Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The Games FIFA/UEFA plays...we are not amused BY ENA OFUGARA

Taunting of my Manchester Utd friends aside, yes the referee had a right to give a red card but Common!!! He could have given a yellow and made serious faces of a disciplinarian. I have seen higher foot get yellow and Demba vs Collocini in the 18 yard box that should be penalty and sending off did not even get a notice from the ref with Demba's nose broken.
These officiating should show consistency.

Now let us get answers to these questions

1. If a goalie brings down an attacker is it red or yellow or no card?
2. If a last defender does it? what if it is inside or outside the 18?
3. How abt the ball hitting the hand in 18 yard box? Is it a penalty for big clubs but "ball to hand" when the club is a small club againsst a big club? Should we not just remove the pressure from the referee and say "if your hand touches the ball in the 18 yard box, it is a penalty. Is it neccessary to leave it to inconsistent interpretations.

Above all, football cannot continue to be antediluvian and anti technology.

4. WTF is goaline technology? Is it not technology still?  should we not get a camera like Tennis whose balls are smaller and faster yet no freaking goalline technology?
5.  Why are other top sports  using it?

6 . Instead of consulting an asst ref (linesman) who may be even farther away, cannot we simply use that consultation time to press replay on a TV/wristwatch ( alittle screen on his hand like a watch) and make a correct decision?

7. If people feel hard done by goals that are wrongly chopped off or allowed, does offside goals not annoy as much?
8.Are wrongful penalties given or denied not painful?

9.With how match-changing a red card can be, does the referee not deserve a little more help in making up his mind than a man way away called an assistant referee whose mind might have wondered to his pregnant wife?
10. What really is the difference between a ball that crosses the line yet not given as a goal and a striker that is onside and same goal gets chalked off?



THE CRUX.

I am one of those who believe that FIFA and UEFA have ulterior motives for not allowing camera technology...after all, their reputation is not squeaky clean. Even Jao havelange is now implicated in a deluge of scandals.
Let us face it, why accept "goal line technology" but not any other technology?

Let FIFA/UEFA come out and tell us straight-away that they are only interested in perpetrating the big clubs as the big clubs. The whole Financial Fairplay  is just big clubs annoyed at the way small clubs can now compete. A very wealthy man or conglomerate can turn a small midtable club to Champions of Europe....or so they fear.

The truth is with all of Chelsea and Man City's money, it has only just managed to compete with the Man Utds and not as if they now dominate in any way. They prefer the domination right?

When Milan was buying all Ajax players and benching them  just to ruin Ajax as an opponent, no one remembered financial fairplay. When Real sold their training stadium just to finance Zidanne's move, there was no financial fairplay talk. With the Uniteds and Liverpools and Madrids and Barcelona's wallowing in debt, it is Chelsea and Man City finances that they worry about when they did not worry about Bellusconi's or Moratti's. Even when obviously the Man City and Chelsea bosses are so emotionally invested in these clubs and almost are limitlessly wealthy and  nobody buys a club that he is known for and then let it go to waste. Yet it is these financially deep-pocket clubs they come after...and with officiating as well. From Luis Garcia's phantom goal for Liverpool, to Ovrebo's denial of four penalties, to Chelsea always getting a red card against Barca and for the flimsiest of reasons....home and away etc.


Yes I am saying it, FIFA/UEFA DO NOT WANT CAMERA REPLAYS IN REFEREE DECISION-MAKING BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH MERE EXTENSIONS OF THE BIG CLUBS  and or WANT THE CLUBS WITH THE MOST FANS TO STAY LONGEST IN, AND WIN COMPETITIONS. It  is a utilitarian philosophical leaning of "happiness for the greatest number" and of course good business for their biggest spending sponsors. A team sponsored by Converse cannot beat one sponsored by Nike or Adidas.

Now for those who do not understand why English clubs suffer in FIFA, know today that England is viewed as uppity....from their refusal to use the Euros and all the anti British Empire sentiments. Add that to the fact the whole of England were banned from Europe for  quite a few years allowing the other countries to sink their hands of influence deeper. And also there is deep hatred for the English press. The clearest proof of anti English sentiments on the part of UEFA is Platinis statement that England should not be allowed to produce the finalists (something akin to it) and also the fact that a Qatar that has never featured in a world cup or important regional competition, that do not have a real stadium built yet,whose weather is forcing FIFA to break a time-tested tradition of summer world cups etc beating England...and England that can host the world tomorrow morning, if you called tonight....Qatar beat them in a landslide.
Call this a conspiracy theory but i will need FIFA/UEFA to  come up with a better excuse than the idiotic "we want the human factor feel". It makes no sense. So when a referee looks in a camera it is not human factor? There will still be no human decision made? So all decisions will be done with a camera? Or maybe we will be having a robot with the whistle? So by human factor, it means big clubs getting all the benefit of the doubt?
Seriously, remove all the decisions given the Ashley Young's and Rooney's and Lampard's and Terry's and Van Persie's and Suarez's and Gerrard's, are you certain the points tally will not be affected drastically? Go and find out how the Everton's and Tottenhams and Aston Villas drop out of contention year in year out...the small decisions.  Tottenham vs Chelsea....The Lampard none-goal, the kalou offside and it is 2-1 in favour of Chelsea and Tottenham loses 3 points and confidence and Chelsea gains 3 points and confidence. Even the greatest Man Utd supporter can look at the penalty caused by Carrick last season and ask if Carrick was not wearing a United jersey, if it would not be a penalty.

For those who doubt my claim that those with the name are supported in all sports, 1. what is wild card? 2. Why does the fastest get the 4th and 5th lanes? Also, why was Michael Schumacher always in front in Formular 1? Yet the other sports give smaller teams/athletes a chance at that prime position which does not happen in soccer/football.

Yes FIFA/UEFA are against small clubs/countries. Ask yourself,, if it is indeed the CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, why are FA Cup winners not automatically allowed to participate in it?  Are they not CHAMPIONS? Is the English FA Cup and Copa Del Rey not big enough for the Champions to go to the Champions league?

Ferguson says he opposes FA CUP CHAMPIONS from participating in Champions league because the matches to the trophy are too few compared to League. The truth is, yes, it is because Ferguson can afford to have a Chicarito and Welbeck and sometimes a Wayne Rooney on his bench with his huge finances but a Portsmouth has to use its Baros for those seven games and if he is injured or tires over 38 matches, there will be no one else so they plummet in the League but on Face-me-I-face-you, 11 vs 11, anything can happen.
Watch the beginning of leagues, small clubs run to the top but their main men tire out and the referees decision goes against them and they go down the table. Imagine if Portsmouth had the Champions league money for the two years they won the FA Cup  and tell me if they will not be doing good today and tell me why who comes fourth and who is laughed at as Trophyless, gets to play in the Champions league and not the FA winners

I say make it a level playing field. As for financial fairplay, if they are afraid of the billionaire clubs going bankrupt, then let FIFA/UEFA set up an insurance company and your premiums should reflect your salary and or expenditure. It is what insurance is for, to cover losses to income or disaster. Or maybe they should get them to set aside a huge amount of money in a fund to cover losses.
Stopping very wealthy people from spending their own money to bring happiness to fans who were hitherto used to losing, is just wrong. We cannot have only seven countries revolve the world cup around them and also have less than ten clubs revolve the Champions league between them. It is unfair and an insult to all other fans.
Man Utd just suffered what they usually enjoy...a preference for a more popular or trophied club by the referee


And while we are at this high foot topic, would bicycle kicks qualify as "dangerous play"? Is the foot not up? Or the day a Congolese does it in a world cup then he can get a red card against Germany?