Loppermann wrote:in truth, Harry should have had his hands behind his back as soon as he saw the cross come in
I've never seen players guarding the goal line with their hands behind their back... don't think I've ever done that in all my years as a player- yet never made any handballs. It's more instinctive to try and stick your head in the way of a shot to block it.....
instincitve or not, you may not have the time to do it
you see most top defenders keep their hands behind their back when at all possible when they're in their own box
Rubbish... you can't run properly with your hands behind your back!
Franco UnAmerican wrote:If I felt the need to blab on for 5 pages I would say "Col Your tripping after reading your take on the incident" but since I couldn't be bothered I wil keep my opinin to myself.
Im tripping??? Answer this, did hit his arm??? Did it deny a goal??? was the offending arm away from the body while non offending arm stayed next to his body??? Whilst i may be tripping, a picture paints a thousand words and when looking at that picture, he is guilty as charged. Like i said, the easiest decision that Italian had to make last night, and about the only one he got right might i add
Hawkesy wrote:COLOSSUS...........Congratulations, you have won the title fair a square.
I understand the law and yes if the ref saw it as intentional it should be a Red but in my opinion the law should be interprited diffrently in this sittuation just like the Australian constitution is. The law doesn't go in depth enough and take into concideration an accidental hand ball that directly prohibits a goal or goal scoring opportunity. I mean let's face it we all know it was a hand ball and it deserved the penalty, but to punish a player who couldn't help commiting the infringement with a red card is ridiculous.
Dan Birdwell - You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four.
dinozoff wrote:I understand the law and yes if the ref saw it as intentional it should be a Red but in my opinion the law should be interprited diffrently in this sittuation just like the Australian constitution is. The law doesn't go in depth enough and take into concideration an accidental hand ball that directly prohibits a goal or goal scoring opportunity. I mean let's face it we all know it was a hand ball and it deserved the penalty, but to punish a player who couldn't help commiting the infringement with a red card is ridiculous.
if it was accidental then it wasn't a penalty
it is not up for interpretation whether it was a red card or a yellow card, as soon as the decision is made that it was deliberate hand ball it then has to be red as well
dinozoff wrote:I understand the law and yes if the ref saw it as intentional it should be a Red but in my opinion the law should be interprited diffrently in this sittuation just like the Australian constitution is. The law doesn't go in depth enough and take into concideration an accidental hand ball that directly prohibits a goal or goal scoring opportunity. I mean let's face it we all know it was a hand ball and it deserved the penalty, but to punish a player who couldn't help commiting the infringement with a red card is ridiculous.
so do you want the law changed or did you want the ref to not follow the laws of the game??
Franco UnAmerican wrote:If I felt the need to blab on for 5 pages I would say "Col Your tripping after reading your take on the incident" but since I couldn't be bothered I wil keep my opinin to myself.
Im tripping??? Answer this, did hit his arm??? Did it deny a goal??? was the offending arm away from the body while non offending arm stayed next to his body??? Whilst i may be tripping, a picture paints a thousand words and when looking at that picture, he is guilty as charged. Like i said, the easiest decision that Italian had to make last night, and about the only one he got right might i add
Sorry I thought you were sighted, obviously I was wrong.......Was it intentional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is the Crux of this whole argument....Your other points are non de plus when this question is asked.
If this was the World Cup of Whinging, Australia would not need to play another game, they would have already won it by a mile. Get over it!!! Aust. 0 v Serbia 2. Germany 3 v Ghana 1.
The Law says that a red card should be issued when a player stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball by having the arm in an unnatural position.
i don't think he did either of those tbh.
But in the end...it's all up to the referee and his interpretation !
The hand was away from his body but not the upper arm (bicep) where there was contact !
If you think that was "Deliberate"your TRIPPING.............Tripper
B.Toomer wrote:If this was the World Cup of Whinging, Australia would not need to play another game, they would have already won it by a mile. Get over it!!! Aust. 0 v Serbia 2. Germany 3 v Ghana 1.
You guys may even make it out of the group stage then
dinozoff wrote:I understand the law and yes if the ref saw it as intentional it should be a Red but in my opinion the law should be interprited diffrently in this sittuation just like the Australian constitution is. The law doesn't go in depth enough and take into concideration an accidental hand ball that directly prohibits a goal or goal scoring opportunity. I mean let's face it we all know it was a hand ball and it deserved the penalty, but to punish a player who couldn't help commiting the infringement with a red card is ridiculous.
so do you want the law changed or did you want the ref to not follow the laws of the game??
the law changed this is my whole agrument.
Dan Birdwell - You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four.
dinozoff wrote:I understand the law and yes if the ref saw it as intentional it should be a Red but in my opinion the law should be interprited diffrently in this sittuation just like the Australian constitution is. The law doesn't go in depth enough and take into concideration an accidental hand ball that directly prohibits a goal or goal scoring opportunity. I mean let's face it we all know it was a hand ball and it deserved the penalty, but to punish a player who couldn't help commiting the infringement with a red card is ridiculous.
so do you want the law changed or did you want the ref to not follow the laws of the game??
the law changed this is my whole agrument.
interpreting the law differently and amending the law are two different things
Franco, the techincal answer to your question is in the last few lines of the second paragraph.
Any objective observer would tell you it is a clear red card/penalty. If one of the Ghanaian central defenders had done the exact same thing on the line and NOT been sent off we would be calling for blood.
Kitchimo wrote:Franco, the techincal answer to your question is in the last few lines of the second paragraph.
Any objective observer would tell you it is a clear red card/penalty. If one of the Ghanaian central defenders had done the exact same thing on the line and NOT been sent off we would be calling for blood.
No doubt, but with 11 men we wouldn't have felt the need to do that because we wouldn't have been 1 man down for alot of the match.
Plenty of objective observers have called it a dud call..........Probably as many delusional people have agreed with you.
Just goes to show there needs to be a ying to the yang......However wrong they are
Just watched a replay of the incident, Harry's arms were actually spread out wide and he was bringing them into his body (the normal process for someone moving into position and balancing or throwing out your chest to deflect a ball).....the ball struck his pectoral muscle and bicep simultaneously....
Still do not feel it was deliberate.....but I guess it is a "damned if you do...damned if you don't" call for a referee....not worthy of a game ban.
Last edited by swannsong on Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
watch the replay, you can see his arm away from his body.
I gave you more credit than that......Silly me.
Get a ball kicked at you at that speed and see what your arms do when it hits the inside of the pec
Besides........Harry has been talked up over the years but to be able to move your arm to the trajectory of the ball......Whilst...... this is the big trick......having your eyes closed.......The boy can truly walk on water........hail the 1st comming of Harry
watch the replay, you can see his arm away from his body.
I gave you more credit than that......Silly me.
Get a ball kicked at you at that speed and see what your arms do when it hits the inside of the pec
Besides........Harry has been talked up over the years but to be able to move your arm to the trajectory of the ball......Whilst...... this is the big trick......having your eyes closed.......The boy can truly walk on water........hail the 1st comming of Harry
swannsong wrote:Just watched a replay of the incident, Harry's arms were actually spread out wide and he was bringing them into his body (the normal process for someone moving into position and balancing or throwing out your chest to deflect a ball).....the ball struck his pectoral muscle and bicep simultaneously....
Still do not feel it was deliberate.....but I guess it is a "damned if you do...damned if you don't" call for a referee....not worthy of a game ban.
agreed, but them's the rules and the ref has to send him off
more a problem with the laws than the ref
swannsong wrote:Just watched a replay of the incident, Harry's arms were actually spread out wide and he was bringing them into his body (the normal process for someone moving into position and balancing or throwing out your chest to deflect a ball).....the ball struck his pectoral muscle and bicep simultaneously....
Still do not feel it was deliberate.....but I guess it is a "damned if you do...damned if you don't" call for a referee....not worthy of a game ban.
agreed, but them's the rules and the ref has to send him off
more a problem with the laws than the ref
If it wasnt deliberate then it wasnt a penalty and it wasnt a red card - them's the rules!!!
more of a problem with the referee than the rules.
We are dancing in circles here
There are at least three issues here:
1) Was Harry's actions deliberate or was it not. Opinion is divided on this point.
2) The interpretation of what is deliberate handball under the rules of the game. This has been an area of debate in football for a long time. It is an area of a lot of inconsistency between different referees and it is also an area where there is commonly a difference of understanding between footballers and referees.
3) The rules themselves producing unjust outcomes - this is why the rules where changed to increase the offense for a deliberate handball in a goalscoring situation from yellow to red a few years ago to counter players acting as second goalkeepers. The unjust outcomes is also the reason they are now considering downgrading the offense from red to yellow - due to the so called triple punishment for one offense - penalty, red card & one game suspension.
watch the replay, you can see his arm away from his body.
I gave you more credit than that......Silly me.
Get a ball kicked at you at that speed and see what your arms do when it hits the inside of the pec
Besides........Harry has been talked up over the years but to be able to move your arm to the trajectory of the ball......Whilst...... this is the big trick......having your eyes closed.......The boy can truly walk on water........hail the 1st comming of Harry
Give me a break...
His arm should have been next to his body.
And his arm was next to his body when the ball struck.
Colossus, if that is the clearest penalty you have seen, then I can only imagine that you have only seen less than about 10 games in your life (which I know is not the case, so another case of talking absolute shite). The mere fact this has already 6 pages of debate indicates this to be bollocks, but much like many of your "arguments" its either black or white - you rarely can see the grey areas.
Anyway, game over, nothing can be done about it now, just worry about beating Serbia. At least Cahill is back.
