The Tug Øvrebø Let Go

Around the 26th minute, with Chelsea 1–0 up and heading for the final, Frank Lampard played Didier Drogba into the Barcelona penalty area. Éric Abidal, chasing back, got an arm across Drogba and pulled at him as the striker tried to stay on his feet and get a shot away. Drogba stumbled, the chance died, and Chelsea appealed. Tom Henning Øvrebø waved play on.

Sky Sports' four-man post-match panel singled this out, along with the two handballs, as one of three appeals that should have been penalties, describing it as shirt-pulling that 'would have otherwise been a one-on-one against the goalkeeper'. A separate second-half appeal, when Yaya Touré slid in on Drogba around the 55th minute, is sometimes conflated with this one; the tribunal files that incident as a footnote, because Touré appeared to touch the ball.

Holding is a direct free-kick offence, and there was nothing subtle about this one: Abidal's arm is around Drogba's body and his hand is in the shirt as the striker enters the area. The referee was following play and had a clear view. Drogba was denied a one-on-one; at 1–0 in a semifinal with a 0–0 first leg, a converted penalty would have put Chelsea two goals clear and required Barcelona to score twice.

The prosecution also points to what was and was not punished on the night. Forty minutes later Abidal was sent off for a foul on Anelka that replays suggested involved little or no contact. A referee who sees a phantom trip outside the box but misses a visible hold inside it is, on this account, a referee whose thresholds had stopped making sense.

Drogba stayed on his feet. That is the defence in five words, and it was a genuine consideration for referees in 2009: a striker who rides a hold and keeps going is often judged to have shrugged it off, and a whistle then would have stopped a Chelsea attack. The contact was real but brief, Drogba was moving away from goal at an angle, and the ball was running from him. Officials at that level do not give many penalties for a hold on a player who is still upright and still playing.

The fan clip that circulates under the title 'dive or penalty?' captures the ambiguity honestly. Reasonable observers watched the same replay and disagreed, which is a different thing from a clear and obvious error.

Law 12 in 2008/09 listed 'holds an opponent' among the direct free-kick offences, with a penalty when committed inside the offender's area. There was no requirement that the attacker go to ground, and referees' guidelines of the period encouraged advantage to be played when a fouled player retained possession and a promising attack continued — which is the defence's reading of why the whistle stayed silent. There was no video review.

Play continued, the chance was gone, and the score stayed 1–0. Chelsea remained on course for the final for another hour. Two appeals in three minutes had been refused; two more would follow after the 80th minute. A converted penalty here would have materially changed the tie state, requiring Barcelona to score twice at Stamford Bridge rather than once. Whether the hold met the threshold for a penalty under the 2009 law is the question the jury votes on.