The Great Debate: Chelsea Vs Barca: Did The Ref Actually Get It Right?

(Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images)

Wednesday night's Champions League semifinal between Chelsea and Barcelona has got the whole footballing world talking.

It was one of the most dramatic and controversial matches of recent times, and the man at the centre of all the attention has been the referee, Tom Ovrebo.

The Norwegian has had to go into hiding after receiving death threats regarding his performance in that match, in which he denied Chelsea four penalties, ultimately leading to Andres Iniesta being able to get a late winner for Barcelona.

His decisions were so strange that there was talk of a conspiracy theory.

Some people thought that UEFA didn't want another all-English final, and so tried to fix the match, or at least the referee, so Barcelona went through.

For me, this theory doesn't really work.

Yes, his decisions were erratic, but they didn't all go Barcelona's way.

Had he been backing Barcelona to win, why did he give Eric Abidal a red card?

Surely, when 1-0 down to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, the referee would know that a sending off would seriously hinder Barcelona's chances, particularly as they hadn't had a shot on target up to that point.

So was there a conspiracy theory? Well, I heard rumours of UEFA not being happy with an all-English final last year, but I don't think there is any weight behind these claims.

What about the penalty decisions, then?

Chelsea had four main claims for a penalty during the match and it is very unlikely that the referee would wave them all away. As we all know, however, that is exactly what he did.

The first penalty shout came for Florent Malouda. The Chelsea winger was fouled outside the box, and then again inside the box. The referee, however, brought the free-kick back for the first offence, and gave a free-kick.

To me, this was very strange.

Surely the defender should have been penalised for the latest foul? All this showed was that the ref thought it was a foul, but didn't want to give a penalty.

However, when asked to analyse the referee's decisions, former referee Dermot Gallacher said that Ovrebo was right to award a free-kick, and not a penalty. I still don't agree, but if Gallacher says that, there must be a reason behind Ovrebo not pointing to the spot.

The second penalty claim came when Abidal hauled Didier Drogba down as the Ivorian striker was through on goal. Replays showed that Abidal did have hold of Drogba's shirt, but I don't think this was a penalty.

The force applied by Abidal was not enough to take Drogba down. I think his reputation as a diver may have preceded him on this occasion. Despite me thinking this wasn't a penalty, however, Dermot Gallacher said it should have been.

The third penalty claim was the clearest by quite a way. Nicolas Anelka tried to flick the ball round Gerard Pique, but it obviously hit the Barcelona defender's arm. How this penalty wasn't given, I'll never know.

Even if the referee wasn't in a good position, his linesman should have had a clear view of it, and should have awarded the penalty himself.

As for the fourth appeal, I think this one would have been very harsh to give. Michael Ballack's volley did strike the arm of Samuel Eto'o, but Eto'o had his back to Ballack at the time.

Out of the four claims, I think there were two good shouts—the Malouda and Pique ones.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?