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

[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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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]

Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson

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]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

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.

[Son Of Coco]

Because that's the obvious difference between Kewell's handball and Suarez' - one bloke threw up his hands to stop the ball, in the other instance it's debatable as to whether there was intention or not. If Kewell had hands just below his shoulders and used them then there''d be no debate (or threw his arms out to impede the path of the ball - which I guess some people think he did). In the rules there's no difference between the two, that's what some have an issue with.

I'm not arguing that Kewell didn't handball at all.

[Lillian Thomson]

You could argue that what Kewell did was worse. In my opinion his handball was deliberate but it was far more cute and a deliberate attempt to con the officials into believing he hadn't handled it.

[Son Of Coco]

You could, but then we'd be here all night.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

You could, but then we'd be here all night.

Not really. There's no argument to be had. In my opinion that's what he did. In your opinion he didn't. The only person who really knows is Kewell himself.....and he'd probably lie anyway even if it was deliberate.

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly. Now we've got that sorted, I'm going back to some online golf and a movie. Playing terribly as I've played some accidental shots clicking on here.

[R_D]

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

Hehe... I like the idea.... that should satisfy the whole... Not goal until crossed the line folks.

I think there should be special provisions made for situations like this where the it is 100% clear that it will goal.

As for Harry Kewell situation.... Refree deemed it to be handball so same rule be applied.... Seeing as the ball was definately goig in.