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

[Jono]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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]

Originally Posted by Jono

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.

Originally Posted by Jono

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by pasag

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]

Originally Posted by pasag

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]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.