Forgot to mention that I don't take this personal and it doesn't matter to me if you think I am a great guy or not. This is a discussion forum where people WILL disagree on things. I voice my opinions in the hope that I will receive feedback on this, whether that feedback indicates that you agree or disagree (or even find what I say to be outrageous). In fact, I might find it more interesting if you disagree with me as it becomes extremely boring to hear 100 people voice exactly what you said yourself (and that is not much of a discussion)! I do however want to make sure that what I am trying to state gets interpreted the way that I meant it and not misinterpreted, which is why I am now trying to explain it differently. So if you feel that my post was mostly make-belief, that is okay, I just want to understand exactly what you think is make-belief, and why so that I can understand your point of view.
I'll answer your last question/assumption by quoting myself in an earlier post I made "the ref cannot make the ABSOLUTE FINAL decision but his decision was to call off the match because it was not safe to finish the match due to the hometeam. By the UEFA rulebook, the ref ruled it an automatic 0-3 decision. He will clarify his 0-3 decision to UEFA in a written report and then UEFA will take a stand" I hope this quotation makes my stand on ref + UEFA quite clear. The ref calls the game, states his report and then UEFA determines the verdict. A disagreement I had with you was here and I quote "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." This is not entirely true. The ref's decision weighs very heavy in these situations. UEFA makes the final verdict but the ref nor UEFA will throw some numbers out there the way you did. The ref called it 0-3. He could not call it in many other ways if he wants to abandon the match. He used the UEFA rulebook. Well as far as outrageous claims, one of the bigger things I reacted to was UEFA ruling it 3-3. It would seem virtually impossible as has been said by any UEFA official that spoke out. Also your comment about Sweden putting a veto on a PK also seemed strange. Perhaps this was me reading too much into your post but it seemed crazy at the time. Lastly, regarding to one or two persons being guilty. You seem to be making a case for Poulsen so I have to ask, in what way did Rosenberg provoke Poulsen to the point that Poulsen felt that he had to sucker punch Rosenberg in the stomach. This sequence has been zoomed to the full and analyzed by all Swedish sports shows and there isn't a lot there. Even though I haven't seen anything, I STILL have to guess Rosenberg had to do something to get such a flush punch but he has time and time again said that he never provoked Poulsen verbally and never did anything near to what Poulsen did. He did say that they were pushing and shoving eachother.
Well, we're on the same page here and I agree. To be honest, I didn't really go back and check your original post when making my latest reply (the one above) which I probably should have but in the end, I'm sure any questionmarks will be straightened out, regardless if we end up agreeing or disagreeing. It's a forum and discussing football is what we're here for.
Yes, it does, although the above statement is not completely consistent with the following: Yes, I totally agree that the ref's report of the match will weigh very, very heavily on what UEFA will rule, but it is still not the ref making the ruling, regardless of how you look at it - he does NOT have the final say. Well, I haven't done my homework to dig up such a ruling from previous incidents, but I am pretty sure that there is a precedence for ruling the result of a game the score at the time when the game was called off, ESPECIALLY with that short of an amount left. Should it apply here? Probably not, I just stated that there was a POSSIBILITY that it might happen. I probably wouldn't find that justice was 100% done if they had ruled it 3-3 either, even wearing my Red/White glasses. What I meant was that ANY team (this is NOT saying that Swedes are any different than anybody else) MIGHT veto a ref's decision to resume a match if they miss a penalty following a 10-15 minutes delay of game. They could (and probably rightfully so) claim that the advantage they had been awarded with the penalty was partially taken away because of the long delay. After all, that is a long time where the one taking the penalty kick might get really nervous with all that is at stake, he might get cold, get cramps, whatever!). The point is that no matter the ruling in this scenario, there is the possibility of one team feeling that the result is unjust. I still think that by far the best outcome would have been to resume the match and end the match at the right time, with whatever result was on the score board at the time (most likely a 4-3 Sweden victory). Perhaps this was me reading too much into your post but it seemed crazy at the time. Come on! In how many posts have I said that I absolutely do NOT defend Poulsen?!?! Close to every single one. Poulsen deserves everything he got. And I totally agree that what I see Rosenberg do is NOT the same (even close) to what Poulsen did, but he DID do something, right? It COULD have resulted in a freekick to Denmark had the referee seen the incidence - it happens all the time that freekicks are awarded to defenders when there is such shoving happening in the penalty area. So far, do we agree? Had the ref seen the incident and judged it to be an offense (free kick, possibly YC), then he COULD NOT rule a subsequent penalty, although it would still be a clear red card to Poulsen. Right?
Ritzau's news agency : Rosenberg - "I provoked Poulsen" "We had an infight inside the box and some pulling and pushing between each other. I'm not completely innocent in the situation, because I also slightly hit him, but not hard. And unfortunately for Christian Poulsen one of the referees notice that he punched me in the stomach" http://sporten.tv2.dk/fodbold/article.php/id-7144781.html I've never written anything in defense of Poulsen, since he deserved to be send off, but the fact of the matter still is that Poulsen said that he was hit twice by Rosenberg, while Rosenberg admit to have provoked Poulsen by hitting him... If this is true, they both deserve to get booked and according to the rules then ther is no penalty, but a free kick to Denmark for the foul (hitting) by Rosenberg.. The point of the matter is not who hit the hardest, but who threw the first "punch" so to speak. .
I am not sure what you are on about when it comes to me making comments about UEFA and who has the final say. Go back and check my comments. Comments I made well before you even questioned me. I'm not sure why you even questioned this to even begin with since my original stance on who decides a final verdict was crystal to begin with. You go on to say... "Yes, it does, although the above statement is not completely consistent with the following:" "but it is still not the ref making the ruling, regardless of how you look at it - he does NOT have the final say" Mate, you are the only one being wrong here. This is not me screaming and please don't take it the wrong way but I'll put it in bold because I wanna make it beyond crystal clear. YOU ARE WRONG, THE REFEREE DOES! MAKE A RULING. HE RULES IT 0-3 USING THE UEFA RULEBOOK. THIS IS STEP NO.1 AFTER THIS, UEFA HAS THE FINAL SAY BECAUSE IT'S STANDARD PRACTICE. UEFA HAS THE FINAL SAY BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO GO AGAINST THEIR OWN RULES. THE UEFA RULEBOOK STATES THAT WHEN IT'S UNSAFE TO FOLLOW THROUGH A MATCH BECAUSE OF THE HOME TEAM (OR THEIR SUPPORTERS) HOME TEAM SHOULD LOSE 0-3. THESE ARE ALREADY DETERMINED NUMBERS. BEFORE YOU WERE JUST THROWING NUMBERS OUT OF A HAT. OF COURSE UEFA CAN GO AGAINST THE REF SURE. THEY DECIDE THE FINAL RESULT AFTER A FULL ANALYSIS. WHILE THIS IS CLEAR; LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THE REF ALREADY MADE A RULING BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS HE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE UEFA RULEBOOK. Regardless of how I ??? look at it. This is not me backtracking. Go back, check my very first comment and you will see that I left no questionmarks there. UEFA makes the final decision. Ok so Rosenberg did something, can you please explain what he did because Swedish tv was trying to find out what he did that entire week.
And I saw many interviews with Rosenberg on Swedish tv where he stated what I've already said. I already think he must've done something but if it can't be caught on a full-zoom analysis from several different angles then saying that Denmark should have gotten a FK is just ridiculous. You will read whatever you like into statements. Reading many of your post that you made well before the DEN-SWE game, I think we will have difficulties agreeing on just about anything so we can just agree to disagree on most things.
The most bias about what exactly ?... I have written elswhere that a goal is a goal, so if you dont look at how they are created then Sweden ofcause deserved their 3 goals just as well as the 3 Danish goals... But to be honest, am I really the one being bias by saying that Sweden got two of the goals more or less handed to them while they really did not play all that well or create all that much themself ?... Is it not the truth that Sweden was saved by some good goalkeeping and the stupid action made by Poulsen in the end, when the Danish team clearly was on top ?... I think this is not bias, but actual fact.. I think ther are some ppl in this thread being much more bias by writing that it was only luck that Denmark managed to get back into the match, because they then totally forget that the Danish team actually played very well in the 2nd half and also created more than enough big opportunities (also in the first 45 minutes) to win this match.. .
Look, if Rosenberg himself admit hitting Poulsen to provoke him, then even the most bias Swede should accept that it actually did happen, and if it happened then it's a free kick if you go by the rules.. .
Like I said, this isn't really about you thinking Denmark was deserving of a PK. Or Sweden getting lucky on the goals (which is crap), Danish defender made a huge mistake on goal No.1 just as Mellberg made a mistake and leaving Tomasen alone with Isaksson, so it's leveled. For you to call any other goal lucky is ridiculous. You've struck me as the most biased poster before this match even happened. One of the first posts I read by you (before the EC QF had kicked off) was you counting out the Swedish team as Larsson has gotten old etc. (at that point you seemed to be unaware that he was already retired from the NT) and just about every Swedish player didn't fell into your liking All of the above are just opinions and you are very much entitled to it. I think they were crap but that's opinions, everybody got one. After that Sweden had gotten 12 points out of 12 possible in the first 4 games, although they had been quite unimpressive to you. After that, when seeing your name, I have guessed your take/post on the Swedish team before I even read your post and I've ended up being correct every time. I will not go into a long discussion with you over this. I might have differencies with some people such as Danishsoccerfan but that's a discussion that might actually lead somewhere. I can't say the same thing about you and that's the reason why I've held my tounge for months now. We'll have to agree to disagree and that's that.
Okay, I am going to make one last attempt to clear this up and if that doesn't work, let's just let this one lie, it really isn't that central to what we are talking about, okay? The reason why I think you are a bit unclear about it (and this is MY opinion), is the following: The word 'final' (with respect to things coming before and after) means final. There is not something called semi-final (at least not in this context! :->) - either something is final or it is not final. Therefore, when you say: "the ref cannot make the ABSOLUTE FINAL decision" that is the same as saying that he cannot make the final decision. There is not "somewhat final", "a bit more final", "mostly final" or "absolutely final" (as being different from "final") - those concepts just don't exist. There is either final or non-final. Just as a man cannot be almost dead - he is either alive or dead and he cannot first be "killed" by the referee just to be "absolutely killed" by UEFA if I am to draw an odd parallel. Do you see what I am saying? Sure, he makes a (non-final) ruling (and maybe that is where we head-butt - on the wording), but irrespective of how you look at it, it is not final if UEFA has anything to say about it subseqently and can change it (which is the case here), regardless if the chance that they will change it is 1:10000000...... Okay, enough about this. Just state if you get what I say or not and let's move on. If you disagree and state why I am wrong again, I will not comment on this anymore. As Ceres points out, Rosenberg admitted that he hit Poulsen, "not hard", but he hit him. Do you disagree that he has made this statement? That is also consistent with what you can see on the TV footage. He hits him at least once, possibly twice. It was not a punch, it was not a kick, it was not to the gut (as far as I could tell), but nevertheless, it appears to be him hitting Poulsen with his arm. It doesn't really matter how the TV footage is interpreted when he admits to doing it himself. So: - IF Rosenberg admits that he hit Poulsen before Poulsen punches him back, THEN there is already an extremely high probability that he did (why on earth would he otherwise say that himself?!?!) - IF Rosenberg hit him (which I believe we have established that he did) THEN a freekick should have been awarded to Denmark - IF a freekick should have been awarded to Denmark THEN there can be no penalty kick ruling to Sweden (although there definitely still should be a red card to Poulsen) It is really very clear (at least to me) and I think you have to be very, very biased to not see how clear this is (or still say that I am wrong). What I have described above is exactly by the book of what the ref should have done in that situation, had he seen the entire sequence. Sure, neither the ref nor the linesman saw what happened prior to the punch so there is no FK to DK and instead there is a PK to Sweden - that happens, the ref is human, no prob. That still doesn't change the fact that it really should have happened and very much could have happened. Still to this moment it baffles me how most (not all) of the Swedish posters on this board fail to acknowledge this very important fact or choose to downplay it to the point where they feel it can be disregarded even for the sake of discussing what *should* have happened versus what did happen. Just a final word - I am not at all bitter that things happened this way and not with a FK awarded to DK - this is what happens in a soccer game and Denmark can only blame themselves for the end result. It is however quite frustrating to try to have a constructive discussion/exchange of opinions/disagreements if one side doesn't want to acknowledge the parts that their 'party' was responsible for, irregardless of how small it seems compared to the inexcusable stupidity of Poulsen, the so-called fans entering the field, and the 'security' force.
Then you have clearly not read all my posts, since I have always praised Elmander, Isaksson and also very often (especially during he WC-06) defended both Allbäck and Linderoth as being much better than even many Swedes give them credit for... It is correct that I dont rate the Swedish NT coach Lars Lagerbäck or the players Rosenberg, Ibrahimovic or Källström at all, but this has nothing to do with their club careers, but due to the fact that they never seem to be able to perform well for the Swedish NT when I have watched them in action.. Perhaps they just dont fit into the "Lagerbäck" style of play on the NT.. I do think Sweden got some very good players, but in compare with the Danish and Spainsh NT in this group, I think Sweden lack some depth in their squad. However, Sweden always seem to somehow get the goals and results needed no matter how poorly they may play, so it's a very "efficient" team, unlike Spain and Denmark. .
This is a topic that can be nagged to boredom, fact is that the ref did decide a PK dosent matter if they could view rosenberg touching poulsen between the leg os does not make them not ruling a PK after the game... if that was the case then all diving players would get punished... and messi´s goal last night would be ruled away.... so its no use arguing about that... they(uefa) viewed the situation and did not set a ban on him... when the judge rule a PK or a FK its his decission not the uefa!!!! hope u get that appeal!! would be better to play in århus!!
Yet another evasion of the issue. I agree that what the ref called as far as the PK goes, is final. I have *NO PROBLEM* with that. Sure, UEFA didn't find that they should ban Rosenberg for his involvement. I have *NO PROBLEM* with that. As for discussing the events, I do however find it very biased that when you have a discussion and try to look at the entire picture, some individuals just pick and choose the parts that they want to discuss. If you ask them about other details of the incident, they strongly resist going into a constructive discussion about that. I can only assume that it is because they are biased and don't feel that they can defend their argument in other areas if they agree with some parts that they feel are not in their favor. Well, I say that makes for a very, very poor argument! If you cannot argue your stand based on all available information and other people's opinions, you have hardly any argument at all! Following the same 'logic', if I chose to look ONLY at Rosenberg's actions and completely ignore everything else that happened, I could 'argue' that Denmark had been treated grossly unfair. That is just plain silly. IMO, people get very little respect for their opinions if they are not willing to look at other people's point of view, take them into consideration AND be willing to discuss them. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything that they have to say, but at least be willing to enter a constructive discussion. If one just want to hear oneself, one might as well just go into a room, close the door and have a monologue. I find that behavior very immature and in real life, if you want to be successful, that attitude will not get you very far... Now, don't get offended, I am not taking a personal stab at you, I am just voicing my opinion in general about how a lot of the discussions on the topic of this infamous game has taken place. It doesn't mean that there hasn't been unbiased comments, but I think there has been a lot of bias As for the discussion around the particular events that lead to the penalty kick, I think it is VERY relevant since it could very much have had a huge impact on how things unfolded. Did it? No, because the ref didn't see it, but had he seen it, it most likely would have changed how this whole thing cascade of events happened. That makes it JUST as relevant for the discussion as it would have been if the ref had not seen Poulsen's punch and you would have felt that Sweden should have been awarded a penalty kick. I challenge you to answer the following questions without saying that they are irrelevant or otherwise evade the subject: - If Poulsen had not retaliated (and none of the other nonsense had happened) and a freekick had been awarded to DK for the shoving that took place, would you have found that to be grossly unjust? - If so, why? FKs are awarded for that all the time - If the ref had not seen the Poulsen punch, would you have been perfectly okay with the referee not seeing it? - Assuming the ref hadn't seen the Poulsen punch, would you not argue that the incident should have been reviewed by UEFA after the fact and a ban given to Poulsen, DESPITE the fact that the ref didn't rule that it happened? IF you feel that you have a defendable argument, then please answer these questions.
according to this footage it looked to me that paulsen hit first when rosenberg is in front of him!!! whit his right arm towards rosenbergs right side... then rosenberg is trying to break away/ provoking or what u wanna call it and waves his right arm vs poulsen... where should i see that dk should have a pk ???.... but hey it could have if the ref missed it then ok after 2 day saying blind ******** to the ref i let it go.... if the ref missed it then poulsen would still be punished in the aftermath
You know, looking at that footage, I would have to agree with what you said. Okay, it might not be what one would otherwise call 'hitting' (it looks like he moves his arm to his shoulder). But, hey - I will follow my own guidelines (and not say that one 'soft' 'hit' is excused if another one is 'harder'). So, if nothing happened prior to this incident, I would have to concede that Poulsen DID initiate it. What would have been interesting is if there is a footage of what happened a bit earlier - it is hard to tell what was the very first altercation as this footage starts exactly there. But in any case, I am now much less convinced that Rosenberg did in fact initiate the whole scenario - from that footage it looks like Poulsen was the original instigator. I am not that biased after all that I cannot admit that :-]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-_NVgWL2-n4 around 2,40 in to that clip... in my eyes that part of the decission was a good call.... still hope they change sp u atleast can play at århus!!!
Mate, you seem to have gotten lost a long time ago. I have never been unclear when it comes to UEFA + REF + Decision. I think you've spun out of control on your own here. Time and time again, I have been absoluetly crystal that UEFA decides the result. If you can read my posts (please backtrack) then we can leave this subject What I guess you have a problem with is that after you started questioning me (for reasons I can't understand), THEN I said that the ref has a say as well. Your talk about it's only one FINAL decision holding up is just too narrow-minded. Like I've explained earlier, the ref went by the UEFA rulebook. Prior to any UEFA decision being made, every single UEFA official said that they couldn't see any other result than 0-3. Why did they say this ??, because the ref and UEFA were on the same page and have the same rules to go by. If UEFA want to do a 180 , call the ref a complete lunatic. Give Denmark 3 points and make a FINAL!! decision then of course they can, UEFA has the power and they give the verdict. Absoluetly they can but this scenario has never been the case and was never even a possibility before UEFA actually gave their verdict. Please also understand that this whole controversy about FINAL has been started by you alone. I've never had any doubts about UEFA making the final decision. look, Rosenberg / Paulsen can baffle you and it's not a problem. You talk about arguments/discussions and extremely biased Swedish fans. No mate, you are trying to break this down into such small pieces. The tape has been reviewed. Rosenberg did nothing that could compare to Poulsens sucker punch. You'll have to deal with this fact. I think it's insane for you to call Swedish people "biased" and that Swedes can't see the arguments, why??. The video has been analyzed over and over, Rosenberg does nothing that can compare to Poulsen. Honestly, I think you are so convicted (for whatever reasons that seem completly unexplainable) that anyone who doesn't agree with your "analysis" (which never shows up on tape) is a biased person. If Rosenberg did make a clear rule violation, you don't think UEFA had picked up on this after days of studying the videos. No it's not biased Swedish fans, it's poor Danish losers.
Welcome back! I stated earlier: Just state if you get what I say or not and let's move on. If you disagree and state why I am wrong again, I will not comment on this anymore. So I won't take this any further, let's agree to disagree on this subject. No, not Swedish fans in general, but rather a handful (again, not all) of the Swedish posters on this board, which represent a very, very small fraction of the total pool of Swedish fans. Hey, have you read my previous post - #166 - https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11807568&postcount=166? Am I dealing with 'this fact'? Even so, this is not a completely clear-cut situation and the footage is still up for interpretation, even if I totally admit that Poulsen by far did the worst parts. I don't think I am trying to break it down beyond reason. If you look at events out of context and make an argument about only parts of what happened, you are disregarding the effects of the events that led up to what you are looking at, but I fail again and again to have you see that so let's move on - time to put this part of the argument to rest. Again, see above - I didn't call all Swedish people biased. I do think that you (and a few others) are though. Call me insane all you want and use all the other words you can think of to try to provoke me - that really says more about you than it does about me If you don't understand why I find that certain people on this board cannot see the arguments, then please see my earlier posts (I think they are elaborate enough :-]) on this thread, as well as on the 'sister' thread https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=546011 This statement will have to be entirely on your account. People that have actually read my previous posts can draw their own conclusions. I do have an opinion on that (the first sentence in particular), but for some reason (I wonder why?!?) I think that you are not really even trying to understand my point of view, so why bother? So, whatever, dude - add 'poor Danish loser' to my resume (CV)
I quoted the comments I found mostly relevant. First of all, I'm sorry if my tone was a bit strong there. Came home from a party and I apologize. Other than the occasional strong tone of voice (writing), I still stand by the football side of everything I said. If you think I'm a biased Swedish supporter then I'm quite ok with that because I see absolutely no controversy in the statements I made. I've been crystal on the UEFA bit, I think (well saw over and over on zoomed images basically) that Rosenberg did a bit of pushing and shoving but nothing that could compare and I think the entire match is without any controversy made by the Swedish team. If they could have played it through then that would have been great and the best thing but the ref didn't feel that Parken could provide the security and made his decision. I don't think Danes can point the finger on any Swedes for this one. Honestly, when you call me and other Swedish fans "biased" for what we've expressed, I do think it's starting to sound like a poor loser. It's not meant as an insult. I just can't see it any other way (the troubles with talking over the internet instead of being face to face). On the Swedish side's behalf, I can't see what the controversy is. Poulsen messed up big-time, the Danish fan put the icing on the cake and that's that.
I quoted the comments I found mostly relevant. First of all, I'm sorry if my tone was a bit strong there. Came home from a party, one beer too many and I apologize. Other than the occasional strong tone of voice (writing), I still stand by the football side of everything I said. If you think I'm a biased Swedish supporter then I'm quite ok with that because I see absolutely no controversy in the statements I made. I've been crystal on the UEFA bit, I think (well saw over and over on zoomed images basically) that Rosenberg did a bit of pushing and shoving but nothing that could compare and I think the entire match is without any controversy made by the Swedish team. If they could have played it through then that would have been great and the best thing but the ref didn't feel that Parken could provide the security and made his decision. I don't think Danes can point the finger on any Swedes for this one. Honestly, when you call me and other Swedish fans "biased" for what we've expressed, I do think it's starting to sound like a poor loser. It's not meant as an insult. I just can't see it any other way (the troubles with talking over the internet instead of being face to face). On the Swedish side's behalf, I can't see what the controversy is. Poulsen messed up big-time, the Danish fan put the icing on the cake and that's that.
Apology accepted. At least you didn't across the Atlantic 'fence' to take a hit at me after having one too many beers, like some other fan :-] Was it at least a good party? Non-taken, but was it meant as a compliment? If so, that surely went over my head Again, if you go back and read my posts on the two threads, you will notice that I repeatedly encouraged Swedish fans on this board to constructively look at all the parts of the incidence and take a stand at what Rosenberg's part in this had. I got very little. It was like that part of the argument was completely blocked out of the minds of the people I am referring to. I didn't come out the gate and call anybody biased, I did only after a long time of not getting the feel that there was much willingness to look at the episode in its entirety, and have a balanced, UNBIASED view on that. Hey, have any of the Danish fans on this board argued that Poulsen, the 'fan' and the security weren't to blame for this more than horrific incident? We just wanted to also point out that a Swede (Rosenberg) had his part (however small or large) in starting the snow-ball effect. It is not unreasonable to discuss the effects of that, taking everything else into account, but more often than not, when that was done, the responses took comments out of context and completely avoided the point that was being made. Oh well... This thread is nearing its retirement I think :-]
Well from what I can understand, Rosenberg's role wasn't very big. He stated that he did some pushing and shoving but nothing more, then Poulsen sucker punched him. In any case, we can agree that the thread is near retirement. The next thing of relevance will be Sweden vs Denmark at Råsunda.
According to the Danish FA's official wibsite then the verdict has been changed by the UEFA appeal committee... : http://visl.dk/tr/url/?url=http://www.dbu.dk/news/newsShow.aspx?id=239883&pair=da-en (The translator can be a bit slow, so give it a few moments to work) As written elsewhere, then Danish FA General Secretary (and Vice-Chairman of the UEFA Disciplinary-committee), Jim Stjerne Hansen, seemed very sure of himself when he said that the danish FA would appeal the verdict and shamed out the rest of his fellow UEFA Disciplinary-committee members, saying that they had made a very poor job of the verdict... Now it seem that he was in the right, since the UEFA appeal committee have changed the verdict. Not changed (the Danish FA did not appeal this part of the verdict) : 1) UEFA still award the match to Sweden 0-3 by default 2) The Danish FA is still fined 100,000CHF Changed : 1) The Liechtenstein tie no longer has to be staged behind closed doors. 2) The number of Euro-08 qualifiers that has to be played away from Parken/Copenhagen has been reduced from 4 to 2 games 3) The restriction area for the two Euro qualifiers has been reduced from 250 km to 140 km away from Parken/Copenhagen. .