[WC] World Cup 2010 - General Talk Thread (18 Viewers)

[juventus1897]

The ref can be a Martian for all I care. I don't see a logic behind that being a red card and a penalty. So far I didn't even see a rule that explains such a decision, but even if there is, it will make the refs call correct but illogical because there is nothing a defender can do if a ball kicks his hand when his hand is next to his body.

If there is such a rule, then FIFA should change it.

That's why defenders on the goal line often put their arms behind their back. You can't move into the balls path and then let it strike your hand. Not on the goal line, anyways. Yes it's harsh, and sometimes you get unlucky like Kewell did today, but that's football. The rules are fine imo, there cannot be any handling of the ball on the goalline. Just because it seems unintentional doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[king Ale]

That's why I suggested that the call was correct based on that rule.

However, Andries was wrong to say that a handball in the box is automatically intentional.

Regardless of the referee's nationality, it was a controversial call.

Here they asked a ref's opinion (linesman of Italy-Brazil 94 world cup) and he said it was a correct decision. It's a stupid rule anyway.

 

[Enron]

But what's the point of the rule above the one you quoted if the ref was following the quoted rule?

No, I think Rosetti gave a penalty and a red card because he thought that Kewell deliberately handled the ball to stop a goal. He was wrong.

A hand ball along the goal line stops the ball from going into the net. It stops a goal scoring opportunity (the key phrase here). If the handball was away from the goal line it's not a definitive goal scoring opportunity and then the referee must decide if it was intentional.

Alen, how you base Rosetti's decision on something you cannot possibly know?

I think when FIFA's official explanation comes out it will say "sending off due to stopping of a goal scoring opportunity".

 

[Alen]

That's why defenders on the goal line often put their arms behind their back. You can't move into the balls path and then let it strike your hand. Not on the goal line, anyways. Yes it's harsh, and sometimes you get unlucky like Kewell did today, but that's football. The rules are fine imo, there cannot be any handling of the ball on the goalline. Just because it seems unintentional doesn't make it any less wrong.

Ok.

Just to clear it up...I stand on the line, the same place where Kewell was, my hands are behind my back. You shoot from my left side and you hit my elbow. The ball doesn't go in and I save a goal. Is that a penalty?

 

[Bjerknes]

Ok.

Just to clear it up...I stand on the line, the same place where Kewell was, my hands are behind my back. You shoot from my left side and you hit my elbow. The ball doesn't go in and I save a goal. Is that a penalty?

That's a good question.

 

[Enron]

Ok.

Just to clear it up...I stand on the line, the same place where Kewell was, my hands are behind my back. You shoot from my left side and you hit my elbow. The ball doesn't go in and I save a goal. Is that a penalty?

No because when your hands are stationary at your side or behind your back they are considered to be a part of your chest.

 

[Enron]

That's why defenders on the goal line often put their arms behind their back. You can't move into the balls path and then let it strike your hand. Not on the goal line, anyways. Yes it's harsh, and sometimes you get unlucky like Kewell did today, but that's football. The rules are fine imo, there cannot be any handling of the ball on the goalline. Just because it seems unintentional doesn't make it any less wrong.

The same call happened in Egypt-Brazil in last year's Confed Cup.

 

[juventus1897]

Ok.

Just to clear it up...I stand on the line, the same place where Kewell was, my hands are behind my back. You shoot from my left side and you hit my elbow. The ball doesn't go in and I save a goal. Is that a penalty?

No. Kewell moved his arm out, it wasn't at his side. You can make a case that it wasn't a hand ball at all, but there were only two options for Rosetti in this case: Play on or red card + pen. I think he did the right thing. Besides, just imagine the uproar if he had let play continue.

 

[Alen]

A hand ball along the goal line stops the ball from going into the net. It stops a goal scoring opportunity (the key phrase here). If the handball was away from the goal line it's not a definitive goal scoring opportunity and then the referee must decide if it was intentional.

Alen, how you base Rosetti's decision on something you cannot possibly know?

I think when FIFA's official explanation comes out it will say "sending off due to stopping of a goal scoring opportunity".

But this rule is better for that, dammit:

* denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball

Why use a rule that talks about a goal scoring opportunity, when we have a rule that speaks about denying a goal by handling the ball?

And the rule you bolded says:
denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick.

So what's an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick?

These are:
Direct Free Kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
--------------

In every case it speaks about handling the ball deliberately.
The rules are pretty clear so I don't see why do we have to interpret them.

The only question here is what is a deliberate handball. That's not explained so it's up to the referee to decide. Rosetti decided that it was a deliberate handball and I think he was wrong.

 

[giovanotti]

In 2006 you did, constantly. Don't lie and say you didn't. Even Jack remembers it.

Islam? I don't care about Islam. If I was still a Catholic and I insulted Islam you'd have a case considering it's pretty retarded to insult another religion when your religion is pretty phony itself, but I'm not a religious person at all.

Lets not forget about your comments regarding Americans in general which we have discussed, even via private message if I recall correctly. I mean, fine, we're all dumb Americans. But in doing that, at least present yourself as a citizen of your own nation. You can't go around insulting Americans but hide behind a nationality you don't have.

During 2006. indeed I said that Italy should win over USA and I accepted that De Rossi got well deserved red card, but I have never insulted your national team, NEVER!!!
You said that Donovan made Cannavaro looks like MLS player and I put " " for that, you def made a mistake and by mistake mixed me with some other guy.
I said few days ago that I'd like Slovenia to beat both USA and England (you didn't like that) and I continued with Algeria than , but I never insulted you or any American here.
And I have never sent you a PM and received one from you.
Don't call Jack in this he has something against me ,so please let this stay between 2 of us.
I have never said anything against USA citizens ( like usual comments they're dumb or whatever) the fact some of you don't know where Serbia or Slovenia is is the same that some of us don't know where is Kanzas or Arkanzas , and I have nothing against that. If someone is interested he will find it.
But I said that your democracy is weird and I still can say that, but that doesn't offend you or your nation.

 

[Red]

I think the whole area of giving a penalty and a red card for an offence needs to be looked at.

Very often, a goal and the loss of a man is an unduly harsh punishment.

 

[Enron]

The ref can be a Martian for all I care. I don't see a logic behind that being a red card and a penalty. So far I didn't even see a rule that explains such a decision, but even if there is, it will make the refs call correct but illogical because there is nothing a defender can do if a ball kicks his hand when his hand is next to his body.

If there is such a rule, then FIFA should change it.

Dude I just showed you the rule that explains it. The handball stopped the ball from going into the net. IF the referee calls the handball then it is implied that the infraction caused the ball not to go into the net. A goal scoring opportunity was illegally stopped. Intent is not involved.

Now put Kewell at the penalty spot and the same thing happens, it's only a yellow because the handball was not intended.

 

[juventus1897]

Look I'm not gonna argue about the ambiguity of some phrasings of rules. It's clear cut that if it was a handling of the ball it's a red card and pen. I knew it when he whistled, the commentator said it, FIFA will agree... Not much to argue about really.

 

[Seven]

Dude I just showed you the rule that explains it. The handball stopped the ball from going into the net. IF the referee calls the handball then it is implied that the infraction caused the ball not to go into the net. A goal scoring opportunity was illegally stopped. Intent is not involved.

Now put Kewell at the penalty spot and the same thing happens, it's only a yellow because the handball was not intended.

I think intent is involved, but referees do what so many judges all over the world do: they interpret "intent". A couple of years ago you saw John Terry blocking the ball with his entire body, keeping his arms as high as he could when he went in for the tackle. While it is true that he never deliberately touched the ball with his arms, he was getting an unfair advantage. So basically such a thing is now called under the presumption that Terry knows very well what he's doing and is putting himself in a spot where it is very likely that the ball will hit his hand.

Apart from this theoretical discussion I think that the ref felt that it was an intentional handball anyway. The ball is coming at Kewell rather slowly and he obviously positions his body to clear the ball somehow, without suddenly being quadriplegic for some obscure reason I might add, so he knew what he was doing. If he calls handball, it's a red card.

@Alen, sometimes both rules are applicable. For example: if in this case you say it's not deliberate, you could argue that it's still a red card because it prevents a goalscoring opportunity. However, handball is generally only called when it's deliberate anyway.

 

[Tommy]

I would like to see the following teams out
France, South Korea, England, Germany, Japan, Portugal, Spain.

 

[Dostoevsky]

I would like to see the following teams out
France, South Korea, England, Germany, Japan, Portugal, Spain.

It would make the whole competition very boring.

 

[Alen]

@Alen, sometimes both rules are applicable. For example: if in this case you say it's not deliberate, you could argue that it's still a red card because it prevents a goalscoring opportunity. However, handball is generally only called when it's deliberate anyway.

Even if both rules are applicable, the second rule says: denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick.

So we need to see what's an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

This are:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately

So what did Kewell do of these 10 punishable offences?

 

[Seven]

Even if both rules are applicable, the second rule says: denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick.

So we need to see what's an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

This are:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately

So what did Kewell do of these 10 punishable offences?

Like I said: it's only called when it's deliberate IMO. So if he called it, he must have felt it was deliberate, in which case he had to send him off. I think Kewell knew what he was doing by the way. If it touched his arm, it was deliberate.

I don't really know why you're debating about this, because it has been like this forever.

 

[Yamen]

Official: Anelka sent home after the Dominec row.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

It was a 100% red card and penalty.

I'm fucking gutted, but the rules are the rules.

We fucking dominated them all game, even with 10 men, had we had a full team we would have got the three points.

Very proud of my boys efforts tonight.