Champions League Final: Barca vs. ArsenL

Barcelona versus Arsenal (who would have thought?).
Two great teams - both deserve to win. Both play great soccer, beautiful soccer (not the over-pragmatic ugly yet effective kind of game).
Both have super players,,,,ofcourse i mean,,,,,rony vs henry.....in my opinion this is the year of rony,,absloutly he deserves it..viva la barca ..what u think guys???

if henry didnt miss that easy shot....

BARCAAAA  The ref....what a joke that man  Why that red card and not just a goal for barca!? He destroyed the game

that should have been red card and goal, or red card + penalty... that referee is an idiot.. but it doesn't matter any more, barcelona has done it :)

well .. it's not a penalty anyway cause lehman grabed eto's leg right outside the line ... and then another one scored but the refree took his decision before the goal gets in .. also must say that Arsenal did a great game considering lehman and pires are out .. Henry missed an easy goal in the first minutes in the second half and that was to be very hard for barca to catch the match again .. it wasn't dinho's day .. he had a strange bad luck ... anyway it was a great match and fits what a champion's league final should be :)

no man, u r wrong.
i tell u why, because if the red card is given it is assumed that the play was stopped and the goal was scored when the game was not actual in play.
If you give the goal, for me the best option in a champions league final, you can not give the red card because you will destroy the show!!!
Imagine if the game was 1-0 and 11vs 10...
I probably would have felt asleep

ya vitessse ur right stupid ref  

lil off topic but it's still football

An artical from a newsletter i recieve ..

Ecstasy Escape For World Cup Soccer Violence?

Soccer violence expert Bill Buford, whose book about running with
Manchester United gangs in the 80s 'Among The Thugs' remains one of the best
on soccer hooliganism, predicted that World Cup violence will be
manageable in Germany next month, partly because of dance culture.

"It's probably not as bad as it was because it was kind of a social
trend," the acclaimed US travel writer told the Kansas City Star this
week.

"Most of it (soccer violence) got replaced by rave music. A lot of the
organizers of the violence of the '80s became organizers of the rave
nights and rave clubs. It was weirdly and apolitically that they had
switched from one violent thing to a non-violent thing. It was completely
arbitrary."

Buford became relatively accepted by United hooligans and was even
beaten up as a suspected thug by Italian police during England's World Cup
campaign in 1990, and admitted he'd ended up fully understanding the
buzz of gangs.

"One of the things that surprised me is that it was extremely exciting
for everybody," he admitted, "And there was, as perverse as it seems,
an element of fun, that it was a kind of drug-like pleasure."

His views on what  became 80s hooligans were matched by Liverpool house
star John Kelly who chatting to Skrufff last year, recalled rave's
culture's decidedly mixed beginnings.

"Rave culture was never just about youth culture. In the early days in
'88 it involved such a wide variety of people; black, white, yellow,
brown, old, young, rich, educated, poor, gangsters and football
hooligans," said John, "A lot of the London based people who are now DJs used to
be football hooligans," he added.

Counter-culture guru Nicholas Saunders (now deceased) also addressed
the issue in his seminal drugs book Ecstasy Reconsidered in 1995, quoting
extensively from Lifeline expert Mark Gilman's two-year study on
Manchester United and City gangs he studied between 1991 and 1992

"Conversations were no longer about which team lads could be ambushed
where and when," said Gilman.

"Rave culture and ecstasy use had become more attractive than using
large amounts of alcohol and running around the streets looking for fights
with opposing football fans. MDMA use encouraged a desire for
friendship and togetherness, not aggression," he reported.