Taylor Swift

I actually reckon we'd have a better final if it was Real vs Man Utd because both teams would play to score. If Barca go through then whoever they play will defend as deep and as much as Real did last night, and look to try to score on the counter. Man Utd already have a history of doing this ('08 semis and '09 final) so it wouldn't be the best game for the neutrals. If I'm Mourinho I'd certainly be a lot more confident about the semis because that was certainly reminiscent of Inter v Barca last year. It's going to be very tight.

Yup It's about context, which is why singling out appeals for cards is wrong. It's the same as appealing for offsides, free-kicks, corners, penalties, whatever really; the difference is in degrees, like I've said. The way to solve the problems that are caused by frivolous appeals - whether they are appeals for cards, corners, penalties, free-kicks etc. - have to be figured out, but outlawing all appeals - whether they are legitimate and with merit or not - is certainly not the best way to handle a complex problem.

Yup. Real should take a lot of heart from being able to cause the Barca defence a lot of problems and more importantly, limiting the number of clear chances that Barca created. IIRC, Barca didn't have one chance where you would say that they should have scored. They scored from a penalty but otherwise didn't have any clear cut chances whereas Real actually had a few good chances to score. Mourinho has Inter'd this Real team and they look very ready for the next three Clasicos. Mourinho has already mentioned how it's all right to draw 0-0 at home in the CL in the first leg (he said this against Spurs but it applies even more against Barca) then try to score an away goal in the second leg. I think that's exactly how he'll set up the Real side - much like he did today. They'll plan for the 0-0 at home, defend very deep - 11 men in their half, like last night - and hope to score a counter-attacking goal. If they do, they're in full control. If they don't, try again in the second leg, where a goal probably dooms Barca. The way Real defended last night made it very difficult for Barca to create chances. That'll be different in the Mestalla this Wednesday because it's a one and done cup final, and in the Camp Nou in the second leg, but Madrid should be a lot more confident after drawing last night's match. Barca weren't really going for it last night so it'll be interesting to see whether they're more expansive in the other three Clasicos because a goal in the Bernabeu in the first leg would completely change the face of the tie.

not by a player, no. or should players have the right to tell the ref what they think of every decision ? It was potentially a leg breaking/career ending tackle, and with the game being played at such a fast pace and in such an intense atmosphere, I personally think it would be unfair to suggest that players should not react by asking for the ultimate penalty to be paid. why doesn't it happen in other sports ? why do those partaking leave it to the ref and if he gets it wrong then thats the game ? With the exception of rugby, there isn't a sport in the world that the people who play the game leave the referee to decide everything. Tennis, for one, has an appeal system that was only instituted to correct 'wrong' calls that the umpire and line judges make because they wanted to make sure that tennis players won points that they deserved. So now there isn't much appealing to the umpire, they go through the video review process which is much more objective and thus produces a much better outcome. In basketball players appeal all the time, some appeal and complain too much that they get called with technical fouls (they're only allowed two per game - so it's sort of like being given a yellow), but they appeal almost every foul that the refs call. That's because the standard of refereeing is very low and a lot of phantom fouls are given, but players appealing are just a reflection of the standard of refereeing. Basketballers certainly don't let the refs decide then get on with the game. And actually, referees can issue retrospective technical fouls during halfs or after games if they feel it is merited as well. That is certainly a route that football should explore. Baseball is a sport in which there are official ways to appeal, like asking an umpire situated elsewhere to confirm whether you've swung the bat or not, but currently the baseball authorities are planning to implement more video review to eliminate umpire mistakes which have changed the course of many important playoff games over the past years. The NFL has a similar video review option that negates the need to appeal for things, and they have a post-match review process that is very thorough, and this again negates the need to appeal. Again, football can explore this route and at the same time outlaw all appeals. That is certainly something that I believe many people would be for, but the situation we have right now are authorities who don't realise how refereeing mistakes can actually ruin the game and the authorities insist on not instituting video technology to assist referees precisely because they believe it would ruin the game. That means it's necessary for players to appeal for things that they feel they deserve, and I certainly don't see what's so wrong about that. Like I've said before, appealing for yellows and appealing for free-kicks have differences in degrees; they're on the same spectrum. Wherever you draw the line is completely arbitrary and whatever argument you make to defend your position will be invalid. The problem comes from players appealing for yellows for the sake of them benefitting from the yellow, even if the yellow isn't deserved. I'm not sure how we deal with that problem but to outlaw all appeals for yellow cards seems to be like punishing the innocent to make sure that everyone's who guilty is punished as well. I don't think that's the way that football should go.

for a free kick you get the decision which directly affects the passage of play where as a booking doesn't. also calling for a foul is a lot more instinctive than waving an imaginary card. Calling for a booking is quite instinctive too. If you've just been tackled harshly you instinctively think 'that's a yellow', much the same way a fan says 'that's a penalty', 'that's a red', 'that's a yellow'. Fans are a good gauge of what's instinctive and calling for reds and yellows are very instinctive. I'm also not sure why a booking doesn't affect the passage of play. A booking forces the player to change his game, to be more cautious in marking and in tackling, and thus offers the attackers more opportunity to attack, so of course it affects the passage of play. And for the people who say that the ref would show a card if a yellow is merited then there isn't really any harm to the player appealing for it then, since his appeal would not cause the referee to change his decision. If you really believe that refs give a yellow for a every tackle that deserves a yellow then it shouldn't matter what the players do at all because their actions can't influence the referee's decisions. That's obviously wrong, as we've seen many times. Refs fuck up constantly and many incidents which merit a harsher punishment than a free-kick aren't punished as they should be. That means that if you want the outcome of games to be reflect the events in the match, then players should definitely appeal for yellows if they feel that it is right. Imagine a player persistently fouling when on a yellow and the referee just not realising it because of other factors (dealing with other shit, pace of the game too fast etc.), then this player - who should not be on the pitch - scoring the winner. I'd say the outcome of the match doesn't reflect the events in the game, and the win is not deserved. That's not what I want to see. Luck is another matter but it's something that no player or team can control. However, yellow and red cards not being given as such are clearly things that the referee decides. I want to see penalties being called penalties, reds and yellows given out for red and yellow-card offences and if it means that a player has to appeal for this to happen, so be it as long as the outcome reflects the events in the game. How many times have you seen a player score and instinctively say 'he shouldn't be on the pitch'. How many times has Rooney - this season - escaped being sent off only to contribute to Man Utd scoring a goal? And this is only one player playing for one team. Shit like this happens every weekend and teams gets points that they don't deserve every weekend. That's the nature of the game now and the myth that it all evens out in a season is exactly that: a myth.

Explain.

If they're both on merit then there's no difference. Tell me why you think it is different. I think you actually agree that both are on the same spectrum. I think some people just take the fact that many appeals for yellow cards are appeals for the sake of appealing and have thus concluded that all appeals of this sort are without merit, but obviously that's not the most reasonable thing to do.

Clear pen.

Flash makes a great point about offsides. It's the same thing.

What about the handball that Messi just called a yellow card for? If you think that's a yellow then there's nothing wrong with Messi appealing for a yellow then, right? Generally, then, it depends on the context, which is what I've said all along. If an appeal has merit, like if the last man fouls a striker but isn't sent off and the striker appeals for the sending off, there isn't anything wrong with that IMO.

It's not gamesmanship to ask for a player to be deservedly booked. Not every appeal is an appeal for the sake of appealing. Some appeals have real merit and should be viewed as something which isn't wrong. And fans have nothing to do with it yet every fan appeals for everything in every match. What's the difference between a fan and a player appealing for something? They are only appealing for what they think and feel is right.

It's the referee's decision to give a foul too. Going by your logic, players shouldn't ever appeal for anything since they don't make the decisions.

But gimp, if the player has used up one of his tackling chances by scything you down then why would you want that player to have two morew chances? Surely it's right that he only gets one more chance since he just fucked you up, no?

If someone beats you up should you only be concerned with the fact that they are caught, or also concerned with whether the punishment is in proportion to the crime? I think everyone would agree that the punishment is very important and that's why victims ask for damages etc. I know it's a completely different realm but the concepts are still the same. You appeal for what you think is right. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you are fouled harshly then I'm pretty sure it's your business for the player who fouled you to get a yellow card. It is simply what is right, what is just (if such a concept can ever exist in football). If someone kicks you then you should appeal for them to get a yellow because it is justice if they do.

What's the difference between a commentator saying 'that's a yellow' and the player who was just fouled saying it? And if it's all right to say it, why isn't it all right to wave an imaginary card?

It's your business if your team wins, no? Should fans appeal for anything, then? It ain't their business when a player gets fouled.

71%, man.

Is it in the spirit of the game to ask for a foul, then? No one has given an adequate explanation of why the two should be treated differently.

49th this season. Fuck you Mourinho.

Come on then gimp, explain why it's bollocks.

Lenny If a player deserves a card then why not appeal for it. If he gets sent off then you benefit and if it's deserved then you have rightly benefitted. There should be no issue with appealing for cards at all, if you feel the players are honest in doing so. I suppose the problem is when players appeal for the sake of appealing or when they appeal for something that you know they know is not deserved.

For the people who are saying that it's ok to appeal for a foul, please explain the difference to me. And is it alright to appeal verbally for a card? IMO all of this is just shit on the same spectrum. Wherever you draw the line is arbitrary. My perspective is simply that you should honestly and genuinely appeal for what you think is right, whether that's a free kick, corner, penalty, yellow card or whatever. It's all the same. If you feel you deserve it then appeal for it because referees aren't good enough to spot everything that they should.

I dont know when or where or who started this meme about appealing for yellows being wrong. It certainly wasn't anything important 5-10 years ago. And I'm sure players appeal for cards all the time, only some wave the imaginary card which gets all the commentators talking. It's the same shit. I regularly hear commentators saying 'that's a yellow'. If they can say it, why can't the players? If the players can say it, why can't a few wave an imaginary card instead of saying it?

Busquets is a diving cunt, there's no doubt about it.