UEFAlona Conspiracy: Truth or Myth

danyjr wrote:

harhar11 wrote:This is the incident that I am talking about



As you can see, Marcelo looks down to see where Pedro is and then steps on him twice while the ball is still in play, hence its a red + penalty..

Yes, I remember now and certainly is a nasty foul and deserved a booking. Not sure about penalty though, as the ball seemed out of play when he stomped on Pedro.

Nah the ball was still in play. Pause at 0:04 and you will see that..

Error wrote:Not handballs:
Ballack & Arshavin handballs - Not all handballs are penalties. Here its how rulebook says:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

According to that, the pique isn't a handball either.

Error wrote:Other situations:
Cole vs. Henry - Henry have already lost the ball and his momentum is taking him away from ball with little assistant of Cole. Would be quite harsh to give penalty for that one.

Doesn't matter. You don't have to have control of the ball to get a freekick/penalty

Here's an example


Nowhere near the ball, but he gets punch and gets a penalty..

harhar11 wrote:
According to that, the pique isn't a handball either.

Pique's hand is clearly in quite unnatural position or are you trying to tell me that he runs around like a plane? Yaya case is more similar to Ballack or Arshavin than Pique.

harhar11 wrote:
Doesn't matter. You don't have to have control of the ball to get a freekick/penalty

Here's an example


Nowhere near the ball, but he gets punch and gets a penalty..

Severity of punching a player and minor shirt tugging when player is already falling is quite big.

Good thread. +1.

As pointed out, you missed Marcelo's stomp on Pedro and Adebayor's red cards.

Plus, Pepe's tackle on Alves was a red card. There was physical contact, just the camera didn't catch the exact frame. Here, the sound made by the contact:

.

On the chelsea's games, the Pique hand was a penalty, no doubt. He leaves the hand opened intentionally.
The rest are IMO not penalties.

Error wrote:

Spooony wrote:Because in England and Italy when the shirt tugging goes on in the box the referee goes and warns the players first. They know it is wrong but they do it cause they get spoonfed by the referees in telling them to stop it. But in the game the referee did not do that. Where they expecting that warning first? So because of other referees spoon feeding the players like babies week in week out to a thing that is a foul makes it not a foul because the referee did not warn them and gave a penalty?

Tugging shirts happens in every league and in every league refs usually warns about it first, but they rarely give penalties for it. It has to be extremely noticeable and strong pull or it has to happen constantly for ref to even consider it as penalty. Just take any random game and watch the corner kicks in it. Most faults (interfering gk, tugging shirts, pushing players, etc) are called against the attacking team, not the defending. Is it right? Probably not, but that way it has pretty much always been.

But now when ref decides to act a little bit differently (rather than following common way) then it's obvious that conspiracy theorists comes out from their holes. If ref would have given penalty for Sanchez situation then there wouldn't (probably) even be this conspiracy debate from Milan game. It's always a bad idea to start soloing in big games when you could just act like it's another normal day in a work.

ps. based on some poor youtube videos rather than gif, I would say that Yaya's handball goes into same category as Ballack and Arshavin.

Yes and look what is happening because of warning first? There is nothing in the rules about warnings. Why must they? Give a penalty then players will stop doing it.

Error wrote:
Pique's hand is clearly in quite unnatural position or are you trying to tell me that he runs around like a plane? Yaya case is more similar to Ballack or Arshavin than Pique.

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

As you can read, the position of the hand does not matter. You can have your hand directed to the sky and touch the ball but if its not hand to ball movement it's not a penalty...

Error wrote:
Severity of punching a player and minor shirt tugging when player is already falling is quite big.

Both are against the rulebook, though. And even the English comentator said that it was a penalty(the henry one)



"had a case" was the reaction to one of the commentators..

The Henry penalty at home vs. Chelsea is stone wall clear.

Error wrote:Alves vs. Nesta - That's not a penalty. Nesta's "shirt pulling" is not the reason why Alves falls, it's the streching after the ball.

I don't disagree with the rest of your argument but if you look closely there are a couple things:

• Antonini throwing his body in front of Alves to stop him.
  
• Nesta constantly has his right hand on Alves' left shoulder. If Alves went down because he was stretching, why was his left shoulder going down before the rest of his body?

free_cat wrote:Pepe's tackle on Alves was a red card. There was physical contact, just the camera didn't catch the exact frame. Here, the sound made by the contact...

That sound does not resemble the collision between studs and shin. Maybe it is the football. Also how can the camera not catch the exact frame? Not saying that video is fake, but it is easier to manipulate the sound than edit a video that everyone has seen.

A camera has x frames per second, the exact moment of contact wasn't caught.

Also, how do you explain Alves turn if there was no contact? It's impossible to do that if there's not a countering force (Alves was shooting forward)

An average camera captures 50+ frames per second (FPS), more than what human brain can translate (unless you slow-motion it frame by frame). If you're saying the contact was made for 0.01 of a second, then why the big sound? Honestly, does that noise really sound like a stud and shin colliding?

Alves moving his leg back would have unbalanced him, creating a counter moment and hence the turn. I admit, he should be very fast in mind and action to do that though.

I don't know, I have no idea about cameras, it's what they said on TV when this happened, that the cameras filming were slow-motion and didn't catch the frames.

Anyway, too me it's obvious there is contact. It's just impossible to do alves movement if there isn't a counter force.

About the sound, I don't know. I think it can be a shinpad vs. studs, actually i Just tried to smack a shin with my boots and it wasn't far off, but it could be the ball to (although studs on ball don't make much sound, so I don't think so).

You got some points but I am still leaning more towards no contact and I think most will agree too. Still, it was dangerous play and definitely deserved at least a yellow. It is not like the guy hasn't behaved like an animal before. Tonight he kicked Arbeloa thinking he was a Valencia player

He kicked him knowing it was Arbeloa. He looks at him just before hitting. Mental. Should have received a yellow for that.

That guy has serious mental problems. I'm actually not joking

Law 12- Fouls and Misconducts (FIFA Rules)
This will help you guys to determine, which decision was right or wrong. You also have to remember that in the opinion of the referee, was the play legal…
A player who intentionally commits any of the following nine offenses:
• (a) kicks or attempts to kick an opponent;
(b) trips an opponent, i.e., throwing or attempting to throw him by the use of the legs or by stooping in front of or behind him;
(c) jumps at an opponent;
(d) charges an opponent in a violent or dangerous manner;
(e) charges an opponent from behind unless the latter is obstructing;
(f) strikes or attempts to strike an opponent or spits at him;
(g) holds an opponent;
(h) pushes an opponent;
(i) handles the ball, i.e., carries, strikes or propels the ball with his hand or arm; (this does not apply to the goalkeeper within his own penalty-area);
shall be penalized by the award of a DFK to be taken by the opposing team from the place where the offense occurred, unless the offense is committed by a player in his opponents' goal-area, in which case the free-kick shall be taken from any point within the goal-area.
Should a player of the defending team intentionally commit one of the above nine offenses within the penalty-area, he shall be penalized by a PK.
A PK can be awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, if in play, at the time an offense within the penalty-area is committed.
1. A player committing any of the five following offenses:
2. playing in a manner considered by the referee to be dangerous, e.g. attempting to kick the ball while held by the goalkeeper;
3. charging fairly, i.e. with the shoulder, when the ball is not within playing distance of the players concerned and they are definitely not tying to play it;
4. when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructing an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent;
5. charging the goalkeeper except when he
o (a) is holding the ball;
(b) is obstructing an opponent;
(c) has passed outside his goal-area.
6. when playing as a goalkeeper and within his own penalty-area:
o (a) from the moment he takes control of the ball with his hands, he takes more than 4 steps in any direction whilst holding, bouncing or throwing the ball in the air and catching it again, without releasing it into play, or
(b) having released tHe ball into play before, during or after the 4 steps, he touches it again with his hands, before it has been touched or played by a player of the opposing team either inside or outside of the penalty area, or by a player of the same team outside of the penalty-area, subject to the overriding conditions of 5(c), or
(c) touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate, or
(d) indulges in tactics, which in the opinion of the referee, are designed to hold up the game and thus waste time and so give an unfair advantage to his own team,
7. shall be penalized by the award of an IFK to be taken by the opposing side from the place where the infringement occurred, subject to the overriding conditions imposed in Law 13.
8. A player shall be cautioned and shown the yellow card if:
9. (j) he enters or re-enters the field of play to join or rejoin his team after the game has commenced, or leaves the field of play during the progress of the game (except through accident) without, in either case, first having received a signal from the referee showing him that he may do so. If the referee stops the game to administer the caution, the game shall be restarted by an IFK taken by a player of the opposing team from the place where the ball was when the referee stopped the game, subject to the overriding conditions imposed in Law 13.
10. If, however, the offending player has committed a more serious offense he shall be penalized according to that section of the law he infringed.
11. (k) he persistently infringes the Laws of the Game;
12. (l) he shows, by word or action, dissent from any decision given by the referee;
13. (m) he is guilty of ungentlemanly conduct.
14. For any of these last three offenses, in addition to the caution, an IFK shall also be awarded to the opposing side from the place where the offense occurred, subject to the overriding conditions imposed in Law 13, unless a more serious infringement of the Laws of the Game was committed.
15. A player shall be sent off the field of play and shown the red card, if, in the opinion of the referee, he:
16. (n) is guilty of violent conduct;
17. (o) is guilty of serious foul play;
18. (p) uses foul or abusive language;
19. (q) is guilty of a second cautionable offense after having received a caution.
20. If play is stopped by reason of a player being ordered from the field for an offense without a separate breach of the Law having been committed, the game shall be resumed by an IFK awarded to the opposing side from the place where the infringement occurred, subject to the overriding conditions imposed in Law 13.

harhar11 wrote:

Error wrote:
Pique's hand is clearly in quite unnatural position or are you trying to tell me that he runs around like a plane? Yaya case is more similar to Ballack or Arshavin than Pique.

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an
infringement

As you can read, the position of the hand does not matter. You can have your hand directed to the sky and touch the ball but if its not hand to ball movement it's not a penalty...

Error wrote:
Severity of punching a player and minor shirt tugging when player is already falling is quite big.

Both are against the rulebook, though. And even the English comentator said that it was a penalty(the henry one)



"had a case" was the reaction to one of the commentators..

But if you look closely at the gif, it looks to me like Piqué moving his arm up right around when the ball is shot. It doesn't look like it in most of the frames in that gif, but you can see it from the farthest angle.

At the time, I also felt like the red card for Van Persie was justified, as it looked like (on tv, with HD quality footage) Van Persie responded, albeit very slightly, to the wistle. I cannot find proof of this in the low quality vids on Youtube though. But I was very certain of it at the time.

Awesome thread btw. Nice work.

EDIT:

Hete BLKSM wrote:

But if you look closely at the gif, it looks to me like Piqué moving his arm up right around when the ball is shot. It doesn't look like it in most of the frames in that gif, but you can see it from the farthest angle.

At the time, I also felt like the red card for Van Persie was justified, as it looked like (on tv, with HD quality footage) Van Persie responded, albeit very slightly, to the wistle. I cannot find proof of this in the low quality vids on Youtube though. But I was very certain of it at the time.

Awesome thread btw. Nice work.

EDIT:

That I can agree with but in that case ballack moves his hand to the ball aswell. So if piques is a penalty then so should ballacks be...

Yeah, I can't really remember the Ballack situation but if it's indeed hand towards the ball instead of the other way around I totally agree. To me the Piqué handsball was probably the most clear penalty of all of those instances where they wanted a penalty. The FP is clear though on the whole UEFAlona crap. It's exactly that, crap. People put this team under a microscope and their selective memories blow things out of proportions. Even if you'd call the FP slightly biased (which I think is hardly the case) you'd still see that we've had about as much luck with the ref's as any other team out there.

free_cat wrote:I don't know, I have no idea about cameras, it's what they said on TV when this happened, that the cameras filming were slow-motion and didn't catch the frames.

Anyway, too me it's obvious there is contact. It's just impossible to do alves movement if there isn't a counter force.

About the sound, I don't know. I think it can be a shinpad vs. studs, actually i Just tried to smack a shin with my boots and it wasn't far off, but it could be the ball to (although studs on ball don't make much sound, so I don't think so).

Pepe's tackled the ball, which also collided with Alves, hence alve's reverse swing movement and the sound. Pepe obviously did not have direct contact with alves, but I am on the fence for this one. Some refs will say "no contact no red", some would say "no contact but dangerous play, red".

Of course those bunch of sheeps in general and franco madrid would say no contact no red, without even looking it from the latter's POV. I would say its 50/50

Yeah, the turn it's possible to explain it with Pepe contacting the ball.
But the sound it's not of studs on ball. Just go and try it, hit a ball with the studs. There's almost no sound.

Why would we pay money to UEFA when we need all the money we can get? At the time we were fine, I guess but last season how Mourinho and Arensal (especially Van Persie) were critising Arsenal about how Barcelona were paying the ref about one decision... We were at that time in 'finiancial debt', makes no sense. Piques one was definately a penalty but all the others were 'half chances' at the most.

4. when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructing an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent;

See Penalty.

Hete BLKSM wrote:Yeah, I can't really remember the Ballack situation but if it's indeed hand towards the ball instead of the other way around I totally agree. To me the Piqué handsball was probably the most clear penalty of all of those instances where they wanted a penalty. The FP is clear though on the whole UEFAlona crap. It's exactly that, crap. People put this team under a microscope and their selective memories blow things out of proportions. Even if you'd call the FP slightly biased (which I think is hardly the case) you'd still see that we've had about as much luck with the ref's as any other team out there.

+1

Spooony wrote:

4. when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructing an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent;

See Penalty.

Arbeloa did that countless of times at the cup final last season. The only difference was that he went to the players who didn't have the ball and that the ref never did a thing

harhar11 wrote:

Spooony wrote:

4. when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructing an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent;

See Penalty.

Arbeloa did that countless of times at the cup final last season. The only difference was that he went to the players who didn't have the ball and that the ref never did a thing

It is because they warn and let it happen to a degree. But does that make the one who penalize it wrong? No he merely applied the laws

Spooony wrote:

harhar11 wrote:

Spooony wrote:

4. when not playing the ball, intentionally obstructing an opponent, i.e. running between the opponent and the ball, or interposing the body so as to form an obstacle to an opponent;

See Penalty.

Arbeloa did that countless of times at the cup final last season. The only difference was that he went to the players who didn't have the ball and that the ref never did a thing

It is because they warn and let it happen to a degree. But does that make the one who penalize it wrong? No he merely applied the laws

No.. I was agreeing with you. I was at the ref who allowed it to go on. The swedish commentator was almost laughing at how the ref was not punishing arbeloa for that dirty trick.. IIRC I saw arbeloa doing it atleast 3 times and the commentator said that Arbeloa did it lots of times when the camera wasn't recording anywhere close to him so it was far more than just 3 times