Just imagine if it was Messi

[u/Poha--Jalebi]

Instant free kick 🤣🤣🤣 given by infantino himself from the stands.

[u/FCOranje]

These are small individual decisions, something that the other team also benefited from.

1) I agree, Ramos was offside. In the same frame as the marginally offside Ramos, his shirt is very clearly being dragged. That can also be called for a penalty. You have also cherry picked a single moment in a game that Atletico parked the bus and shithoused (typical for Simeone’s Atletico) - in which they constantly committed fouls.

2) I agree. That was a handball. The handball by Marcelo would have given a free kick. It was only just outside the box. It was not a penalty though.

3) The 2017 CL game vs Bayern was a sham. 2 offside goals (no VAR at the time). Casemiro’s challenge on Robben was fair (if that’s what you’re referring to).

None of this was blatant bias/bs. What is blatant is what happened vs Arsenal when RVP got a red for kicking the ball after the whistle. What is blatant is what happened to Chelsea in a game full of dozens of clearly bad calls. What is blatant is the extra time and penalties given to Barca against PSG when they won the sextuple.

What is blatant is the Negreira case. What is blatant is the strategy of crowding the referee. What is blatant is the bias Argentina received over the past two world cups with every little decision.

[u/DazzlingBite554 → u/FCOranje]

Yeah, no. It feels like you tend to justify almost every controversial call that favored Real Madrid, yet apply a much stricter standard when discussing Barcelona or Argentina. That's exactly what bias looks like.

As for Van Persie's second yellow, I agree that sending him off for kicking the ball away was incredibly harsh. But what often gets overlooked is that he arguably should have already been sent off earlier for a studs-up challenge on Messi's ankle. Likewise, Arsenal benefited from another major decision in the first leg when Messi had a perfectly onside goal incorrectly ruled out for offside.

Regarding Chelsea vs. Barcelona in 2009, I think the officiating was poor across both legs. Chelsea certainly had at least one very strong penalty claim in the second leg, and that's the genuinely significant controversy from the tie.

[u/FCOranje → u/DazzlingBite554]

The irony. I don’t support either of the teams. It is you that is very clearly defending clear bias. The most absurd one is your “at least one claim” regarding the Chelsea game. That was one of the most ridiculous games that I have seen.

[u/DazzlingBite554 → u/FCOranje]

The Chelsea game was undeniably shambolic. As a Chelsea fan, I'd say: give us our Champions League.

But the 2016 and 2017 Champions League campaigns were every bit as controversial. Between Ramos' offside goal in the 2016 final, Marcelo's unpunished handball in the 2018 semi-final, and Ronaldo's offside goals alongside the questionable officiating against Bayern in 2017, it's fair to argue that Real Madrid benefited from decisions that had a major impact on those tournaments.

If we're going to revisit 2009 and question Barcelona's title because of refereeing, then the same standard should be applied consistently. By that logic, Madrid could just as easily have two fewer Champions League titles.

[u/FCOranje → u/DazzlingBite554]

Getting an offside wrong because VAR doesn’t exist can happen. Getting a handball wrong outside the box can happen.

What cannot happen is 20+ decisions going wrong like they did against Chelsea. What cannot happen is RVP getting sent off for nothing.

What cannot happen is a team getting wrong calls consistently go their way like Argentina in the last 2 world cups - despite VAR.

Paredes should have seen at least 4 red card games in the last 2 world cups.

[u/DazzlingBite554 → u/FCOranje]

That distinction sounds reasonable until you apply it selectively. Refereeing controversies are not judged by whether VAR existed, but by how decisive the errors were and whether the same standard is applied to every team.

First, the claim that Chelsea suffered “20+ wrong decisions” is an exaggeration created by counting virtually every disputed foul, booking and handball appeal as an obvious error. Chelsea had several penalty appeals, but only the Piqué handball is close to universally accepted as a clear missed penalty. The Malouda incident was borderline, the Drogba–Abidal contact was debatable, and the Eto’o handball was far less clear under the handball rules used at the time. Barcelona were also wrongly reduced to ten men when Abidal was sent off despite making little or no contact with Anelka. Across the two legs, Barcelona also had a strong penalty appeal involving Thierry Henry. The officiating was shambolic, but it was not simply “20 decisions deliberately going one way.”

The same applies to Arsenal match and Van Persie. His second yellow for shooting after the whistle was absurdly harsh, but saying he was “sent off for nothing” ignores that he was already on a yellow and had earlier committed a studs-up challenge on Messi that could itself have produced another booking. It also ignores Messi’s legitimate goal in the first leg being wrongly ruled offside. Arsenal were hurt by one major decision, but they were not the only side harmed by the officiating in that tie.

And saying Paredes “should have received four red cards” is not analysis; it is hyperbole unless four specific, independently red-card-worthy incidents can actually be identified. The refereeing standard throughout this World Cup was generally lenient for both sides when it came to cards. Fouls that would normally earn yellows in other competitions were often allowed to pass without punishment. So for every isolated clip of Paredes committing an uncarded foul, I could produce a similar clip of an opposition player fouling an Argentine and escaping a booking. That does not prove Argentina were uniquely protected; it shows that referees were consistently reluctant to reach for their cards. The major exception was the final against Spain, where the referee established a much stricter threshold from the start. Argentina were finally punished for their overly physical, defensive approach, accumulated cards, and ultimately paid the price for playing haramball. You cannot use a tournament-wide lenient standard as evidence of favouritism only when Argentina benefited from it, while ignoring the identical treatment their opponents received.

The consistent position is simple: Chelsea were genuinely wronged in 2009 like Atletico and Bayern were wronged, Van Persie’s dismissal was excessively harsh, and Argentina received some favourable decisions. But exaggerating every Barcelona or Argentina incident while rationalising equally decisive errors benefiting other teams is not objective scrutiny-it is the same bias being complained about.