Group D - Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

[stephen]

You are just making rules up, though. Fact is, the ref only had two options.

Fair call if you think the rules should be changed. I'm on the fence regarding that.

The rule is too punative at the moment. It seems inequitable that a handball in the goal square cops a red card but a handball elsewhere offers not much more than a free kick.

There needs to be a "blue card" option where a player who cops one has to sit out for ten or fifteen minutes and cops no further penalty. Red cards IMO should be reserved for outright dangerous play.

The fact is that a ref at the moment can have an undue influence over a game that they are not presiding over (which is a huge flaw with the system). A judiciary like what happens in the AFL or League would be much better IMO. Imagine the uproar if Sachin Tendulkar was barred from a key World Cup match because he got out handled ball (for example).

 

[Burgey]

You are just making rules up, though. Fact is, the ref only had two options.

Fair call if you think the rules should be changed. I'm on the fence regarding that.

So is a deliberate handball an automatic red then, or only when it's in front of goal?

Cos it seems to me if it's the former then Vidic ought to have gone. In fact, he was in the penalty box anyway. Little consistency would be great. Same with the Ghanan chop on Brec which got the yellow. Would have thought it warranted one.

Still and all, refereeing inconsistency not limited to football by any stretch.

 

[Uppercut]

So is a deliberate handball an automatic red then, or only when it's in front of goal?

Cos it seems to me if it's the former then Vidic ought to have gone. In fact, he was in the penalty box anyway. Little consistency would be great. Same with the Ghanan chop on Brec which got the yellow. Would have thought it warranted one.

Still and all, refereeing inconsistency not limited to football by any stretch.

Well,

The offences that warrant a red card are defined in FIFA’s Laws of the Game

1. Being guilty of ‘serious foul play’ (for instance, a very dangerous tackle).
2. Violence.
3. Spitting at an opponent or other person.
4. Denying the other side an opportunity to score by handling the ball.
5. Denying the other side an opportunity to score by fouling a player.
6. Offensive or abusive language or gestures.

Vidic did none of these things. If there had been a player behind him waiting to knock the ball in then it would have been a red, but there wasn't. It's not even in the same ball park as blocking a shot on the line with your arm.

Deliberate handball is just a free kick, ftr. Non-deliberate handball isn't. It's a yellow when the referee feels the handball was particularly unsporting- and Vidic's clearly was- and a red when it prevents a goal or clear goalscoring opportunity. So if the ref decides not to give Kewell the benefit of the doubt, he has to send him off.

 

[Uppercut]

The rule is too punative at the moment. It seems inequitable that a handball in the goal square cops a red card but a handball elsewhere offers not much more than a free kick.

There needs to be a "blue card" option where a player who cops one has to sit out for ten or fifteen minutes and cops no further penalty. Red cards IMO should be reserved for outright dangerous play.

The fact is that a ref at the moment can have an undue influence over a game that they are not presiding over (which is a huge flaw with the system). A judiciary like what happens in the AFL or League would be much better IMO. Imagine the uproar if Sachin Tendulkar was barred from a key World Cup match because he got out handled ball (for example).

That isn't the rule at all?

Also, suspensions are indeed handed out after the match by a judiciary independent of the referee. That's why Tim Cahill only got a one match ban for serious foul play (when it's normally an automatic three matches out). They aren't generally willing enough to overturn refereeing shockers though, IMO.

 

[andyc]

Precisely why the game hasnt taken off in Oz all bar the juniors

Do I want to see little Tom play it at 4 - 10?

Yeah, because I know he wont get hurt and it's good for his co-ordination

Any further?

Nah

Game for soft-****, whinging nancy boys

Like watching it when it's played well but it's a corrupt girlie game IMHO

TBF I've been playing it all my life here in Aus and I don't think I've seen more than one or two dives, and they've been very poorly received by pretty much everyone.

Seen it several times and it still looks deliberate to me. If you make a move towards the ball with your arm outstretched I'd suggest it's always going to give the semblance of volition.

The view from the side is the best one, Kewell actually raises his arm slightly as the ball moves through the air. Instinct? Possibly, but it's a deliberate movement to my way of thinking.

Reckon that it looked more like he was getting ready to chest the ball away. Don't think it was deliberate, but like others have said, it was always going to be a red anyway.

God, Wilkshire. What might have been.

This. We had plenty of chances, especially for 10 men down, and just didn't take them.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yesterday adamc asked about the handball rule and I think I replied that it had to be deliberate but that there is also a common-sense ruling to apply. Now I think Kewell didn't deliberately move his arm to the ball. However I don't think he made any attempt to not handle the ball. It's not a case of people not understanding, if handballs like that on the line were not given then there would be an awful lot of silliness.

That being said, have seen more blatant ones not given.

Also, I felt Australia responded a lot better to being a man down than last time, especially after the break.

Not sure how he had that option though really. I thought he tried to get his body behind the ball and to do that he had to move his arm, it would be physically impossible to do otherwise. He was never going to be able to move quickly enough in hindsight, given the pace the ball was travelling, but at no point was he ever going to be moving in the other direction (i.e. out of the path of the ball).

The penalty was obviously fair enough, as he stopped a goal, but thought the send off was a bit harsh. I think if common sense was applied in this case then Kewell would've stayed on the pitch.

Maybe another replay will change all this, but from the few I saw last night (as I said at the time) I thought it looked like he was steeling himself to cop it in the chest rather than sticking his arm out to deflect a goal.

Seems we can't play a game without a little controversy at the moment either

 

[Burgey]

Have to agree re Wilkshire. Man could have written his own marketing ticket here for the rest of his days.

Irrespective of the Kewell send off, same old problem haunted us - ineffective in front of goal.

And on the rules thing, appreciate the clarification. Still doesn't explain how the bloke who took down Brecsiano stayed on the park when Cahill last week didn't.

Looking forward to Marc's views on that, he was particularly strident about Cahill "retracting his challenge" or some such iirc.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Ha, goalkeepers do it all the time, tbf. Would be a completely redundant position if they didn't.

Think there's a slight difference though when it's legal to do so. Don't think Kewell's first thought would be to get the hands in the way.

 

[Ausage]

The penalty was obviously fair enough, as he stopped a goal, but thought the send off was a bit harsh. I think if common sense was applied in this case then Kewell would've stayed on the pitch.

Thing is as per the rules it had to be a red if it was a penalty. To give a yellow or no further punishment after awarding the penalty the referee would have been acting outside the laws of the game which would obviously be poor refereeing. Whether it was a handball or not should be the only debate tbh.

Sucks for us though

 

[Johnners]

Don't think it's been mentioned yet, but reckon Valeri played qutie well last night, he & Culina a vast improvement over Grella (although admitedly they still were pretty poor re: ball retention at times, but not a patch on how bad Grella has been)

 

[Son Of Coco]

Thing is as per the rules it had to be a red if it was a penalty. To give a yellow or no further punishment after awarding the penalty the referee would have been acting outside the laws of the game which would obviously be poor refereeing. Whether it was a handball or not should be the only debate tbh.

Sucks for us though

Yeah it does a bit. If that's the rule then fair enough, seems a bit silly that you can get drilled on the line and sent off, but anyway.

 

[Ausage]

Looking forward to Mark's views on that, he was particularly strident about Cahill "retracting his challenge" or some such iirc.

Always a red, current climate etc.

Tackles like that (studs up, in the ankles etc) are often given yellows, despite the laws. It's the refs not wanting to make a big call that will have a major effect on the game. Kind like how pushing/grabbing is ok in the box for a defender but not for an attacker.

 

[cpr]

The penalty was obviously fair enough, as he stopped a goal, but thought the send off was a bit harsh. I think if common sense was applied in this case then Kewell would've stayed on the pitch.

Its been a bit of a debate that one this season, denying a goal scoring opportunity in the area..... When the team gets a penalty for it theres still the goal scoring opportunity, so a pen AND a red does seem harsh. Alas, rules are rules..... (infact, we were having this debate all the way back in 1994 (see 3 min in))


Personally think it should be changed. Kewell was unlucky, but did stop a goal, yellow would've been fair, esp with the pen. If it was a cynical fling of the arm, then yes, red. Whilst the ref has scope as to what he deems a penalty, he has no scope over the punishment.

 

[Ausage]

So does anyone know what happens if we finish level with Ghana on points, goals scored and goals conceded?

 

[social]

Really? Algeria are higher ranked than Ghana and Algeria topped a group that included the strongest team in Africa to qualify.

I dont rate Algeria but North African football is often severely underrated in comparison to sub-saharan Africa

The second part of your post is correct to a degree but Algeria are generally an undisciplined rabble and their game vs Eng was by far the best performance I've seen from them

Whether that is due to their improvement or the standard of the oposition is open to debate

 

[Adamc]

(@ Ausage) Fifa Regs Art 17(6):

In the league format, the ranking in each group is determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:

d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.

Given that they tied, it would go to a drawing of lots.

 

[Burgey]

Always a red, current climate etc.

Tackles like that (studs up, in the ankles etc) are often given yellows, despite the laws. It's the refs not wanting to make a big call that will have a major effect on the game. Kind like how pushing/grabbing is ok in the box for a defender but not for an attacker.

Didn't worry him 10 minutes earlier though..

 

[GIMH]

As I said to Sledger mate, put him in a white shirt 24 hours earlier and you'd be busting your balls over it..

I won't go round in circles and argue the rest so just wanted to take this point up. You're probably right but that's hardly indicative of whether it was right or wrong as I wear my heart on my sleever when cheering my teams on. I honestly wasn't cheering against you lot yesterday, and as soon as I saw the replay I thought the ref had got it 100% right. I was surprised by Kewell's reaction and surprised by the reaction in here tbh.

I will flip it round though, if it happened at the other end would you not feel aggrieved not to get the pen?

 

[social]

I won't go round in circles and argue the rest so just wanted to take this point up. You're probably right but that's hardly indicative of whether it was right or wrong as I wear my heart on my sleever when cheering my teams on. I honestly wasn't cheering against you lot yesterday, and as soon as I saw the replay I thought the ref had got it 100% right. I was surprised by Kewell's reaction and surprised by the reaction in here tbh.

I will flip it round though, if it happened at the other end would you not feel aggrieved not to get the pen?

There are really 2 points here

Most people felt that it warranted a penalty but not a send off

Unfortunately, the rules do not grant that leeway

If it was "deliberate", then send off, penalty and suspension

If not, no foul

IMO, after countless replays, there's little doubt that it wasnt deliberate and it should've been play on - guy was simply hit by a ball struck at speed from a few yards away

However, I can see how the ref ****ed up

Having said that, what really pisses me off is the failure to award a blatant penalty to Kewell after 90 seconds and reluctance to send off the Ghanaian after an infinitely worse challenge than Cahill's in the previous match

At half time, it should've been 10 on 10 with Australia potentially 2- 1 up if they converted a clear cut penalty

Game over

 

[straw man]

Haha, and we all complain about umpiring in cricket. We're really not so badly off; umpires have ten times the ability to ruin the game in soccer/ football. Not just their fault - the lack of a middle ground in the options for a referee in the above example inevitably leads to huge inconsistency. In fact anything to do with infringements in the penalty box is a total lottery.

Get all excited every 4 years for the World Cup, but it also serves as a reminder why I don't watch more soccer in between times.