The aftermatch of the second leg between Madrid and Juve is becoming a spectacle of miseries and contradictions, in a divine comedy where the bufo combines with the pathetic proving what in any case we already knew, even though this was the most obvious demonstration of which we have a memory, namely that Madrid is not only the club that pays the highest propaganda bills for every occasion (infrequent) in which an arbitration error benefits, but it is also not allowed to benefit from the successes of the collegiate.
Madrid is a field of evidence of post-truth. How does it happen to these imperialists to overcome the tie in the discount, however much each new shot appears to increase the certainty that what Benaita perpetrates on Lucas Vázquez is a book penalty? Did not anyone inform the Englishman Michael Oliver of the hopes that the anti-Madrid legions of football had placed on him? Who would think of throwing eggs at him to signal a clear maximum penalty just when his testosterone was least demanded?
By the way, nobody seems to reproach him for his only error of the game, in the annulment of Isco's goal, with 1-0 on the scoreboard, when there was no offside. That, and the forgiveness of more than one Juventus expulsion, is the only thing that can be reproached to the Briton, but none of this matters to the post-truth, that when he discovers that he has no arguments to deny the existence of the penalty he is casting on himself: , since I can not title the penalty is non-existent, I title with self-fulfilling prophecies where I am a judge and part, saying for example that Madrid “won as always, with a controversial penalty”, as if the reader was not able to discern on his own same between the controversial and the unjust, as if the reader (Real Madrid or not) was imbecile and did not realize that the penalty will be controversial, in any case, because you tell yourself and you tell, newspaper discredited among others discredited newspapers that in the world (but especially in Spain) are. Only the Spanish and Italian press (that is, only the press that is always anti-Madridist and the one that is today, respectively) deny the existence of a penalty. Wherever there is objectivity, both the merits of Allegri's and the illegitimate nature of his complaints are recognized. Juve had a cruel but not unfair destiny.
The carnival of post-truth slides examples really funny, like that referee who says that “the shooting is not a penalty” (?) As someone who spoke of a coitus that is not penetration , or like that Catalan newspaper that at eleven at night admits the existence of the maximum penalty but at 7:04 AM records the intervention of the boss's hand in its online edition.
-But how! What have we admitted is a penalty? Boy, take that away immediately!
-But it's a penalty …
-Well, then put “controversial penalty”, do not fuck me.
Carnival could not have taken place, of course, without the circus ridden by the Juve players. His anger can be understood in the frustration of the moment after the many merits contracted (they unleashed a really epic game), but it would not be understood that they would continue to err with the passing of the hours. It is to be desired, for example, that the habitually exemplary Buffon has already reflected on his own irresponsibility by depriving his team of himself in the launching of the decisive penalty. If Cristiano had failed, in addition, Buffon would have forced his team to play the extra time with ten, with which his team, in any case, would have paid dearly for his fever. It is also to be expected that Benaita has found intrigure to his picturesque statement about the play of yore. “I did everything possible not to touch him.” Neither the common sense nor the most conspicuous #MeToo would be an argument of that draft.
What happens here, the underlying issue, is that it is very difficult to admit that the equipment for which the winds drink 90% of the The home press has the Champions quarter-finals as its roof, while the team most hated by the press has the semifinals of that competition, which can win again. Four of five Champions would be something too unacceptable, too close to the legend of Madrid of the 50 (five of five in the first editions of the former European Cup).
Michael Oliver: do not you understand that millions and millions of people They trusted you to abort that horrendous prospect? Who sends you to hit?