Match 19 - Willoughby Old Boys vs Cripps Old Boys

I thought it was all over, but it wasn’t! Having proclaimed last Wednesday to be my last match, I subsequently got invited to referee another game today – between the Old Boys teams from Willoughby and Cripps.

There were plenty of players I recognised in both teams. With Luke on one line and a Willoughby substitute on the other, we kicked off. Within a minute, it was kick off time again, as Cripps rushed into an early lead. They added a second in the 33^rd minute – defenders claimed that the ball had gone out of play but the Willoughby linesman (to his credit) told me that it was definitely a goal. Anyway, the 2-0 score at the end of the 40-minute half really didn’t reflect the fact that the game had been quite even, with both teams having their share of possession and chances. As always, I kept out of the way where I could, and played one particularly good advantage for which I got praise as we left the field at half time.

With the score at 2-0, the next goal would likely prove crucial to which way the game swung. In the end, somewhat disappointingly, Cripps got it in the 45^th minute – they did take their chances better overall. Willoughby pulled one back five minutes later, but Cripps secured a 4-1 victory when they added a fourth in the 73^rd minute.

Talking points for me were relatively few; a couple of times I didn’t know which way the decision should go and Luke was quick to notice my uncertainty! I seemed to manage to get in the way of play a couple of times, notably when a Willoughby player’s shot deflected off my head and out of play for a goal kick (they claimed a corner, of course!). I let things go which I perhaps could have pulled up, but the players just got on with it for the most part. Cripps players do like to engage in a bit of backchat now and again, but I just played along. Luke was determined that I should send someone off in my final game but, as usual, I didn’t show a single yellow card. There were a couple of occasions on which I might have done so, but I let them pass.

Knowing that this would likely be my final game of my three years, I gave a suitably dramatic final whistle, only for the arriving Hugh Stewart Old Boys team to invite us to referee again. I offered Luke the opportunity to do the game, and he accepted when he found out that they only had the pitch for an hour. In the end, their game against Cripps Freshers was something of a non-event, as we played only 40 minutes with a short break in the middle. Hugh Stu ran out comfortable 5-0 winners – the quickest thrashing I have witnessed in my time here! I ran one of the lines (we only had one linesman) and gave a few offsides and a foul, but there was nothing controversial to worry about for either of us.

As I write now, I am rather tired once again, having struggled through two games, the first in searing heat, which didn’t make it easy for anyone. Still, for someone as well built as I am I still seem to fare rather better than some of the noticeably slimmer players (not that there was anyone fatter than me out there!); I have to mention Caesari, who started whinging about being tired about 10 minutes into the 80!

Altogether, I think I’m now finished! The chances of getting any more games in the last few days of term are fairly small, although I suppose you never know. The game this afternoon was a nice way to go out though, particularly with some of the Cripps players with whom my time refereeing has been inextricably linked. Assuming that is the case, my next note will be my end of season review, detailing all the games I’ve been involved in this year, and then I will pen a review of my three years, picking out some of the highlights, lowlights, and the bizarre and amusing moments. As someone once said - they think it’s all over…it (almost) is now!

Matches 17 & 18 - The Jubilee Cup and the Geography battle

My busy week of football continued with two matches this afternoon! The second I had known about for several weeks but the first was thrust upon me only some 24 hours before. In this piece, I shall describe both, and they were somewhat different.

The first was the 'Jubilee Cup' game between Newark Hall and Southwell Hall. Like any neighbouring halls, they share something of a rivalry and this week a whole range of sporting events were taking place between them to contest the Jubilee Cup, with this afternoon's football match being one of them. The game also pitted the winners of the IMS Cup against the winners of the Plate, so both teams must surely have had good seasons.

Of course, that's not to say it would be an easy afternoon for me. Local derbies can be volatile, so I figured I might need my wits about me. Early on, things started pretty well though - some nice easy fouls and nothing controversial. The main moment of controversy came about 20 minutes in - with a pivotal decision. As a Southwell forward was heading into the area his shirt appeared to be pulled and he went down. He was bearing down on goal, so any foul should really lead to a sending off in that situation. I had to make an instant judgement, and went for the grass-cutter to wave the claim away. Why? Well, its a decision you see given sometimes, but equally you often don't. I went with my gut reaction - it certainly wasn't a stonewall penalty. Had it been on TV, some pundits would have lambasted me for not giving it - others would have been equally critical if I had. I don't think I could really win either way. The benefit of the doubt went to the defence, and I am happy with the decision. Southwell weren't though, and when I refused them a free kick on the edge of their own area some minutes later, after which Newark then hit the post, they weren't impressed. Newark did take the lead in the 32nd minute, and thats how it stayed at half-time.

The second half saw the game open up more, and as the half got going I sensed my interventions were being needed less and I was able to start playing advantage more. Newark went through a period midway through the half where they thought I wasn't giving them anything too, so I clearly wasn't being biased! In the end, they proved too strong for Southwell, adding a second in the 72nd minute with a looping header and then two further goals in the last five minutes to add a gloss to the scoreline which didn't really reflect a competitive game between two fairly well-matched teams. The difference was perhaps that Newark created more chances - the Newark keeper didn't really have a difficult save to make and, although Southwell hit the post in the second half, that was about it. The better team won.

The game could have been more difficult for me than it was. Opinion will be divided on the penalty claim - I'm happy with how I saw it - but putting that to one side I think that otherwise I did well. I probably got a few of the basic decisions wrong at times (there seemed a period in the second half where I made a few bizarre calls perhaps) but I kept the game under control without showing a card. I let the tackles come in, I let the players be physical and didn't make it stop-start, trying to keep it flowing, particularly in the second half where the game opened up more. You often sense how games change in mood when you referee them, and I sensed as the game wore on that I could take more chances and let things go a little more. Altogether, a good afternoon's work.

I then had just under an hour to relax before my next game. This one was between the Geography Society (students) and Geography lecturers. I gathered that this game is an annual fixture, and indeed the lecturers were resplendent in their own sky blue kit! They had some younger players (perhaps PhD students) but some of them were getting on, and so they were allowed to play with 12 men and the game was restricted to two 30-minute halves.

I wondered if I would run out of space for all the goals on my sheet, but it wasn't like that at all. Having had a debatable penalty decision in my first game, I then had an obvious one in this game as a GeogSoc forward was unceremoniously tripped by a defender in the area. The penalty was scored. However, the lecturers went almost straight up the other end and equalised! 1-1, and it was something of a surprise. The game was a far more relaxed affair than the previous one, with less tension, although some of the tackles weren't particularly well-timed. When another lecturer tripped a GeogSoc forward in the area before half time, I had no choice but to point to the spot again! This time, however, the penalty was hit against the post. 1-1 at half time then.

Into the second half, and the students gradually began to control the game. They went ahead thanks to a beautifully headed own goal in the 35th minute, added a third in the 47th (despite claims of offside - as I had no linesman I gave the goal even though the claims were probably justified), and later added another two. I then ruled out a goal for offside at the end, although apparently the ball came off a defender this time - although the forward was definitely in an offside position! It just shows how difficult it is to spot these things when you have no assistants - with so many players and so many things to watch you can't have you're eyes in that many places at once. The only other incident of note was a bad tackle by a lecturer who came right through poor Jamie. I should have booked him for it - perhaps I was sympathetic somehow to the 'age thing', but I gave him a yellow when he committed another foul later on - to the joy of both the students and his colleagues on the touchline!

In the end, the socreline of 5-1 to GeogSoc appears comfortable but it doesn't really tell the whole story. The better team clearly won, but it was closer than that for a long while - as the game wore on, tiredness got to the lecturers and they made more mistakes. The game was great fun to referee, and the lecturers claimed for the most ludicrous decisions at times! In the end, despite having been worried about potential problems in my earlier game, the only yellow card came in the second encounter!

And that may well be that. I don't now have any more matches left at this stage - whether I'll receive any more invitations over the course of the next week or so remains to be seen. But it could well be that I have now bowed out of refereeing football here at Nottingham. I won't get all emotional about that now though - I'll save that for my end-of-season review!

Match 16 - Willoughby First and Second Years

Today's match at least ensured I got out of bed early! A 10.30 kick-off for this one after the Uni team had asked Willoughby to move the time of their first v second years game as they had a tournament taking place during the afternoon.

The first years, who I had refereed a couple of times during the year, had always struck me as a very good footballing side. They dominated possession for the first minute or so, and then promptly conceded a goal after a mix-up between the keeper and defender. 1-0 to the second years then. The first years had the lion's share of possession in the first half, and most of the play seemed to be in the half they were attacking. It took until two minutes before the break for them to snatch an equaliser. The half was one of the easiest I've refereed - I think there were only about three fouls for me to give! Along, of course, with the customary bits of advantage play.

Into the second half, and the first years struck the first blow in the 49th minute. There were muted claims that there had been a foul in the build up - I hadn't had a very clear view and Luke running the line gave nothing - he reckoned the defender fell over by himself. The half was much more even, and as it wore on began to flow from end to end with both teams having opportunities. However, the first years perhaps had the better of the chances, and extended their lead in the 68th minute despite claims of offside - Luke kept his flag down. An own goal in the 77th minute added a fourth goal for them and things were pretty comfortable. The second years scored with the last kick of the game but by then it was academic, and the first years completed a fairly comfortable 4-2 win.

It was not a testing game to referee - the most argument seemed to be over my lenient interpretation of handballs. The players generally just got on with it, and I tried to keep play flowing where I could. Altogether, an enjoyable morning's work. The right team won as well I think - the first years played some excellent passing football (although I won't deny the contribution the second year's made to the game).

Match 15 - Cripps vs Rutland

Two freshers teams for me today, as Cripps had arranged a match against Rutland to take place just before exams began. I called a halt to my revision and headed down to University Park to referee it. I usually mention the weather in my reports - well in this game we had heavy downpours and bright sunshine all thrown in!

I thought Rutland had the better of the opening minutes, yet it was Cripps who took the lead. It came from the first free kick (some 9 minutes in) - the Cripps player took a shot, and the Rutland keeper parried it into the path of another Cripps player who had the simple task of scoring.

Rutland had a good side - in fact the two teams were pretty evenly matched. I tried to set a fairly low tolerance on fouls - getting all the late challenges but letting some of the more minor physical contact go. And of course I tried to keep the game flowing by playing advantage - as usual this worked better in some situations than in others. Cripps had a couple of penalty appeals but I turned them down.

We were limited to 40-minute halves, and the game continued apace after the turnaround. Rutland got their equaliser in the 54th minute, an audacious shot from the right hand edge of the penalty area - I'm not sure if it was intentional or not! The game passed without incident for the most part - of course I missed things and got things wrong, but not that influenced the outcome. I turned down virtually all the appeals for handball on the grounds that players were having the ball struck at them rather than deliberately handling it.

With a pretty frenetic 80 minutes coming to an end, and the scores level, there was, as ever, a decision to make. With no-one else coming to use the pitch, we settled on two ten-minute halves of extra-time, which were just as even and couldn't separate the teams. And so it was to penalties.

For the first six kicks, the two teams had an identical record. Rutland took first, and their first kick was saved, before the Cripps player blazed over. The next four each were all converted (some more easily than others!), taking us to sudden death. Rutland's player hit the bar with his kick, leaving Cripps with a great chance to secure the win, but the Rutland keeper managed to pull off the save. Rutland converted their seventh kick, and the keeper again came to their aid in saving the next Cripps kick, giving Rutland a 5-4 win on penalties.

Altogether, I enjoyed the match as ever, a pretty even encounter between two well-matched teams. I tried to let the game flow while clamping down on the worst of the challenges - and there were a few late tackles. However, the players were all quite happy with my handling of the game - I think they were happy just to have a referee! I was also amused by the Rutland player who was clearly more used to playing rugby - he is the first player in three years to have called me 'sir'! The game was a nice break from revision, and I'm sure there will be a couple more games to follow after exams.

Match 14 - Law Society vs Baker and McKenzie

The games are coming thick and fast for me at the moment. My next task was to referee a Friday night friendly encounter between Law Society and the Law firm Baker and McKenzie. LawSoc have several players with whom I am familiar, notably a couple of Cripps stalwarts - its always nice to see some familiar faces when I take charge of a game. The day had been a mixed one weather wise, but the 3G pitch was bathed in sunshine as we kicked off early in the evening.

The start was frenetic, with everyone chasing the ball wherever it went! Both teams seemed to lack a formation as such! Now, I rarely manage to describe every goal in the games I referee, and this will be so much more true in this game - there were thirteen! I've just had a quick check back through my records as to the games with the most goals which I have previously refereed. I have twice refereed a game with 10 goals - Wednesday's game was one of them, as well as a game two years ago between Nightingale and Rutland in gale force winds! Today's thirteen beats that record comfortably. I did, however, run the line to Doug two years ago on a BUSA game between Nottingham seconds and De Montford seconds, which Nottingham won 10-5!

Anyway, to return to the record-breaking game. Baker took the lead 5 minutes in, largely thanks to their powerful but skilled forward who was clearly their best player. He reminded me of Dider Drogba, except without the diving and swearing at the TV camera. They held the lead for a good part of the half; we had a stoppage midway through the half as a Baker played was badly injured in a challenge, so both teams had a chance to regroup. Immediately afterwards, LawSoc equalised; two minutes later they took the lead, and in the 40th minute they made it 3-1 (which came from a throw-in which I had reversed due to a foul throw). And so it remained at half-time.

The start of the second half was most bizarre, as within seven minutes of the restart it had become 6-1. I must make mention of LawSoc sports sec Chris's effort, which caught everyone by surprise, beating the keeper and nestling in the net from a ridiculously narrow angle (I think it was the 4th goal). I had to think for a minute to make sure what I had seen had actually happened, but it was definitely a goal - fluke or otherwise! Baker made it 6-2 in the 58th minute, before the goals dried up for 14 minutes! They pulled another back to 6-3, before another quickfire set of three goals in six minutes brought LawSoc's lead to 9-3. One of the goals came when a LawSoc forward was almost certainly offside, but I had no linesman at that point and so had to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and allow the goal - it didn't exactly affect the result in any case!

Baker had a series of penalty claims in the second half. The first two came in quick succession - first the forward I mention earlier went down but I wasn't sure as to the contact among the tangle of legs so let play continue. Then another player went down rather dramatically, and I wasn't convinced either - it almost looked like a dive. I was more sure of waving this one away. The next was the most convincing - a handball claim. I am probably too soft on handballs, and doubtless other referees would have pointed to the spot. I wonder if I should have too. The defender's arm was out and it clearly struck him - I couldn't have been better positioned, but my instincts at the time suggested the ball was just hit at him. I was immediately likened to Tom Henning Ovrebo! In any case, Baker got their penalty in the 89th minute when Caesari comprehensively bundled over the Baker striker and this time I had no hesitation in pointing to the spot. I was finally convinced, and unlike Ovrebo I had given one of the four decisions! The penalty was scored by the same striker to complete the goalfest, and shortly afterwards I blew for time on a 9-4 win for LawSoc.

Altogether, a most satisfactory evening for me. The game wasn't particularly challenging, and I tried to keep play flowing by playing lots of advantages, and this was pretty successful. I ignored a few of the more minor offences at times, but it didn't matter and I got the major fouls right. That handball claim is perhaps an error - I went with my instinct at the time. The penalty at the end and one late tackle by Lee Battu were about the only significantly poor challenges, although I kept my cards in my pocket as always! The linesmen I had varied in their reliability, which didn't always help, and I was left without one at the crucial moment for the one LawSoc goal. I don't really think it matters though - the game was a bit of fun and I'm sure both teams enjoyed it. It certainly didn't lack goals or action!

My season is coming to an end now, although I'm hoping that there will still be a couple of matches left for me to referee after exams. My time at university is coming to an end too, and with it my refereeing. I'm really enjoying all the matches at the moment, so its good to be finishing on a high!

The Ovrebo Saga - Part 2

Unsurprisingly, the fallout from Wednesday night's encounter at Stamford Bridge has been considerable. I want to put pen to paper now, giving my honest view on some of the reaction to it all.

There seem to be various theories being banded about regarding Wednesday night's game. The first is that Ovrebo was the wrong choice to referee this game, or that he was too inexperienced. Wrong on both counts for me. The 42-year old psychologist from Oslo has been a FIFA referee for 15 years. England's most experienced International referee, Mike Riley, has been on the list for only 10 years. Ovrebo has racked up more experience than any of our English officials. He has been voted Norweigan referee of the year five times. He was refereed their Cup final twice. He has taken charge of over 20 Champions League encounters. Could he have been better prepared for Wednesday night? Not much. It was the first game he has refereed at such a late stage in the Champions League, but if he is ruled out because he hasn't done such a game before, then eventually we would run out of possible officials! Everyone has to be refereeing such a game for the first time at some point. From what I have seen, Ovrebo is a calm referee who doesn't make a fuss of things and gets on with the job. He has the imposing physical presence which should command respect. Altogether, a good choice for a match like this, as far as I'm concerned.

The next theory is that UEFA didn't want an all-English final again. That may be true, but did it translate to events on the pitch on Wednesday night? Of course not. If UEFA had told Ovrebo to make Barcelona win, then why would he have sent off Abidal when, even if he thought it was a foul, it could be argued that a yellow card would have sufficed? Frankly, whenever there is a suggestion that a referee has acted with any partiality during a game, I would be the first to dismiss it. As someone who referees, the idea that you should go out to referee with the aim of influencing the outcome of the match is just odd. There are probably officials who do that (as corruption cases in Italy and other places show) but for such officials to get to this level is inconceivable. There may be subconcious things which influence your decisions (such as a manager's comments pre-match) but they are exactly that - subconcious.

So, for me, Ovrebo was the right choice for this match, and his decisions are not the result of some UEFA instruction to ensure Barcelona made the final. Ovrebo simply had a bad game at a bad time. And with a bad team too - that team being Chelsea. The reaction of Chelsea players to things going against them has, time and again, been ridiculous.

And I think the blame lies with one man - a man who is currently celebrating winning Serie A. Until Jose Mourinho arrived at Chelsea, they as a team were no worse than any other in terms of their attitude to referees. Every team will have arguments, quarrels and give out criticisms - it happens at times - and Chelsea were no different. The likes of John Terry just got on with the game. Mourinho introduced a different culture - he made it acceptable for the Chelsea players to berate referees. He stirred things up in the press, before and after matches. He physically went mad during games. And the players at the time saw this, and followed the example of their coach. The likes of Terry, Drogba and Ballack changed their way of thinking. After Mourinho left, none of his successors (Grant, Scolari or Hiddink) have had such a mentality. But the culture change has stayed with the players, who still think Mourinho's behaviour to be acceptable. Now it is Hiddink's comments which are fairly moderate, while his players are ranting and raving to the press. If action had been taken while Mourinho was at Chelsea, action which made it quite evident that such behaviour is unacceptable, then maybe, just maybe, the events of Wednesday night would not have unfolded in the same way.

The Chelsea press machine has swung into action now, as they furiously attempt to restrain the criticism and turn their backs on some of the shameful events of Wednesday. UEFA are looking into what has happened - Drogba and Ballack will undoubtedly and deservedly receive some personal sanction (even if Drogba has since apologised), while comments by Bosingwa that Ovrebo was a 'thief' will demand some investigation too. John Terry's outspoken comments have apparently provoked investigations too.

And of course, with the players harranging the referee, certain other individuals (so called 'fans') take it upon themselves to do the same. That Ovrebo had to be smuggled out of the UK and is currently receiving police protection following death threats is a shameful indictment on our society. It has all happened before of course - remember Anders Frisk and Urs Meier, both driven to retirement. Perhaps the British aren't so polite and well-mannered after all. At the end of the day, what happened on Wednesday was a game of football. It was a hugely high-profile and important game, but it was still a game. Sadly, Bill Shankly's saying seems to ring true for some people - football is more important than life and death. Of course it isn't. Both the players involved and those fans who take things too far need to realise this. Ovrebo doesn't deserve any of what has happened to him so far. If UEFA choose to punish him with demotion, then maybe that is justified, but the personal attacks? No-one deserves that at all.

The buck is now in UEFA's court. We have seen this sort of thing happen before after high-profile errors by referees. And UEFA didn't do enough, so it has happened again. They now need to make it clear through the action they take that what has happened in the past two days, both during and after the match, is totally unacceptable. If they do that, and can set a precedent, then that will be at least one positive thing to emerge from this mess. If, however, they deal weakly with those involved, then the implication is simple - this sort of thing is acceptable, and can happen again. And it will.

Should Ovrebo referee again? I hope he will. I hope he won't retire, and I hope he will still referee international matches, as I still believe he is a good referee. You don't become a bad referee after one game. Would I blame him if he gave it up? Of course not - not after what he has been through. If he does, then that is three top officials who have been lost because of an over-reaction to their honest decisions. How many more will follow? If we keep losing officials like this, the end result will only be that the quality of officials at the top level will go down, as more junior officials are sought to replace those who quit.

I await UEFA's actions with interest. As the story continues to develop next week, lets see if they are strong and take the action they should. I'm not holding my breath.

The woes of Rosetti and Øvrebø

I haven't written about events in high-profile football matches for a while. Even Howard Webb's penalty shocker at Old Trafford didn't cause me to pick up my pen, but this week's Champions League semi-final second legs have.

For the record, I think the refereeing in the Champions League knockout stages has been very good so far. We have seen several big games go by with the referees barely noticed. Last week, in the first legs of the semi-finals, I thought both officials did well. At the Nou Camp, Wolfgang Stark tried (amidst the pettiness and stupidity of a Barca vs Chelsea game) to give the game some flow. Credit to him, he could have ended up racking up a load of bookings and giving countless free kicks, but he refereed with common sense. Claus Bo Larsen at Old Trafford last Wednesday had a far easier task, but blended beautifully into the background and had a superb game (not for the first time this year - he did the same in the first leg of Liverpool v Chelsea). So, all good. Until this week.

Both of the appointed referees this week are referees that I like and rate. Italian Roberto Rosetti usually performs with common sense, something for which some Italian referees are not known. He isn't usually fussy, and the Euro 2008 final is evidence that he is trusted with big games. He did the second leg semi of Chelsea vs Liverpool last year, and was excellent. I've also been a fan of Norway's Tom Henning Øvrebø for some time. He just does the job - no histronics - and was dreadfully unlucky to be sent home early from Euro 2008, with the mediocre Herbert Fandel staying on ahead of him.

To the Emirates on Tuesday then. The game itself wasn't a great spectacle - Manchester United saw to that in the first 11 minutes (credit to them - they outplayed Arsenal completely). Rosetti didn't exactly help the spectacle either though - he was unusually fussy, giving a multitude of soft decisions, most of which seemed to favour Manchester United. His foul recognition was poor all night. Thankfully, these were mostly minor decisions. For 75 minutes. Then the one big decision goes against Manchester United, and its a wrong one. Darren Fletcher's tackle was perfectly executed. To bring in the referee's viewpoint (and some referees will support the decision of a foul here, even if I don't) - the referee can only consider that a foul if he considers the challenge to be made in a 'careless' manner. Any tackle that is consider careless, reckless or dangerous is penalised, no matter if the ball is won. To add to that definition, from the Laws:
"Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
Do I think Fletcher was careless? I think he could hardly have done any more to take care. He can't really have taken any more precaution or shown any more consideration for his opponent. He won the ball fair and square, and the fact that his trailing leg brought the player down is irrelevant - the sort of contact that happens all the time in football. A poor decision from a top referee. Incidentally, the red card which follows the foul is academic - it is only the foul itself I have a problem with. The fact that the decision can't be overturned is ludicrous, and a point to which I shall return shortly. Overall, a poor night for Rosetti, both in general play and on the big decision.

To Stamford Bridge. Rosetti had a poor night on Tuesday. Øvrebø, of whom I am also a fan, was worse on Wednesday. He was nothing short of utterly dreadful. Now, this wasn't an easy game to referee, and the players didn't help him one iota, but he was hopeless. Lets go through this extraordinary encounter blow by blow.

The four Chelsea penalty appeals first of all. The first - on Malouda - I believe he has given the foul for the challenge which was actually made in the area. He could clearly see this, so why he hasn't pointed to the spot I don't know. The foul outside the area was minor. He was perfectly positioned. Dreadful decision. Abidal on Drogba - thats also a penalty for me, and probably a red card to follow. The Pique handball - I'll offer a little leeway on this, as the ball was hit straight at him, although the position of his arm makes it hard to ignore. The one at the end which Ballack was so furious about - never in a million years. So of the four - two definites, one maybe, one never. In my opinion of course.

The red card. Once again, the sending off is correct but the foul which leads to it is not. Its not a foul, and was symptomatic of Øvrebø's poor foul detection all night. He never got to grips with what was and wasn't a genuine offence, with players dropping to the turf likes flies. Anelka clipped his own heels. Like I said, I do think the position rightly leads to a sending off, but the foul decision is a poor one.

So a dreadful game all round from Øvrebø, by far the worst showing I have ever seen from him, and the worst showing in a Champions League match in some time. But unfortunately the teams come out of it with little credit either. I thought Barcelona were whingers. They surrounded the referee frequently, whenever a decision went against them. They played their part in turning the game into the petty squabble that it was. Poor from them. But Chelsea come out of it with less credit. Ballack should have been sent off for chasing and man-handling the referee after that last penalty appeal. Øvrebø should have stopped play and sent him down the tunnel - what he did was totally unacceptable. As for Drogba, the man was out of control. The yellow card at the end was a kind of token gesture. UEFA will deal with his actions, and rightly so, because no matter how bad Øvrebø was, that is no way to behave, especially in the public eye. The example that it sets is terrible. Players can get frustrated, but to that extent it is quite simply ridiculous. Chelsea, yet again, have major issues with controlling their players and respecting officials. It can't go on.

The one man who I can find some time for in all this is Guus Hiddink. He comes across to me as a very decent person. He will struggle not to criticise the referee, but the way in which he does so will I'm sure be done in his calm, assured manner. Imagine the chaos if Mourinho had been Chelsea manager during this game! Unthinkable. Hiddink kept his calm at the end when everything else was going off around him, and he strikes me as someone who just gets on with his own game and doesn't indulge in petty squabbles or personal criticism, towards both referees and opponents. The Premier League needs more managers like him, and its a shame he isn't staying on at Chelsea next year.

I referred earlier to the injustice of the lack of appeal on decisions. We have seen this amply demonstrated in the cases of both Fletcher and Abidal, both of whom will now miss the final. It is frankly ludicrous that they will do so on the basis of such obvious errors, and I feel sorry for both of them. I don't believe the appeals system in this country does its job properly, but at least it has a chance of overturning some wrong decisions. UEFA need to look at this, as players should not be missing these big occasions on account of wrong decisions.

There are so many emotions mixed in with all of this. The media will have their circus, and the two referees will be villified in the papers. The pressure is on whoever does the final now, given what has gone before. To this point, we have had strong performances throughout the knockout stages, but Rosetti and Øvrebø were dreadful. Was it wrong to appoint them? Not at all - they're both perfectly capable referees - they just had bad games. Hopefully, they'll recover, although they'll always be tarnished by the memory of these games.

But finally, to bring just the slightest note of positivity amidst all this criticism, just maybe tonight reminded me why I love football. No matter what you're expecting, football just throws something completely different at you. You think you've seen everything, and then along comes a game like tonight's. It has been an extraordinary evening - one that will live long in the memory for all the wrong reasons - and the repurcussions will last for some days. But its part of what makes the game so interesting and so fascinating, and that's just why we love it, and is why I'll be out refereeing again on Friday.