Chelsea 1 - 1 Barcelona

As a Chelsea fan i'm writing this in the aftermath of being one minute away from another Champions League final. as always i will try to be fair and objective and analyse the incidents and talking points of the game as I saw it.

Obviously the main talking point was the non-penalty calls from the referee. Listening to radio and sky phone-ins there are a lot of bitter Chelsea fans suggesting conspiracy theories from Michel Platini and UEFA. This is not a theory I subscribe to, I do not think there were any directies or clandestine plots to deny Chelsea a place in the final.

The referee simply got a number of close penalty calls wrong. His whole display was poor, and even his call to dismiss Eric Abidal was incorrect. Firstly, the Malouda penalty was in the box, the referee's positioning was perfect, but he did not have the courage to call what was a foul, a penalty. This decision is indicative of a culture amongst referee's to grant soft fouls outside of the box. Time and again we see fouls given for minimal contact in non-influential areas, but similar incidents are rarely given when it really matters. One has to wonder whether if that call needed to be made at the Nou Camp, in front of the Kop or the Stretford End the referee would have backed down from giving a penalty?

Abidal's foul on Drogba, and the Eto'o handball in the last minute were both 50-50, it was just unfortunate that both were given in Barca's favour, the Pique handball doesn't even need to be discussed.

It begs the question where UEFA get these officials from, and also, what role the 'assistant referee' plays in these matches? The assistant referee, or linesman as I still like to refer to them as, are still there to be seen and not heard. UEFA has still to grant these blokes with flags the autonomy to make decisions on behalf of the referee. Similarly, the assistant referee was conspicuously mute during the Arsenal-Man Utd game when Darren Fletcher was sent off. Replays show the lino was in a much better position to see the incident than the referee, yet did nothing. If he saw Fletcher touch the ball, why not act? if he didn't see the tackle, why do we have officials of this quality running the line?

There was a foul given prior to Fletcher's sending off where eboue mis-kicked the ball some five yards in front of the linesman, yet he did not flag for a foul. The referee blew for a foul, and immediately the linesman started waving his flag like he was stranded out at sea. Where's the assistance in that? They are either assistant referee's or linesman. It's ok glamourising their title, but can we have some clarification of their duties please?

Whilst we are on the topic of refereeing officialdom, it will be interesting to hear UEFA's justification on not rebuking Fletcher and Abidal's red cards. It reduces the responsibility of referee's to admit their mistakes when they can be protected by the kangaroo court of UEFA's disciplinary committee. We all accept that referee's make mistakes, but why is their incompetence given carte blanche from being held to scrutiny? UEFA's remit is to promote good, ethical football. It's brand revolves around fairness, and Europe to unite around the sport and to enjoy the spectacle it produces.

So why then are UEFA allowing two innocent players to miss out on what is arguably the biggest game of their lives? For years these players have shown exemplary dedication and professionalism to rise to the heights of being involved in the biggest club game on the planet, yet their participation has been ended not only by mistakes of individuals clearly not at the top of their profession, but also by a ludicrous judicial system which exemplifies these people from blame.

What is more confusing is that this organisation is ran by a true footballing personality. Prior to Platini, UEFA and its various associations have been ran by businessmen, capitalists, with little understanding outside of the commercial and financial aspects of the sport. How would Platini have reacted to missing a European final in such circumstances? Badly, most probably, so why does he not amend the disciplinary procedures accordingly?

At least he is likely to exercise some of this disciplinary might in the direction of Didier Drogba, for, as far as i can see, swearing at a tv camera. Richard Keys and the Sky panel were quick to lambast Drogba for swearing. If Sky do not want such language blasted over it's airwaves, why do they insist on getting a camera man to trail a group of emotionally charged, embittered footballers around when they are obviously so angry and preturbed at whats gone on before them? There was always the danger of the odd expletive being thrown in, as there is when a goal is scored, or in any other situation when there's the chance of some industrial language being thrown in? What Drogba did wasn't right, but it wasn't wrong. Swearing isn't an offence, and if UEFA decided to incriminate players on the back of a lip-reading expert then most players would rarely play two games in a row.

For Keys to apologise time and again for Drogba's vocab is weak, and shows how much power Sky hold over our game. If swearing infringes Sky's family entertainment policy, they shouldn't have these voyeuristic cameramen trailing players, who are likely to lob in the odd swearword, or at least have the sense to switch the sound off.

Interestingly, there is a programme on Sky Sports called 'Time of our lives' a show hosted by Jeff Stelling, who quizzes members of a team from the past about their memories and experiences, now this show is usually broadcast at 10pm, about 10 minutes after Drogba's little outburst. Watch this show, and you will find a group of old pro's loafing on a sofa, engaging in jovial banter, reminiscing about the good old days, and, quite regularly saying disgusting words like 'pissed', 'arse', 'fuck', 'shit' and other such blue-blooded murders of the english tongue. There is no warning about the nature of the language in the pre-amble to the show, so theoretically a kid could tune in to hear about footballing days of yore, to have his ears lascerated by hearing 'shit' or 'arse' - words the innocent little blighter is unlikely to have ever heard before at home, at school, in public or on television. Expect Sky and the media in general to get unnecessarily hyperbolic of the issue in the coming days/weeks/years/millenia.

Recriminations surely by Drogba, and for Chelsea's general behaviour at the final whistle, which I cannot condone, but the punishment from UEFA will be very interesting. April 20, 2009. Juventus v Inter. Mario Balotelli racially by Juventus fans. Juve were forced to play one game behind closed doors, a sentence later overturned. UEFA took no action.

June 20th 2008 – Croatia 1-1 Turkey – Croatian fans displayed Nazi style banners and were singing Nazi marching songs during the European Championship Quarter Final which Turkey won. UEFA fined the Croatian FA £9875.

17th June 2007 - England U21 2-0 Serbia U21 – Serbian supporters were asked to ’stop racist chanting or leave the stadium’ during the U21s’ victory in Serbia. Despite this then they continued and UEFA launched an investigation costing the Serbian FA £16500 in fines.

Given that racial abuse warrants action somewhere between nothing, and a 16 grand fine, what will UEFA decide is a suitable reprimand for bollocking a bad referee? Knowing UEFA, i really wouldn't want to guess.

Back to football, and overall Chelsea can feel hard done by in losing the tie. Barcelona are a better team, play better football, and are likely to produce a better final for neutrals. But this is not a beauty contest, and despite all of the superlatives levelled at Barca this year, they are only through to the final due to an incompetent referee. For all of Barca's intentions to play beautiful, attacking football, their only goal over 180 minutes of play came from an over-hit cross, mis-control from their striker, and mis-kicked clearance and a shot from the edge of the box. Not that beautiful.

Chelsea showed that English sides won't roll over and have their bellies tickled like the Spanish sides who regularly buckle to Barca. Manchester United will play with a similar physical element, they will be tactically disciplined, organised, but most crucially they have an incisiveness and an attacking threat that Chelsea lack, and that will be the difference in Rome.