*Official* Uruguay vs Ghana (Quarter-Final Two)

[Jono]

The chances of scoring a penalty certainly shouldn't be "far less than 100%" as Jono said, quite frankly your penalty-taker should always score from the spot and it's not as big an issue as it's being made out to be anyway because as LT has said, the goals are nearly always scored from the spot so no-one bothers to bleat about it. Case in point, Ghana scored their penalty against Australia.

Calculate the percentage this World Cup. This "no one should miss a penalty anyway" is the worst argument of them all.

 

[Jono]

If you give a penalty goal against Uruguay then Australia concede one against Ghana earlier in the tournament, as Hakon said.

Anyway, serious can of worms giving goals that aren't goals, if you give them for handball on the line you should also give them for a goalkeeper who pulls down a player that has an open goal. And maybe for when the attacker is one on one with the keeper and gets hauled down by the last defender from behind?

Not true at all. You apply a but-for-test where there aren't any possible intervening issues

If a defender takes down a player who is one on one with the goalie, that is not an absolute situation, because the keeper could have prevented the ball going in, the player could have missed the goal etc.

In the Uruguay situation, the ball was going on, until the Suarez cheated to prevent that occurring. There is no doubt at all.

 

[GIMH]

Only if you're applying the same absolutism as 'the ball has to cross the line to be a goal'.

And no, I'm not sure that's actually a word.

Go on, how on earth are they different?????????????????

 

[GIMH]

Calculate the percentage this World Cup. This "no one should miss a penalty anyway" is the worst argument of them all.

Yeah, plenty of missed penalties, doesn't mean I have any sympathy for any of them. Look at the percentage over the history of football. A penalty is a bloody golden chance to score.

Not true at all. You apply a but-for-test where there aren't any possible intervening issues

If a defender takes down a player who is one on one with the goalie, that is not an absolute situation, because the keeper could have prevented the ball going in, the player could have missed the goal etc.

In the Uruguay situation, the ball was going on, until the Suarez cheated to prevent that occurring. There is no doubt at all.

coulda woulda shoulda, meh, sure you knew for certain the ball was going in for the handball but it's no less reprehensible than when a player gets chopped down when he's one on one. You still feel just as cheated. And you've conveniently ignored my example where the player had already rounded the keeper.

The fact is nobody was claiming that Ghana shouldn't have had to take their penalty against Australia despite it being the exact same situation.

 

[Jono]

And you've conveniently ignored my example where the player had already rounded the keeper.

Because the goalkeeper could still have saved it! It's not an absolute.

The fact is nobody was claiming that Ghana shouldn't have had to take their penalty against Australia despite it being the exact same situation.

I agree with that, if the rule was broken deliberately. Never said otherwise.

 

[GIMH]

If a player has rounded the keeper how on earth could the keeper still save it?!

 

[Jono]

Right, so he's gone around the keeper, the keeper has tripped him from behind not the front?

Well then he could do this (1 minute in)

YouTube - sportpost.com - open goals missed

 

[pasag]

If you give a penalty goal against Uruguay then Australia concede one against Ghana earlier in the tournament, as Hakon said.

Anyway, serious can of worms giving goals that aren't goals, if you give them for handball on the line you should also give them for a goalkeeper who pulls down a player that has an open goal. And maybe for when the attacker is one on one with the keeper and gets hauled down by the last defender from behind?

The amount of time you hear about things such as Geoff Hurst's second in 66 or Luis Garcia's "ghost goal" against Chelsea suggest that it could cause far, far more problems than it would ever solve. The chances of scoring a penalty certainly shouldn't be "far less than 100%" as Jono said, quite frankly your penalty-taker should always score from the spot and it's not as big an issue as it's being made out to be anyway because as LT has said, the goals are nearly always scored from the spot so no-one bothers to bleat about it. Case in point, Ghana scored their penalty against Australia.

And before anyone comes in and says that it wasn't the same - I'm not interested in debating whether you think it was a penalty or not, but the fact is that as the ref gave the penalty, it is in his eyes the exact same situation as the Uruguay one.

From an outsiders pov, for whatever that's worth, reckon the Kewell one should have certainly been a goal but at the same time didn't really see the merit of a red (or the rule that leads to that).

As a fair compromise here I suggest if a player handballs on the line, the aggrieved side gets a penalty kick without a goalkeeper present. That would appease Uppercut at least

 

[GIMH]

From an outsiders pov, for whatever that's worth, reckon the Kewell one should have certainly been a goal but at the same time didn't really see the merit of a red (or the rule that leads to that).

As a fair compromise here I suggest if a player handballs on the line, the aggrieved side gets a penalty kick without a goalkeeper present. That would appease Uppercut at least

That's a suggestion I can get on board with tbf

 

[Lillian Thomson]

From an outsiders pov, for whatever that's worth, reckon the Kewell one should have certainly been a goal but at the same time didn't really see the merit of a red (or the rule that leads to that).

As a fair compromise here I suggest if a player handballs on the line, the aggrieved side gets a penalty kick without a goalkeeper present. That would appease Uppercut at least

How about if the player who handles has to play in goal for the rest of the match with the actual goalkeeper being sent off.
Or when the penalty is taken the goalkeeper isn't allowed to use his hands to stop it.
Or how about making the goalkeeper wear the dress that Monica Seles wore at Wimbledon in 1991.
Or how about banning Frank Lampard from all football because he's such a ponce (not related to the handball incident but a good idea anyway.)

 

[pasag]

How about if the player who handles has to play in goal for the rest of the match with the actual goalkeeper being sent off.
Or when the penalty is taken the goalkeeper isn't allowed to use his hands to stop it.
Or how about making the goalkeeper wear the dress that Monica Seles wore at Wimbledon in 1991.
Or how about banning Frank Lampard from all football because he's such a ponce (not related to the handball incident but a good idea anyway.)

Well Uppercut....?

 

[GIMH]

How about if the player who handles has to play in goal for the rest of the match with the actual goalkeeper being sent off.
Or when the penalty is taken the goalkeeper isn't allowed to use his hands to stop it.
Or how about making the goalkeeper wear the dress that Monica Seles wore at Wimbledon in 1991.
Or how about banning Frank Lampard from all football because he's such a ponce (not related to the handball incident but a good idea anyway.)

 

[Son Of Coco]

Go on, how on earth are they different?????????????????

One bloke gets pinned on the line (that'd be Kewell by the way), the other stops the first shot with his legs and then decides it's a free for all and throws his hands in front of the next shot on goal. Find the argument that goes - "well, it got the same penalty so it must be the same" a bit strange.

If you can honestly say you can't see a difference between a guy not deliberately stopping the ball with his hands and a guy throwing his hands in front of the ball to stop it going in the net then I'd be pretty surprised to be honest.

If the argument is that the ref may not be able to judge each situation on its merits due to being impeded or whatever then that's kind of understandable.

Personally think any rule which basically says "if it's not black...then it must be white" is pretty silly.

 

[GIMH]

No, you've completely missed my original point, which was that Kewell's handball was considered deliberate by the referee, and also by many viewers, myself included (kinda). Therefore Kewell handled it on the line which stopped a goal. just like the Uruguayan bloke.

If you don't think Kewell's was a deliberate handball, fair enough (ish) but that's not what I'm arguing. Once the decision was given it is EXACTLY the same offence was the one we saw in the last minute of Uruguay V Ghana.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, you've completely missed my original point, which was that Kewell's handball was considered deliberate by the referee, and also by many viewers, myself included (kinda). Therefore Kewell handled it on the line which stopped a goal. just like the Uruguayan bloke.

If you don't think Kewell's was a deliberate handball, fair enough (ish) but that's not what I'm arguing. Once the decision was given it is EXACTLY the same offence was the one we saw in the last minute of Uruguay V Ghana.

I think this is what we're talking about re: the application of the rule. If you work backwards from the penalty given to both then yes they're considered the same thing. I think quite a few people, when shown the two incidents, would agree they're different.

I don't think that's fair (not that FIFA will be too concerned with what I think), hence my saying that any rule which allows people to state - "well they got the same penalty so it's the same thing" is a bit ridiculous. There's no grey area to cover blatant transgressions, it's either black or white. I do realise though that under the current rule they're considered to be the same thing.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not really just talking about the current rule, though. Loads and loads and loads of people felt it was a deliberate handball by Kewell. Check back through the match thread, if you had all the Aussies on ignore then a massive majority felt it was intentional by Kewell. So I don't see how you can say they were different. One guy stopped the ball with his hand to stop a goal....and so did the other.

Again, if you don't think it was intentional then yess they are different, but otherwise it's nothing to do with application of rules.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm not really just talking about the current rule, though. Loads and loads and loads of people felt it was a deliberate handball by Kewell. Check back through the match thread, if you had all the Aussies on ignore then a massive majority felt it was intentional by Kewell. So I don't see how you can say they were different. One guy stopped the ball with his hand to stop a goal....and so did the other.

Again, if you don't think it was intentional then yess they are different, but otherwise it's nothing to do with application of rules.

Fair enough.

Obviously I don't think Kewell's handball was deliberate. Unless he's a thalidomide baby and his hands start just below his shoulders of course. Assuming he had the time to set himself and decide to handball it (which I don't think he did) I can't see where the advantage is in the 20th minute of the game. I do realise he's not the most popular guy in some places though.

Even if both are considered deliberate by some I'm surprised that, discounting the fact there's only one penalty to be applied if they were, some consider them to be exactly the same thing.

I think the point myself (and maybe some others) are trying to make is that it has everything to do with application of rules as there's only one option for referees in this situation as it stands. If a bloke takes advantage of that and deliberately bats the ball away with his hands there's nothing in the rules to apply further punishment. He gives his team a chance where there's none if he doesn't use his hands.

It's an easy choice at the moment.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fair enough.

Obviously I don't think Kewell's handball was deliberate. Unless he's a thalidomide baby and his hands start just below his shoulders of course. Assuming he had the time to set himself and decide to handball it (which I don't think he did) I can't see where the advantage is in the 20th minute of the game. I do realise he's not the most popular guy in some places though.

Even if both are considered deliberate by some I'm surprised that, discounting the fact there's only one penalty to be applied if they were, some consider them to be exactly the same thing.

I think the point myself (and maybe some others) are trying to make is that it has everything to do with application of rules as there's only one option for referees in this situation as it stands. If a bloke takes advantage of that and deliberately bats the ball away with his hands there's nothing in the rules to apply further punishment. He gives his team a chance where there's none if he doesn't use his hands.

It's an easy choice at the moment.

You surely don't think that for it to be handball the ball has to make contact below the wrists? Any part of the arm no matter how near the shoulder is considered part of the hand.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You surely don't think that for it to be handball the ball has to make contact below the wrists? Any part of the arm no matter how near the shoulder is considered part of the hand.

I do know that yes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I do know that yes.

So why did you say "Obviously I don't think Kewell's handball was deliberate. Unless he's a thalidomide baby and his hands start just below his shoulders of course."

You appear to be saying he deliberately controlled the ball with an area of his person just below his shoulder.