The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
FC Barcelona - Arsenal FC
41 replies
Santi said on May 17, 2006 06:22:
So tonight’s the biggest game in European football, the Champions League Final.
Who would you say is going to be the champion? Who would like it to be?
Jud (moderator) said on May 17, 2006 20:58:
oooeeeee ooeeeee Barça campióoooooo :D :D
Tooooot el camp.. es un claaaam..
Txiqui said on May 17, 2006 21:39:
capeoooooneeeees campeeeeonessss oeee oeeeeee oee
sing along the whole of the hymn:
Tot el camp
és un clam
som la gent blaugrana
Tant se val d’on venim
si del sud o del nord
ara estem d’acord, ara estem d’acord,
una bandera ens agermana.
Blaugrana al vent
un crit valent
tenim un nom
el sap tothom:
Barça , Barça, Baaarça.!
Great night and what a team!! they are amazing. They’ve played an incredible season
Jud (moderator) said on May 17, 2006 21:41:
Henke rules :D And Mr. R of course was great. Ooooooeeeee ooooeeeeee!
Claire said on May 18, 2006 08:04:
good game, ref ruined it tho by sending off Lehman.
arsenal didnt deserve to loose but i could feel it coming after 60mins
Santi said on May 19, 2006 08:34:
I also thought it should have been goal instead of a red card.
But Almunia did it very well until the first goal. I think the first was his fault, because it entered through his angle. A goalkeeper can’t let it be like that. He was covering the eventual pass too much and that is why he got the gol on Eto’o’s shot. But if there was a pass he would not have been to blame, it would have been the defensemen’s fault. A goalkeeper that hardly plays should know better and avoid putting the blame on himself.
tcooh said on May 19, 2006 11:21:
Don’t go after Terje! It’s only weeks since all of UK glorfied him as a genious, cause he was brave enough to send of a Chelsea player in their Stamford Bridge game against Barca. It was a red card, no doubt in mind of anyone with knowledge to the rules of the game. But the Terje (the ref) could have waited and give the advantage of a goal to Barca (he also said that he was too soon to blow the whistle). But believe me, it was not easy for him to send the goalie off, cause he himself is a A. fan ;)
The biggest mistake in my eyes was to give Arsenal a freekick on the edge of the box, which lead to their goal. The Arsenal player was so amazingly obvious acting, and should have been give a yellow card for that, and freekick the other way.
Santi said on May 19, 2006 13:55:
@tcooh: These days everyone is acting in football. That’s why I like Ice Hockey... :D
tcooh said on May 20, 2006 00:52:
@santi: Yes, too many act today. But they better pray I don’t catch them when I referee my games. Then it’s bye bye for good. No mercy! I’ve sent of my share of actors! Cheaters is what they are. Those who’ve had me as referee earlier one knows not to try anything, cause I catch them! Three games as main referee this year = 3 red cards so far ;) (No, I don’t like giving out red cards, it gives me a hell of a lot paperwork and forms to fill in after).
And most of them are so bad at action even, they should be nominated for the Strawberry awards, or what it’s called, the worst actors and movies award of some kind.
Santi said on May 20, 2006 12:29:
Oh, so you are a referee yourself! :D
Now I have a question about referees, if you don’t mind. :P Why is it OK to use technology in being able to talk to each other during the game (the referee with the assistants) as we saw during this edition of Champions League, but it is not OK to use technology to have a “video referee”? :P
The awards are called “razzies”.
tcooh said on May 20, 2006 17:36:
Oh, can ask me anything with reguard to refereeing :) Okej, this topic is a bit above the head of the referees, cause it’s FIFA and UEFA, and their congressions with memebers, that decidents the rules.
Mainly today, it is as you say to improve communication between the main referee and the his assistants. The “beep” flags was the first step, and if furture communication than a beep is needed, they can talk without having to walk over to the assistant. What you guess wish for wish video-refereeing, is that the referee could go back and see like situations in reprise, or from a different angle, and then decide. To think such think could work is sorta utopia, cause it would steal so much playing time from the game, and in addition if it comes to that it was not a foul, and the play was stopped, how is one to start playing again??
Today we got after match video in use, for situation of unsportsmanshit, and serious breaks of rules, or to put the sport in bad reputation. For all evaluations of situations in the game, the referee’s word is final. The penalty of a red card is decided later on, based on the referees report, and further maybe by use of video (to evaluate the seriousness, not if it was a foul or not). In addition, they can give penalty for example for Totti’s many stupid and illegal attacks, that the referee didn’t see, spitting, kicking, hitting and so.
In addition there will be tried out a techincal solution, like in ice hockey, that a light will flash is the ball had fully crossed the goal line, to help decided those that difficult to decided by view only, if it was a goal or not. Remember, a ball is not out of play/goal, untill the entire area of the ball is over the entire area of the line. So if a vertical line from the ball side, touches the line, then the ball is still in play, and not a goal.
Vixzter said on May 20, 2006 17:42:
if the ref had played on he was still within his rights to send Lehman off
tcooh said on May 20, 2006 18:33:
@Vixzter: No, if the ref had let Barca play on, and score, he could not have sent off Lehmann. The rules does not allow that! Sepp Blatter, FIFA leader, should know better than to say such bullshit. The rules he has decided does not allow to do it that way.
The reason for giving Lehmann a red card, is taking away a clear oppotunity to score for the opposite team. (I hope all fans of football knows there is no longer anything called being the last player before the goal.) If Barca was given the advantage, and scored, then Lehmann can’t have taken away a clear oppotunity to score (since they have scored), and ergo, the ref could not have given a red card afterwards. In addition, red cards has to be given out as the break of rules happens. No chance to give advantage if a red card is to be given, that is only the case for freekicks or yellow cards.
Santi said on May 24, 2006 09:32:
Yes well. Video refereeing exists in several sports, and in all of those there doesn’t seem to cause a major problem of delay. I mean, I’m thinking mainly of Rugby and Ice Hockey.
In these sports there is a referee with the video, that communicates with the main referee, so the main referee can just ask if he hasn’t seen something very clear, to decide with all the information. They just go to the video in very special ocasions.
This kind of approach wouldn’t hurt football either I think.
Maybe if you think how they do it in American Football, that they really stop a lot when there’s any challenge... ok. But well, the number of challenges the coaches can use is also limited :p
Vixzter said on May 24, 2006 17:04:
i thought as professional foul was a sending off? if that wasn’t a professional foul then i dunno what is! ;-)
tcooh said on May 24, 2006 17:51:
Were you got the expression “professional foul” from? It’s not in my rules of the game book.. The referee is in all cases allowed to evalute the biggest benefit/advantage for the team that is fouled against. For all teams I’m pretty sure an advantage leading to a goal would be preferable to a sending off.
Those sports you meantion Santi are all sports with effective playing time. Football/soccer doesn’t have that. Handball, icehockey, american football, they all have stop timing, football has never had that, and will never get that. That would be closely to tipping around the identity of the sport. The playing time in football is adjusted to have the included breaks in time, ball out of play and so (that’s why they have the 6/15 seconds basic rule to put ball back in play.) For substitutions and injuries they add some time after guide lines. If one is to have effective playing time, and stop the watch for pauses, then the games playing time had to be shorten and all. It would really be a big thing to do.
Vixzter said on May 25, 2006 06:20:
the term is used alot here in england, maybe you just interpret it diffrently
a professional foul is when a player deliberatley fouls another to gain an advantage
ie: shirt pulling, tripping up, blocking etc
anyway, the rules of football change so much its hard to keep up with them, they should make the rules alot clearer and specific so that the referee’s aren’t put under so much pressure to make those ’life or death’ decisions and they should also scrap the entire offside rule as its a complete shambles!
Santi said on May 25, 2006 06:38:
I think the offside rule is alright, just maybe if it was restricted to an area closer to the goal instead of ruling in half the pitch, it would open up more spaces and make the ame faster.
But if you completely remove it, it would become a whole different sport. :D
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 09:25:
Scrap the offside rule? And make the 2 assistant referee’s without work?? :P Nah, it’s part of the charm in the game. Football is all about situations, and the different interpretations of them. And people emotions building around the consequences of them. Evaluating an offside or not, is one of the hardest tasks, it demands so immensely consetration, and speed like Henry, and that does not come around often, hehe. Btw, that’s what I’m to do tonight, wave the flag again, so I’m in for 1,5 of sprints.. hehe. The new rule that we aren’t to wave offside almost untill the player touches the ball is kinda a challenge, if the ball pass on the other side, how are we ass.referees to know if the player touched the ball or not? If he didn’t touch, then we are to let it go... But then all defenders have stopped and holding their hands up waiting for us to flag, and whoops we are the biggest scumbags on earth when we don’t wave :P
The term professional foul we don’t use. We more separate first between the two types of foul, those who lead to direct freekicks (pulling shirts, tripping, and loads of others) and those that lead to indirect freekicks (like blocking, dangerous play like high foot or so). Secondly we hardly separated between if they were deliberate or not (that we evaluate in consideration of the seriousness of the foul, and which warnings we are to give). If another player is fouled, deliberate or not, then the freekick is given unless another player on the team of the player that was fouled gets the ball, and ergo gets an advantage. Thirdly we evaluate the seriousness in the foul that was done. If a player is tackled in high speed slide, partly from the side or the back, then it should be a mircale of the tackler gets away from a yellow card. Today we still hear the most stupid excuse “But I touched the ball first!” Sorry guys, that rule was taken away 2 or 3 years ago, there is nothing that says if one get the ball first, then it’s ok if the player gets taken right after. If it’s a potentianl dangerous tackle, not matter if the ball is touched first, then it’s a freekick (and most likely something more to). The only thing that part still is looked on whether is was intentional or not, is hands.. It has to be said that in general the english referees are not totally in line with the official FIFA/UEFA rules of the game... (and nor the italian ones, cause they seem to get too much pay :P )
There are also some fouls, where even the atempts of such results in a red card, do you know those?
Jud (moderator) said on May 25, 2006 09:54:
tcooh all you explain is very interesting!! :) waiting for another of your master lessons :D
Santi said on May 25, 2006 10:02:
As far as I know, in all the recent World Cups, there was some rule innovation. Is this about the offside you’re talking about the only new rule for this World Cup or is there some other surprise awaiting?
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 12:17:
master lessons?? LOL - I just try to explain things from “the other side”. Just some facts to add the perspective of referees. In average a referee runs between 7- 11 km per match. During that match the persons has to make between 1100 and 1500 decisions (to blow or not to blow, that is the question). And for almost each of those decision he has to go through the whole book of rules before ruling with his whistle and/or cards.
Yes, World Cups are often the introduction of new rules, but as far as I know, there are no awaiting rule surprises this year. We usualy get a big pile of papers explaining the new rules a month or so before they are to apply in local series, but no such this year. The offside rule I mentioned was actually introduced over a year ago (or summer of 2004 if I’m not too mistaken). We had some horrible starting examples of it’s interpretation, from the test- world cup tournament. Where strikers ran for their lives for 20-30 meters, to catch it before the goalie or so, and then they were waved off for offside (firstly waved offside as they touch the ball). And followingly there were a lot of commotion, and we the referees were more unpolular than ever. Now we’ve found a compromise; if we see the striker going for the ball (give that the striker is offsice placed) and only that striker is able to get the ball (no chance the goalie can reach the ball before him), then we wave offside. If the striker plays dumb, and shows clearly he’s not in the game or not going after the ball, we don’t wave. So if the defence stops and waits for us to wave offside in such a given situation, there is a big chance a quick midfielder can run up from behind, snatch the ball and score ;)
So the essence is, the more and the better the players know the rules, the better they can take advantage of the rules, and avoid using energy yelling at referees for know the rules and acting accordingly ;)
A little nut for ya; if the defence is given a freekick just putside the box, and the defender takes the freekick by passing to the goalie, but the goalie missed the ball (doesn’t touch it), and it goes straight into their own goal, how is the referee to rule on that? ;)
Santi said on May 25, 2006 12:43:
Let’s see, if it was direct, it is a goal and if it was indirect they have to repeat? :P
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 12:50:
Nope, none was correct. The decision is the same if it was a direct or indirect freekick. Puzzled now :P hehe
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 13:23:
The decision if different is the freekick was inside our outside the box (16m). If outside, like in this case, the decision would be corner. If inside the box, it would have to be retaken, cause the ball is not in play til it has passed the 16m line.
The other thing, the 3 fouls were even the attempts would lead to red card is kicking (without the ball there of course), hitting and spitting.
Vixzter said on May 25, 2006 17:01:
well if we can’t scrap offside then please explain to me fully what the rule is these days ;-) as everytime i watch footie it seems to have some different interpretation put upon it.
is a player offside when they are level? or does there have to be clear daylight between the attacker and defender and also this inactive role, if a player is coming back and not in play as such, once he goes back onside and the play is continuing if he goes and gets the ball and scores would it be ruled out for offside because the decision originaly was that he wasn’t interfeering with play ;-)
that makes no sense LOL
Vixzter said on May 25, 2006 17:08:
on that other question about the free kicks inside or outside the box, if the goalie touches it and it goes in the goal then i assume its a goal?
ive seen a goal a couple of seasons back where the player took a throw in to his keeper, the keeper completely mis-timed it, touched the ball slightly and it went in the goal, the goal was given i assume cos the ball was in play because he touched it? or would it have been given as an own goal even if the goalie had not of touched it?
it was a classic mess up ;-)
i’m glad we have a referee about so we can ask all them silly questions when the world cup starts and the arguments and insults start flyinh ;-)
*note to self* don’t get involved in any world cup discussions ;-)
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 22:29:
Explain offside in full? Wow, have you got a full day ready to read and give feedback Qs? ;) hehe.
Basically it’s not punishable to be in offside unless a player participates in the game (read touches the ball), or disturbs opposite team player (read touching, or within distance so could touch with stretching his arms) or gets an advantage of the offside position in the next move (for ex. being in offside when team mate shoots, and the goalie gives a return ball, then it’s an advantage. Note it’s the time of the shoot that is offside, not as the keeper gives return ball.)
So, when is it offside and when is it not. Today (unlike 3 years ago) we use the straight line principle. This means if the tip of the hair of the striker is closer to the goal line than the second last defender, than he’s offside. No need to be daylight between the players to be offside. Note it’s the second last defender, so if the goalie goes out, it needs to be 2 defender behind him to avoid offside.
Also note these situations were it never can be offside. Being on own half of the field, recieveing the ball from a player closer or on line from the goal-line, recieveing ball directly from goalkick, throwin or corner.
tcooh said on May 25, 2006 22:46:
The freekick outside the box - yes, if the goalie touches it, it will be goal. If freekick inside the box, then it will have to be retaken untill in play outside the box..
Same with throw in, if any player touches it (even the goalie), then it will be a goal. One can not make goals directly from throw in. So if a defender throws in in his own goal, without anyone touching it > corner.
Yes, I think there will quite some situations to discuss from the world cup, given the emmense tv-coverage all games will have. I’ll do my best to answer, given that I’ve seen the situations.
tcooh said on May 27, 2006 12:06:
Level is not offside unless a hair goes closer ;-)
Just talked to Terje, the CL final’s referee, some hours ago. He’s back home, and called me and asked me for help :) Btw, he’s to referee the training match between Germany and Columbia next week.
tcooh said on May 27, 2006 16:31:
You won’t see me in this WC. Not evenas spectator. Not this year at least. And not ever as referee. I would have to be at national top level at my age already if I should ever have any european or world top level goals.. I’m too old, and I don’t have luck with the assesments, and I’m not enough of brown noser either :P My heighest assignment so far was the final in Norway’s Cup’s oldest class in 2002 as 4th referee.
Debora said on May 17, 2006 20:03:
I’m a big Premier League fan, but I don’t like Arsenal. So I would like Barcelona win because Lionel Messi plays for it... but ’til now Arsenal is winning 1 - 0... (62 mins)