9 shots, 4 of which were on target.

How this makes Barcelona more attacking, I don't know, especially when you consider all the penalty appeals which were denied.

Barcelona had 70% possession - not surprising as this is their style of play. The time the ball spent in each half was around 52/48 (Chelsea/Barcelona) so much of Barcelona's possession was in their own half of the field. 6 corners apiece. Fouls committed were 23 by Chelsea, 18 by Barcelona. Of course there should have been two or three more fouls against Barcelona for the denied penalty appeals!

Pretty even overall and I simply don't agree that greater possession by Barcelona makes them a more attacking side on the night. Chelsea got their early goal then attempted to defend the lead and attack on the break - pretty much the same as every other team in the World would have done.

It's all irrelevant now, in any case. I'll repeat though that I was very disappointed with Barcelona's below-par performance on the night which simply did not deserve a draw. My opinion is that they looked unbalanced without Henry so hopefully he will return to the team to give us a really exciting final!

 

[Cheezdoodles]

From the top of my head:

1st (obvious) penalty claim: Malouda is clearly pushed over well inside the box but the referee inexplicably awards a free-kick outside the box.

This was not a penalty, look at the replays. Malouda and alves began shoving eachother outside of the box, the ball was outside of the box, once they where inside, malouda shiftet his weight on alves, and fell.

2nd penalty claim: Drogba goes through on goal, clearly has his shirt pulled (don't remember if it was Toure or Abidal) in the box then is tripped before Valdes collects the ball. If the penalty was awarded it would also have been a red card for the defender.

While tactically shirt pulling is illegal, if your going to award a penalty for every shirt pulling, there would be 10 penalties a game, in any decent football match.

3rd (obvious) penalty claim: Anelka knocks the ball past Pique and only a blatant handball stops a shooting opportunity. Again, a certain penalty and a possible red card.

Agreed.

4th penalty claim: In the final seconds, Eto'o dives in to block a goalbound shot (well, it looked on target in any case) with his arm. You could say that this was accidental but, for me, if you dive in with your arms well above your head you should expect to be punished.

Doesn't matter if its accidential, if it benefits the defending team it should be a penalty.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

How can a Team be poor and still have the highest amount of passes, amount of completed passes and overall 68% of the ball possession. .

Possession doesn't say much at all about how good a team plays. Neither does amount of passes. Italian teams that play defensive football often have high possesion and very high amount of passes (most of them between the defenders and goalkeeper ), even when they are clearly the worst team out there..

Ive seen plenty of matches where the best team by far has the ball much less than the oposition.

 

[Mariner]

I think in both games, Barcelona had around 70% possession. In the first game, they used this possession well, were a constant threat throughout the game and really should have scored one or two goals.

In the second game, they did practically nothing offensively with the same amount of possession. I don't see why anyone should try to argue otherwise?

I can't believe I'm spending so much time on these threads. My team's season ended last weekend so I suppose I'm in footy withdrawal!