Because Denmark is a small country and do not have another stadium suited for Euro qualifiers in a area of more than 250 Km from København, we will more or less be forced to play all our 4 remaining home games outside Denmark... So this is an absolut crazy verdict... The hardest I think ever made in the history of UEFA , when you consider that this is the only incident of this kind in the history of Danish football, and involving only one single supporter. Infact the supporters at Parken should be credited for being totally cool and calm when they were told that Denmark had lost 0-3 at the end of the match. Most of them did not quite know or see what happened, so you could fear that some of them would get angry and start a riot, but ther were no further incidents... .
there where 2 more on the feild.. and the security failed in more ways... what about the swdish fans including chrildren being bombarded whit beer/soda and according to a rumour piss from the danish fans after 2-3 and to the end.. whitout the security doing anything about it??? too bad for the ruligans T
I think some beer throwing took place all over the Stadium during the match since also some danish jounalists were making complaints about being hit, but they also said that all the supoorters at the stadium were strangely calm and quiet after the 0-3 result was made public, so ther were no incidents after the match. In any case, if Denmark more or less is forced to play the last 4 home games in Germany, then this is going to be the by far toughest verdict ever made by UEFA for an incident only involving one supporter. Dont forget that we are not talking about a riot or several players going crazy (like in the WC-06 play-off's between Turkey and Switzerland), but only about one single drunken supporter.. Not to forget that this is the first incident of this kind in the history of Danish football.. .
The Danish FA were more or less saying that they would take what ever punishment they get, but after seeing the verdict, DBU now have changed their attitude and think this is far from being a fair verdict in compare with past verdicts made by UEFA, so the DBU are not going to take this laying down... I think DBU are ready to give up Parken, but then like to play the remaining games in Aarhus. Now if UEFA insist on the games being played more than 250km away from København, then I'm pretty sure Northern Germany (probably Hamburg) is going to be where the last 4 home games are going to take place. .
I find the geographical part of the verdict (250km radius) very, very odd. As Ceres mentions indirectly, this punishes smaller countries much more than large ones. For instance, if this incident had happened in Stockholm, Sweden would still have been able to play their games in the big stadiums in Gothemburg or Malmoe where I believe they sometimes are playing anyway. Similar in France, Germany, Italy or Spain, this would have very little impact. I am not sure why there needs to be a certain distance involved anyway. After all, it is not like it makes a whole lot of difference - if they are banned from playing in Parken, okay, that might make sense since they would then be playing in front of a different 'security' staff, but that would be the case even if they moved it to an adjacent stadium run by a different organization. And it's not like they look at where the fans in question were coming from and wanted to move the games away from them - that would have put the circular ban around Gothemburg where the clown lives! :-] Overall, the verdict is pretty harsh too. Denmark is punished on pretty much all possible fronts, for a FIRST-TIME occurrence. EVEN if UEFA might want to set an example, I still think this is excessive and they really should rather hit the organizations that run the stadiums and are responsible for the security harder and the fans less (i.e. higher fines, lower ban on home-field). From what I understand, DBU is going to veto this decision (but not the 0-3 result), but I am not sure when that hearing is going to be. At least they came to a determination of the game score quickly (< 1 week), allowing everybody to know where they stand in the group standing so that makes things a lot clearer. As a Dane, I am obviously disappointed with the verdict giving a final score of 0-3, but from an objective point of view, it is pretty much by the book.
Btw, dont make it sound like the danish team and players deserve this kind of punishment by UEFA because of some beer throwing and a single drunken supporter.. Ther has been Euro qualifiers in the past (I remember several incidents in Greece) where danish supporters have been bombarded with big coins and heavy fireworks (that easily could kill a man or a child in the stands), without the security or UEFA doing anything about it except for handing out a small fine... .
well the Danish General Secretary of the DBU, Jim Stjerne Hansen, is also Vice-Chairman of the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (just not in this case, since the danish team is involved), so perhaps the DBU should make it clear to the rest of the Control and Disciplinary Body that if they want to punish the danish FA this harshly, then Jim Stjerne Hansen is going to make sure that this is also the new level of punishment when single supporters makes trouble at UEFA games in other places like Greece, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Germany and England... Then perhaps they will very quickly rethink their position . .
I don't really see why people think this is such a harsh punishment... - The fine is nothing, just a blip in the budget of the DBU I'm sure. (besides, the Parken security should reimburse that) - Only one game behind closed doors. (could have been more) And it is against an easy opponent. - Three home games outside Denmark, but WITH supporters. I had expected all of the remaining home games to be played behind closed doors. What's worse? Playing in Parken behind closed doors, or Hamburg (I assume) with 20-30000 danish fans? Not a bad result, in my opinion. Had situation been reversed and Sweden had recieved this penalty, I would be quite pleased.
I don't find this a hard punishment, on the contrary. I posted elsewhere that I would have preferred to see a harsher financial punishment. The second part of that statement (that it is against an easy opponent) is completely irrelevant for the harshness of the verdict. It might as well have been the home game against Spain. I am sure UEFA did not look at Denmark's schedule when they ruled that. Or maybe they did since they hit EXACTLY a four game ban on home games - exactly the number they have left. This seems kinda odd too - we would have been punished a lot less had we only had a few home games left, but more away games! Of course, you can always compare against something worse and make things look 'better'. If we had been banned from having spectators in all home games, one could say that at LEAST the ban only affected this EC qualification series... Quite pleased? Really? Because you compared to similar verdicts or? OT: where in CA are you?
My main point of reference is the Champions League game between AS Roma and Dynamo Kiev in 2004. Referee Frisk was injured by an object thrown by a supporter. The game was abandoned, Kiev awarded a 0-3 win. Roma was penalized by having to play their next two european home games behind closed doors. So the punishment is similar. And Denmark only gets 1 game behind closed doors. Surely there is nothing "magical" about playing at Parken, and I assume lots of Danish fans will travel to wherever the "home" games will be played. North, near Redding. And you?
The danish FA is not going to complain about the game behind closed doors, but the fact that UEFA have made sure that Denmark is being forced to play 4 home games abroad... ofcause a 250km restriction would be no problem for Sweden or Spain for that matter, but this is clearly an extra punishment for a small country like Denmark. I hope DBU makes it clear to UEFA that if denmark is to take this kind of punishment, then also bigger countries shoud be punished by the same standard in the future, so that they would also have to play 4 home games abroad, if a single supporter makes trouble.. .
Yes... The 250 Km thing is a bit silly, I agree with that. They should just specify that home games should be played outside of the country, if that is what they want.
My guess is that the 250 km thing is because Denmark is a small country. If Spain or Sweden would hace been in Denmarrks shoes it's likely that either the distance would've been larger or that they would have worded it diffrently. The reason they simply didn't say "no matches in Denmark" is probably because they didn't want the matches to be played in Malmö, playing home matches in Malmö (against non swedish opposition) instead of Köbenhavn is hardly a punishment for the danish federation IMO.
ofcause, they would never want do do that, because then this punishment would have reach a whole new level of how UEFA countries get punished, and their aim is quite clearly to make an example out of Denmark but at the same time not risk that any of the big countries could get the same level of punishment in the future. So they make this bogus 250km restriction, that would never force any of the big countries to play their home games abroad. .
The director of AOL Arena Kurt Krägel, would like the Danish NT to play in Hamburg, as he says then Hamburg used to be Danish territory and he has already made some marks in his calendar : Translated story (the Danish-English translator may be a bit slow) : http://visl.dk/tr/url/?url=http://forza.dk/index.php/news/show/id=134548&pair=da-en .
This is pretty much what I hoped fore - except for that weird 250km rule - that's plain stupid. Why not say 2 matches behind closed doors if that's what happened to Roma? Only thing I'm worried about is whether the same rules will apply for bigger nations WHEN this sort of thing happens to them. But then - I always was a bit paranoid.
Knowing how UEFA do their work, I think you can be pretty sure that they are going to use the exact same rules against other countries in the future, meaning that the 250km restriction is going to be used just as surely as the rule that made Denmark lose this match 0-3... Unfortunately, this 250km restriction very much favors big countries over small countries and no doubt it was used in this specific case to make an example out of Denmark by adding the extra punishment of having to play the 4 last home games away, while at the same time making sure that non of the big countries could be in any risk of getting the same level of punishment in the future. .
It seems that UEFA today admit to a Danish newspaper that they may have made a very unfortunate mistake... The representative from UEFA say they weren't aware of the fact that Denmark is so small a country that the 250km restriction would force Denmark to play their home games abroad.. We will se what happens next.. .
UEFA acknowledges geographical slip-up Two out of the three members in the disciplinary-committee, who ordered the [Danish] national team 250 km away from Copenhagen, now acknowledge that they have committed a geographical blunder. It looks like that the Danish NT is not forced to [play in] Gdansk [Poland], Hamburg or Stockholm in order to play the remaining qualifying games, as several committee members now admit that they didn't use the big atlas, when the 250km punishment was laid down. - "The 250km were just to ensure that they were moved away from Copenhagen. My opinion is that Denmark can play their [home] games within the country's borders. They just have to be away from Copenhagen," committee member Joël Wollf says according to Danish TV2. His colleague Rainer Koch also opens to a more lenient punishment. - "Denmark can just play in Aalborg, Is there not a running track up there?. Well, I dont really know of the distances in Denmark, but in this case it must become a subject of discussion," Koch says according to the [danish Newspaper] BT and display his lack of knowledge about both geography and Aalborg Stadium, where there has never been a running track. --- Slightly edited (by me) Danish-English Machine Translation of this article : http://www.bolddk.com/nyt/?vis=69578 .
LOL, Ceres, out of all the posters I've met here (all nationalities included), you've always been the most biased for months now. Denmark should have gotten a free kick ?, even for you, this is pushing the envelope, you are joking or ?. Rosenberg did absolutely nothing that could compare to Poulsens punch. You say Rosenberg "admitted it". This seems to be an outing for some Danes and it has been repeated so many times that it's become a Danish truth. What Rosenberg actually has said is that they were pushing and shoving eachother inside the box and the punch didn't spawn out of nothing but their altercation was nothing beyond any average match. He also did not provoke Poulsen verbally in any shape or form.
Yep, I wouldn't change a thing basically. I thought your post was a lot of outrageous statements and ridiculous claims. "Not to be disrespectful" was my way of saying that I don't mean anything personal and I don't. You might be a great guy. I still think that the previous post you made was mostly make-belief and little facts.
You know, I think I am starting to realize that you might have misinterpreted my original post (at least the parts that you quote and I assume those are the parts you have a problem with). Try to read it again, I wasn't making any claims (or if I do, please quote what the claims were). What I was doing was a speculation on what the odds were that UEFA was going to make a ruling in one direction versus another, considering what angles they would potentially look at the various incidents from. Let me try to explain it again, maybe a bit clearer this time. This is what I wrote: "What do you mean that it points to the ref's decision? His decision was to call the match off at 3-3 in the 89th minute - he cannot make a call as to the final result of the match, whether that be 0-3, 3-3, 3-4 or something else. Only UEFA can." The first part up to the very last sentence is just a reference to what you had said. The key here is the last sentence that only UEFA can make a decision on the final result. The following text of mine is some thoughts about what UEFA might end up deciding: "Personally, I think that if there had been no evidence that Poulsen had been provoked or hit prior to his retaliation (in which case it wouldn't have been a retaliation), then I think the chances of UEFA possibly not rewarding Sweden with a victory would be virtually zero." I admit that the sentence construction was overly complicated. What I was trying to say was that if Poulsen completely out of the blue had hit the Swede (had not been provoked) then I would think that there would be a 100% chance that UEFA would rule a victory to Sweden. Please note that I am not making a ruling myself on what is right or wrong, but I am just trying to look at what I think UEFA would potentially rule, depending on what the situation is. It is like saying: If the police only has evidence of one person hitting another, they will ALMOST CERTAINLY charge that person with the attack, but if they have only evidence that points to another person attacking that person first, the chances of only one person being charged is much less. Do you see the difference? (I am not trying to be a wise-guy, just want make sure that you understand what I was trying to say). "However, given that the penalty had not been taken (i.e. the score was EXACTLY 3-3, irrespective of the fact that Sweden had been awarded a penalty) when the game was called off and the penalty came around on unsportsmanlike circumstances, I still think there is a possibility that they will rule it a 3-3 game." Again, here I am not saying what I think should be ruled, I am just saying that with the fact that the game was called off at 3-3 (and there is evidence that MAY be judged by UEFA (not me) that the Swede started the altercation), there was a POSSIBILITY that UEFA might rule 3-3 the end result. If you still think that I am making outrageous claims, then please quote what I say along with your exact interpretation of each of those claims (I want you to reword it so that I can see that you understand them as stated). Another option is that we disagree on what the ref's power is in this scenario. It seems from reading your post again that you think that he has the final say in the end result of the game. I don't think he does, UEFA does. The ref submits a report for his reasons to call off the match, but ultimately UEFA is the ones making a ruling. Do you disagree with that statement?