Thanks Sidspaceman. I've been reading the comments from our Mexican friends. Interesting. Yet... nobody mentions the penalty that the ref gave away to Pumas, totally casual handball by Schiavi, but of course, the myth of the conspiracy against Mexico rages on. Now kids, once again listen carefully, Southamerican refs don't make decisions against Mexican clubs, instead, they favor Brazilians and Argentinians against EVERYBODY ELSE. And this is not new, this has been happening for 40 years. Be specially aware if the ref is from Paraguay (Nicolas Leoz, Conmebol's president is Paraguayan). There's a long lineage of absolute whistle bound criminals from that country. Once again, welcome to Conmebol. If you want to play with the big guys, you have to follow the rules of the owner of the ball, that's just the way things are. Don't worry, some day you'll sneak in and win a Cup, like has happened before with teams like Colo Colo, Atletico Nacional de Medellin and Cienciano del Cuzco. The day will come.
boca had already done like 1 or 2 handballs inside the box, that were not call, it was about time that he call one. and if they want our money, they should give a fare game.
also people -including the commentators- are unable to come up with one camara angle that convincingly shows the ball crossing the line in that first leg match....yet it's become "fact" that Puma were robbed of a goal on that one, while failing to acknowledge a blatant PK in that same game that Boca surely was robbed off (from all angles i can think of).... .... It is indeed very often Argie/Brazil clubs being favored over everyone else.... Used to see how Cristal did in CL in the mid 90's, when they had a great team.... and clearly recall some games vs. River... where the level of bad calls in favor of River/against Cristal went beyond anything i've seen in these two matches.....
Of course, if the defender extends the hand to reach the ball, not if he has the hand down and the ball hits it. Very different.
that was a cleared pk, boca was nto robbed of anything. The ref was calling everything pumas did and ignored boca's fouls and dirty play, typical of argaytinians.
you saying Mexican clubs dont get screwed? 2000.. America recieved bad officiatin. Boca player scores a goal with his forearm. He was rolling on the groundand knocked it in... 2001.. Cruz Azul is informed that if they make win the finals, they would not play the Intercontinental Cup against Bayern Munich. Why tell Cruz Azul this a week before the finals and not at the begining? Cruz Azul won 1-0 at the Bombonera and was denied a PK that would have won the game... they lost in PKs 2002.. Sao Caetano is awarded a PK on a ball that was not going to be disputed. It was a normal bump. 2003. Conejo Perez gets cleated in the face (has a visual mark on his cheek). The play is not stopped and Santos scores a goal that eventually cost them. When a GK is down, the game is suppose to come to a halt 2004. Perhaps the biggest attempts to rob Mexican clubs. Before the start of the season, Santos is being shaked down. They are saying that their stadium is not fit to host the tournament. They had the minimum capacity and they installed floodlights. Corona Stadium may not be a gem, but it sure beats the hell of out some stadiums used in the CL the season before. Cobreloa's stadium had 4-5 K less than the required capacity and had some wooden bleachers.... AND to top it off... Santos and River took a game into PKs. Santos keeper blocked the shot and the ref told to redo the pk because he moved forward. The River Gk also moved up and nothing happened 2005. Chivas was robbed when Bofo was unjustly sent off and therefore could not play in the semifinals.
Oh a quick suggestion if you have a problem reading how pissed off the Pumas supporters are then I suggest you leave this thread. If your team had been so blatantly robbed you would be pissed as well.
Of course they get screwed, along with everybody else who's not Argie or Brazilian. Welcome to the club.
Hang on, the ref was just crap... we were lucky to get that pen, no doubt, but can anyone explain why El Pato wasn not sent off? I don't like the rule, but it is a fact... if a keeper handles outside the area it is a red card... so why wasn't it ?
I'm sorry to say but you, the announcers on Fox Sports and all of the other people who feel that El Pato should've been given a red card are completely wrong. According to 2005/2006 edition of the "Laws of the Game" written by FIFA, a player should only be sent off if he denies a clear goal scoring opportunity. Contrary to your belief, it is not "a fact" that if a goalkeeper handles the ball outside the penalty he automatically needs to be sent off. He ONLY needs to be sent off if he denies a clear goal scoring opportunity, which El Pato did NOT do since the Pumas player did not have a clear opportunity to score. The referee made the correct decision by showing him the yellow card for touching the ball with his hands outside the penalty area, but that is NOT a red card so who ever taught you that is completely wrong. One more thing, you weren't lucky to get that penalty either, that was another correct call by the referee and that was clearly a penalty kick for Pumas.
your definition of clear scoring opportunity and my defintion of clear scoring opportunity scoring must be different then....
quick thoughts: I thought Miguel Rodriguez closed the book on most vale verg penalti back in 94, but Jaquin really wrote a new chapter today. You know the goalkeeper is going to step out before you even strike the ball by why make it easy for him. Japanese company takes the time to introduce Maradona 10 Technology at La Bombonera. The first time in histoty a piece of software is more stable than its spokesman. The 14 year-old girl with the face of an angel sitting in the front row calling Marco Palacios a putoh with her drunker than hell dad. Priceless. Though karma got her in the end when somebody behind her tried to throw an Icee on the field and it landed on her instead.
Well it's not my opinion or your opinion that matters, it is the opinion of the referee that matters. And according to FIFA's laws of the game, which the referee followed, the referee's opinion is final.
Man, I knew something like this was gonna happen, Conmebol did it again to us. I didn't watch the game but saw all the highlights and pks, how in the hell did Pato not get sent off, that is clearly a chance to score for Pumas. It's the first time that I see a goalie get only a yellow card for a handball outside the penalty area. He should have been sent off. Now it's too finals that are lost to Boca in penalty kicks by Mexican teams.
Lovely stuff... once again... why do we want a yanks opinions? Tell me ONE time you have seen, since the FIFA directive, a keeper not being sent off for handllng the ball outside the box.... jesus chirist... these twats,.,,,
My 2 cents Knowing that Conmebol was going to do everything in their power to prevent Pumas (or any Mexican Club as history has shown us) from winning a South American Cup, Pumas simply needed to post a better scoreline at CU. This was the only way they could have had a fighting chance in the return leg. In my opinion that is where Pumas lost control of their own destiny at left their title hopes in the hands of Conmebol. Unfortunately all the bvllshit that took place in the match against Pumas was expected. I write this because I am jaded towards Conmebols antics already. As many here have already suggested, if Conmebol doesn't clean up its act and give Mexican clubs a fair shake, maybe it is time to hit them where it hurts most...their pocketbook.
Hey, I hope I'm not the only one who had an idea about the bronca in the Azteca after the América-Sao Caetano game in 2004. I was so pissed after seeing what happened to Santos in Buenos Aires that I actually applauded the Americanistas for doing what they did. Showed CONMEBOL that if you fvck with México, you get a wheelbarrow thrown on the field!