[Translated with Google Translate]
After the first assault in England, the British media criticized the press from Barcelona for accusing the referee to decide the match (although there is more than convincing evidence). These media were claiming that the Barcelona press had to admit that Arsenal had deserved to win the game.
It's funny now how the same media claim that the Arsenal was robbed in Barcelona. The most significant is that no one denies that according the rules if the player continues playing, after the referee's whistle, is worthy of a yellow card. The arguments to defend the theory of the "Persicution" suffered by Arsenal (according to The Sun) are surreal; "showing him a second yellow for shooting at goal just ONE second after the match official blew for offside." (sic) or the excuse given by Van Persie himself: he had not heard the whistle. That is, the argument of those who accuse the referee of robbing the Arsenal, is not that the card was not according the rules, but "that the referee could have forgiven the player" (strange argument for a defense, right?).
The key question is that according to the rules of this action is penalized with a yellow card. The only reason is to avoid the players loosing time. And no one can deny that Arsenal lost a lot of time. In fact, the added time of all the match was nine minutes! (5+4 minutes). Yet another factor, if Van Persie had been a model of fair play perhaps the referee wouldn't have shown his second yellow, but the Dutch had done exactly the opposite: during the first part had already merited the "orange" card with his participation in the brawl and the following push on Alves. In fact, we recalled the worst World Cup Van Persie.
The British press also forget about the ignored penalty over Messi. This "small" detail does not seem important, although it would have meant the end of the first half with 2-0.
They neglect the strictly sporting of merits. Even before the expulsion, the ball was at 75% to 25% for Barcelona. Also, Arsenal had not done anything during the game, aside from defending. They were fortunate that, at their only arrival on Barcelona's area, a player of Barcelona (Busquets) scored the goal.
Arsenal went to Barcelona to play catenaccio. But if it is sad to fail with your own ideas, to fail with those of others is pathetic. Arsenal held out his version of catenaccio for forty minutes, but eventually, collapsed. They tried to imitate the Inter Milan and failed, which was fairly predictable. Did they really expect to survive in the Nou Camp playing as an Italian team?
It's funny now how the same media claim that the Arsenal was robbed in Barcelona. The most significant is that no one denies that according the rules if the player continues playing, after the referee's whistle, is worthy of a yellow card. The arguments to defend the theory of the "Persicution" suffered by Arsenal (according to The Sun) are surreal; "showing him a second yellow for shooting at goal just ONE second after the match official blew for offside." (sic) or the excuse given by Van Persie himself: he had not heard the whistle. That is, the argument of those who accuse the referee of robbing the Arsenal, is not that the card was not according the rules, but "that the referee could have forgiven the player" (strange argument for a defense, right?).
The key question is that according to the rules of this action is penalized with a yellow card. The only reason is to avoid the players loosing time. And no one can deny that Arsenal lost a lot of time. In fact, the added time of all the match was nine minutes! (5+4 minutes). Yet another factor, if Van Persie had been a model of fair play perhaps the referee wouldn't have shown his second yellow, but the Dutch had done exactly the opposite: during the first part had already merited the "orange" card with his participation in the brawl and the following push on Alves. In fact, we recalled the worst World Cup Van Persie.
The British press also forget about the ignored penalty over Messi. This "small" detail does not seem important, although it would have meant the end of the first half with 2-0.
They neglect the strictly sporting of merits. Even before the expulsion, the ball was at 75% to 25% for Barcelona. Also, Arsenal had not done anything during the game, aside from defending. They were fortunate that, at their only arrival on Barcelona's area, a player of Barcelona (Busquets) scored the goal.
Arsenal went to Barcelona to play catenaccio. But if it is sad to fail with your own ideas, to fail with those of others is pathetic. Arsenal held out his version of catenaccio for forty minutes, but eventually, collapsed. They tried to imitate the Inter Milan and failed, which was fairly predictable. Did they really expect to survive in the Nou Camp playing as an Italian team?
