Ghana v Australia 2am kickoff

This - surprised there's been little mention of this. Neill probably lucky he wasn't carded for it, guess the ref decided to address the more serious offence.

I bet you all the Aussies will be protesting that Ghanaian bloke should have been red carded for such a nasty tackle, and that's the reason the Socceroos lost :P

this forum seems to be divided between kiwis who hold australia in outright, bitter contempt and those who don't mind them
i thought australia played very well considering that they were down to 10 men. I thought Kewell's offence was a penalty but not a red card as it was certainly not intentional, his arms were barely spread (if they were at all) and the ball hit him where the short sleeve begins on the arm. the Ghana tackle could have gone either way (red or yellow), Australia appear to have been treated harshly by the refs this world cup.

as i'm living in Melbourne now i did want Australia to win but it must have been hard for all the born n bread aussies to see Kewell go off the way he did, and i really do think Australia would have won if they had 11 men on the pitch, they looked stronger.melbhoy2010-06-20 15:29:04

Aaargh. You can't expect people to take you seriously here when you write things like this. Denying a goal scoring opportunity or a goal in an illegal manner (including handling the ball on the goal-line by an outfield player) is an automatic red card - it's in the laws of the game. It was a red card, nothing controversial or harsh about it. el grapadura2010-06-20 19:12:53

PS El G beat me to it.

having watched the game my whole life, mostly in britain, i've seen many handballs unintentionally deny on target balls resulting in yellow cards. from the tone of your post i can gather you too have watched the sport for some time, are you absolutely certain that any hand-ball that stops a 'goal scoring opportunity' is a red card? I'm not picking a fight here, i'm just going by what i've seen over the past 20+ years.

"denying a goal scoring opportunity or goal in an illegal manner.." well drift back to Australia vs Croatia in the last world cup, there was a handball in the box that disrupted a (quote) 'goal scoring opportunity', yellow card.. i've seen it a sh*t-load of times. and from what i've read on other forums (international forums might i add), my stance isn't unusual on this.

edit: and can you not start your post with 'Aaargh. You can't expect people to take you seriously here', it's quite arrogant and you know it is.melbhoy2010-06-20 19:49:51

El G is 100% correct. An intentional handball is a foul punishable by a direct free kick. A direct free kick offence that denies a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a red card. An accidental handball is not a foul. All this is direct from the laws of the game - available via PDF from FIFA's site. SiNZ2010-06-20 20:26:51

Yeah, fair enough. Probably unnecessary. Just getting frustrated at having to keep revisiting basic laws of the game on the forum where I hope most people would have a better grasp of them.

football nowadays isn't exactly ref'd down to the precise laws of the game, i mean, refs exercise discretion in nearly every match one may watch.
there needs to be a re-interpretation of the laws concerning the kewell incident, because i really don't see how it was intentional in the slightest from the slow me replay. to think you can be sent off and suspended for a game for that is beyond me.

i'm going to take a wild guess and suggest you've probably played football before. did you see the shot from Ghana that Kewell 'hand'balled? if you're on the goal line and the ball is coming towards your upper arm at that speed, you don't exactly have optimal time to make the decision to handle the ball in the first place. ghana were awarded a penalty, and fair enough too. but i put forward that there should be a line drawn between instances like Kewell's, where it was more the ball which was flying into his upper arm, and instances like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYeXATMAVZk

Yes, correct guess. Both player and referee. The former for several decades, the latter for several years. Kewell's arm moved up and then down, the ball hit the arm leaving the ref no choice but to interpret intent (because unfortunately there's no time to get the player to sit a polygraph when he claims - as almost all players do - his innocence).

edit stevenivan2010-06-21 22:06:13

I agree. I think FIFA are looking at this, as it punnishes the team 3 times. Red card, penalty, and suspension.Crazy

exactly, kewell will never play in another world cup match due to a split second instance which (contrary to what rivalry-minded new zealanders will tell you) probably wasn't even intentional.
the ref needs more options in these circumstances.

Really ?  If a ball hits your arm unexpectedly it normally flings your arm back.  His was braced enough that when the ball hit it it came straight back in to play and it wasn't exactly a five yard tap-in.

blah

blatant penalty, feel sorry for them and thought it was bullsh*t at first but after seeing a few replays there is no way to argue

because there's no way that one would tense one's arms and stand sturdy while on the goal line defending.
go on, think of another melbhoy2010-06-22 00:27:31

we're not arguing whether it's a penalty, we're arguing that there should be more room to move with the rule considering it means Kewell will never play another world cup game and Australia were effectively punished in three ways for it.melbhoy2010-06-22 00:26:06

I, and quite a number of Aussies I know can't see anyway that wasn't a red.

christ, he said he knows aussies who thought it was a red, my argument is destroyed?

Really ?

The best you have is to be patronising ? 

well considering you avoided any point that i made in my previous posts, yes.

His arm was extended. Had it not been it would have been a goal. Easy red card. As i said earlier HN,I wouldnt bother trying to tell an Australian that. Too subjective. and theyve got the "The world is against us" attitude after the last world cup.

Because I've already stated that i think it was the right decision.  His arm moves, he blocks the shot with it.  It's a red.  You don't agree but it's very much a subjective opinion.  Your arguments won't change my mind if 30 replays from 4 or 5 different angles haven't.

Incidenatlly.  The 'foul' on Valeri that lead to Australia's goal.  Good decision by the ref. or cheating exactly like Grosso in 2006 ?

i'm Irish, but it's easier for you to call me Australian, isn't it?

from my experiences so far in this world cup i've also seen a lot of whining from the Kiwis about reffing decisions, but i shouldn't compare the All Whites to the Socceroos, too many kiwis do enough of that in here.

Why come on here if you dont like it?

careful, i've seen a fair bit of whinging about Italy's goal last night when the All Whites' wasn't exactly clean cut.

Really ?

...and how much of it from me ?

i do like it in here,having lived in melbourne and auckland i spend a lot of time on aussie and kiwi football forums discussing my favourite sport. the only complaint i have about here is that many all whites fans seem obsesssed by the socceroos (a NT i've adopted as my second overall) and are constantly accusing their fans of things that they are just as guilty of.
i love reading this forum, you're a nice bunch of people. there's daylight between this forum and the miserable c**ts on SFCU.

to be fair you insinuated i whine about the 'grosso' incident without checking facts..

No, I insinuated Australia generally have had a 4 year persecution complex about that moment.  I merely asked what view you subscribed to.

A fair amount of the negative sentiment towards Australia is a result of the game in Melbourne.That night turned some against Australia. Maybe if we had hacked you like that we wouldn't have so much support in Australia.
Edit, Sadly for Kewell that has to be a penalty and a red.
sanday2010-06-22 00:56:12

fair enough, i read it as rhetorical but as arj barker will tell you it's too hard to convey tone in digital speak.

i think lucas neil was stupid to go to ground easily when he knew very well that it was an Italian he was dealing with. then again, a fairer ref would have seen how blatantly Grosso abused that moment and would have told him that he should have gone around neil and finish like he first intended to do.

this is coming from a more physical football minded person, though.

...and Valeri ?

apples to oranges, although the same rules are supposed to apply, free kicks outside the box and inside the box are very differently approached by refs.