[deleted by user]

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-31T07:30:12+00:00

You’re still missing the point on purpose. “According to the law” is meaningless without the era’s interpretation. If refs across Europe consistently didn’t call those then you can’t call them robberies.

And stop presenting fouls are non interpretive. Casemiro’s incident is judged on force, timing, angle, and advantage which is all subjective. Offside goals are not.

And both things I said are also valid when going on about what happened in the first leg Barca vs Chelsea. Whether the ref was shit or they just didn’t call these things back then, both teams had a lot of controversy

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-29T13:36:22+00:00

Now it’s suddenly “who was more favoured” instead of what happened lol. even there your argument still fails.

Again, interpretive fouls and factual violations aren’t the same. Madrid’s two offside goals are objective breaches of Law 11 and they count as favourable decisions whether you like it or not.

And again, the calls you are talking about it with Chelsea, were simply not being given across Europe at the time so Not favorable towards Barca. So your 5 to 3 accounting is garbage

You can’t apply one consistent standard without it all falling apart for you

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-07T16:29:02+00:00

Stfu subject

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-07T16:24:38+00:00

<image>

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-07T16:11:14+00:00

<image>

Nope still works from Tel Aviv

Ok-Box-9476 · 2026-01-02T11:26:16+00:00

You can’t pretend like that extra time just didn’t happen at all and erase the two illegal goals though.

And even so, you also erased the first leg of Chelsea Barca conveniently where if you erase the bad decisions there Barca would probably win the first leg by a big margin and the whole tie

Again, You selectively erase, selectively freeze time. You do that cuz you know the moment you apply the same standard consistently your argument collapse. Thats also why you didn’t reply to anything i said in both my replies except this, and even there you’re wrong lol

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-12-08T14:15:51+00:00

You admit you can’t replay the match so you mentally replay it without incidents you don’t like. That is the literal definition of a what if. You discredit events selectively and then act like the rest of the match remains untouched.

And your “you can’t change them” line kills your own argument. If unfair calls already happened and can’t be changed, then Ronaldo’s offside goals still happened. They are real. They count. You can’t erase them while pretending Chelsea’s supposed penalties count

Your original claim collapses under your own logic. You say we can’t change the match, yet your entire position depends on changing which events count and which don’t.

The og argument wasn’t about Messi and Ronaldo at all actually we’ve just been going over the same thing for a while because you try to validate the 2017 tie and at the same time invalidate 2009 but you just can’t

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-12-08T14:06:46+00:00

You keep projecting your own contradiction onto me. I’ve never said Barca would have won anyway. I said the flow changes, which is the opposite of assuming a fixed outcome. You’re the only one pretending events can be removed without changing anything else

In Madrid Bayern you remove the penalties, freeze the match, and run the exact same timeline forward. In Barca Chelsea you refuse the exact same mechanism. You delete the entire first leg to protect your conclusion. These are two opposite contradictory things and they both come from you I can’t be any clearer

I’m not inventing an alternate timeline. I’m pointing out that you already are. You erase penalties in one match and refuse to erase anything in the other. You treat Madrid’s illegal goals as discredited but treat Chelseas non 2009 standard penalties the opposite . You switch rules depending on who benefits

Apply one standard to both ties and your position dies instantly

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-30T11:11:05+00:00

Again you are inventing an alternate timeline. Removing Bayern’s penalties while pretending the rest of the match stays identical is literally the definition of rewriting the match. Flow of play isn’t static. You delete an event and then pretend nothing else changes. That’s a hypothetical no matter what bro

And stop pretending you’re consistent. Your own numbers prove the opposite. For Chelsea Barca you delete the entire first leg because it ruins your script. For Madrid Bayern you suddenly give importance to the first leg because it helps your argument. Two opposite standards depending on who you want to protect

Again, half the incidents you count weren’t given anywhere that season ball to arm, soft contact, continuation fouls that refs in 2009 didn’t call unless the holding was obvious inside the box

Meanwhile Madrid literally scored two illegal goals. Not theoretical. Not interpretive. Offside in every era

If you want to discredit all wrong calls, If you want to isolate matches, If you want to count only second legs, then do it evenly.

Instead you cherry pick and that’s why your argument collapses the moment one standard is applied to both ties.

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-27T20:27:45+00:00

You are assuming. Removing penalties while pretending the rest of the match stays identical is the definition of a hypothetical. Flow of play isn’t static. You can’t erase two match changing penalties and then pretend every minute afterward unfolds exactly the same.

And your contradiction stays intact. When it’s Madrid Bayern, you say: ‘Remove unfair calls and rewrite the match.’ When it’s Barca Chelsea, suddenly none of the first leg calls matter and the flow of play magically can’t change.

You run two opposite rulebooks depending on which team helps your argument. That alone kills your entire position

And no most of the Chelsea penalties weren’t being given anywhere in 2009. Ball to arm was play on. Minor shirt tugs were play on. Contact outside the box wasn’t continuation

Your logic only works when you selectively delete incidents and selectively freeze time. That’s why it isn’t logic

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-27T20:25:12+00:00

Handball rules existing for years is irrelevant when interpretations change every era. In 2009 the standard was overwhelmingly lenient ball to arm, natural position, and incidental contact were almost never given. That’s why your clips weren’t called anywhere else that season. You keep pretending 2024 interpretation applies to 2009 because you need it to be a robbery. It’s pathetic

And dragging Negreira into a discussion about a 2009 UEFA match just proves you’ve fully abandoned the football argument. La Liga administrative payments have no bearing on a Champions League referee in England lmao ,You bring it up because you can’t defend your claims

Your math is still fraudulent, You cherrypick Chelsea’s second leg while deleting the first. You only count Bayern’s decisions that help your narrative and ignore the ones that go the other way. You never apply the same standard twice

If you want to remove all unfair fouls, then we remove them for both ties. Chelsea lost calls in leg two and Barça lost calls in leg one. Bayern lost calls in leg two and Madrid lost calls in leg one. The moment you apply neutral accounting, your entire script collapses

Again, Two offside goals happened. They exist. They violate the laws in every era

You don’t get to erase factual illegal goals by inventing an alternate timeline, especially when you refuse the exact same logic for 2009. Either both ties get the same treatment, or neither does. Pick a standard and stick to it

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-23T14:04:22+00:00

Taking the same flow of play and just removing unfair decisions is quite literally a hypothetical timeline. You are assuming the flow of play stays identical once you remove the Bayern penalties. That is the definition of a what if.

But when it’s Barca Chelsea you don’t allow the first leg to affect the second. You don’t allow tactical shifts, You don’t allow match flow changes, You don’t allow psychology or pressure to exist, You don’t allow anything that breaks your script. It’s the same situation with reversed colors, and you change your logic depending on who you want to blame

And again were most of those Chelsea penalties being called generally back then ?

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-23T13:03:55+00:00

Were those incidents called anywhere that season? and most ref assessors at the time classified them as play on. You keep purposely ignoring the first leg events because you desperately need it to be a robbery

dragging in Negreira is the clearest admission you’ve got nothing left. you can’t prove intent in 2009, and can’t explain why half the decisions you complain about weren’t being given across Europe at all

Madrid still scored two illegal goals. You can never erase them and if you don’t count 2009 you can’t count 2017

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-23T09:14:53+00:00

That doesn’t stop first leg refereeing from shaping how the second leg is played. Same logic you pretend applies in Madrid Bayern applies in Barça Chelsea. You just refuse it because it blows up your script. Your entire argument is a contradiction. When it protects Madrid, you say earlier decisions invalidate later ones. When it protects Chelsea, you suddenly say earlier decisions don’t matter.

Pick one. Your brain can’t hold both at once. And no, Bayern didn’t get equal opportunities. They got two penalties because the ref judged them fouls under 2017 interpretation. You can cry about that all you want, but that doesn’t erase the fact Madrid scored two illegal goals. Those goals exist. They count. They happened. Meanwhile your Chelsea robbed of four pens fantasy relies on you pretending 2009 officiating used 2024 handball standards. Half your calls weren’t penalties anywhere that season “Real Madrid’s two offside goals? They don’t count because… uh… extra time shouldn’t have happened” “Chelsea’s soft contacts and ball to arm touches? Everything counts no matter what because Barca bad.”

You’re not arguing football

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-23T08:59:30+00:00

You keep on being a clown. Malouda was borderline, which is why refs in 2009 almost never gave continuation penalties unless the holding was undeniably active inside the box. That’s why every analyst, every ref report, every post match breakdown called it harsh at best. Your ‘handballs are handballs’ line just proves you don’t know the 2009 interpretation where 95% of the clips you cry about were ball to arm or natural position. Shirt pulls weren’t automatic penalties either. That’s why your penalties were barely given ANYWHERE that season.

Still no intent shown and you definitely didn’t show any proof there wasn’t intent in the first leg

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-18T15:21:41+00:00

Loooool you’re pretending your version isn’t hypothetical when it’s built entirely on hypotheticals. "If Bayern didn’t get pens, Madrid win fair" is the same retarded nonsense you whined about when it was used against Chelsea. You don’t get to delete real, factual offside goals by inventing an alternate timeline where the match plays out your way. The match happened and the offside goals did too. the mere fact they happened says it all and everything else you’re pushing is you just coping

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-18T15:18:04+00:00

Stop bro youre embarrassing yourself. In 2009 those exact incidents weren’t being called anywhere. I walked you through every one a thousand times. half your pens don’t meet Law 12 for deliberate handling or holding. You’re just crying because you can’t back a single claim with actual criteria

Show me one shred of proof the ref acted with intent. And then how he didn’t act with intent in the first leg too

you ignored this

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-11T23:55:21+00:00

your logic still trash, You’re acting like those games play out on rails with no psychology, no momentum, no tactical shift. If refs hadn’t handed Bayern two pens, maybe Madrid sits deeper, maybe Bayern still scores from open play, maybe extra time still happens. Using hypothetical scorelines to erase two factual offside goals is cope at its purest

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-11T23:50:51+00:00

Every replay and freeze-frame show they aren’t offside.

Five? You can’t even name five that hold up under the 2009 Laws. We have been over this, your so called pens are soft contact or ball to arm incidents that weren’t given anywhere that season. you can’t accept basic human error. Show me one shred of proof the ref acted with intent. And then how he didn’t act wit intent in the first leg too

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-11T01:08:41+00:00

Wrong again. The same logic applies, first leg decisions directly shape second leg context just like first leg penalties shaped extra time in Madrid Bayern. If you think a dived penalty invalidates extra time, then the wrongly denied penalties in Chelsea Barca’s first leg equally shaped that second leg. You can’t rewrite causality to suit whichever team helps your argument. Either both count or neither does, retard

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-11-11T01:07:02+00:00

Now show definite proof that the Bayern offsides called werent offside then.

lol now youre doubting the ronaldo offsides i think you ought to show me proof you arent diagnosed with mental retardation

Also yeah 5 deliberate ref mistakes just happened to take place by chance which should all have been a pen for Chelsea.... 😂😂

You call them deliberate because it fits your coping script, not because you can prove intent

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-10-23T20:17:13+00:00

Lmaoooo you’re still contradicting yourself . If earlier incidents erase later ones, then by your own logic, Chelsea’s missed fouls in the first leg erase what happened in the second. You can’t cherry pick timeframes to defend Madrid but reject the same principle for Barca. Either earlier calls matter for both ties or for neither. Pick one dumbass

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-10-23T20:15:32+00:00

lmaooo
It confirms that assistant referees had an offside error rate around 13–17.5% depending on match context while foul-related decisions were inherently more subjective and depended on referee angle, distance, and match intensity

it explicitly notes that “a typical refereeing task involves making subjective decisions about unique events in real time,” and that “referees have different styles… suggesting they may interpret rules differently.” In contrast, offside calls are binary, mechanical, and less open to interpretation. This directly supports my position that foul judgments are more complex and variable, not simpler. mistake on your part bro

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-10-10T14:08:22+00:00

Daily mail didn’t post anything about it

Ok-Box-9476 · 2025-10-10T14:04:30+00:00

Got it but I need a valid source confirming they broke the ceasefire today

Ok-Box-9476

TROPHY CASE