i remember years ago when it was suppose to touch the HAND for a HAND ball, penalty now its your arm and soon to be u cant use ur chest otherwise its a HAND ball give it a feww years or so and you cant touch the ball what so ever or its a HAND ball
Thats not deliberate. he doesn't move his arm or hand towards he ball to block it. His arm is just there but what could you expect from biased referees who only want europe in the finals.
@TheUnitedfan11 Despite the fact that Ghana are an African nation, LOL! Referees have given us a shit deal in the world cup in nearly every game we've played, but on this occasion he was spot on.
@Geeljasjes He should have had his hands behind his back... goal line defending 101. Kewell has no one but himself to blame, and deserves the ire of the Australian public for what he did, but like the cowardly whinger that he is, he is hiding behind a combination of a refereeing decision and the ignorance of the Australian public
@JDeguara: you are right. Deliberately handling the ball is a direct free kick offence. If it denies a goal or obvious goalscoring opportunity, it's a send-off.
@Pepsimaximo1: you are so wrong. Accidentally / unintentionally handling the ball is not an offence at all. If it's deliberate, penalty kick and send-off - if it's not, the referee takes no action. The clause you have quoted is for offences that are misconduct on their own for which no other restart is mentioned in the laws (ie dissent).
@thetillegrakid That's not true; have you even read the Laws of the Game? Are you a referee? Well I am, and I have, so take it from me-intent doesn't matter. The criteria is "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling".
@pneshati The offence is "denying a goal an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by DELIBERATELY handling the ball", so clearly deliberate does matter. Have another read of Law 12 before you misquote it.
@JDeguara I dont think that just "I" am right. I think that I, and hundreds of thousands of other people that have actually READ and correctly interpretted the Laws of The Game, are right.
@JDeguara You are clearly not quoting from any known law, so please just open up your mind and take in the possibility that you may be wrong, despite those 8 people whom agree with you.
as an australian i think the decision was bullshit, but in the referee's defence, he only had one chance to see it ( we had slow motion replays) If the ref had the aid of a video referal, he'd probably be happy to admit he was wrong
@seanls15 I guess i should stick to supporting AFL, cause i probably don't know the hand-ball rule properly ... i'm just a soccer supporter every four years when the world cup is on!
I don't understand why you people insist it's a red card, penalty yes, but he had his eyes closed and was expecting an impact of a ball coming at least 80km/h. If he had enough time to think "i'm going to handball this" don't you think he would've moved to the right a step instead?
@enzo352 not the point he was trying to block it and got caught , at the other end of the field he gets out of the way. The act doesn't require conscious thought just actions with the body that means once you get hit it is deliberate. Put it this way if I throw you something from 2m away and you catch it instinctively, you didn't catch it accidentally!
@88wardie So if someone throws a ball to you @ 80 km/h you are going to instinctively put your hand out and catch it, you wouldn't have enough to react let alone catch the ball. There is no way he had enough time to think about how the ball was going to be stopped and his arm was in that position prior to the strike. Besides all of that, it's a yellow and a penalty not a straight red. Especially taking into consideration the scoreline and the time, he would have no real reason to handball it.
@enzo352 The point is he doesn't have to have enough time to think it is not a conscious decision it is a body movement decision thi is where people get it wrong. If Harry is at th other end of the field he gets out of the way. Cricketers face balls going 150km and they get out of the way or hit it for 6 all instinctively. It would be far easier if the law said "not involuntary" instead of intentional as people are thinking that the player needs conscious thought. This is not the case
@enzo352 I know it is hard to understand but I train hundreds of referees on the law every year and the point is Harry instinctively tried to block the ball with his chest, the hand drifted off the body the fist clenched, all by reflex but when he got hit it had to be deliberate simply because that is what he was trained to do if it was a hand grenade his instincts would have been to move the other way.
@enzo352 Great players can't have it both ways , you certainly won't find players who deflect a hard hit cross in for a goal claiming it was an accident cause they didn't have time to think. They then can't hide behind conscious thought in defence. Nothing sinister just the way the laws have been applied.
FUCKSAKE that really pissed me of a red card??? that ref is a cockhead if shouldve atleast been a yellow and a penalty but a red? Hes pulling his arm away and closing his eyes.
most of you are really idiots. Rosetti is most probably the best refree in the world. Very strict and yet also consistent. As explained above, in other comments, the reason for the red card is not really hand ball, but impedement of a goal scoring opportunity by usuing a hand motion. simple...it's sad that Rosetti missed his chance for refing the final and gave it to cunt Webb because of his linesman
@ozzradd actually, yes it can. If anything ruins a goal scoring opportunity and would normally be just a regular foul, its a red card. For example, if the last man back poorly tackles someone who had a breakaway, even if the tackle would have just been a foul without a card in regular play, it becomes a red card. Elementary my dear ozzradd.
@talizzlee actually no dickhead if you know the rules correctly it says, If an Unintentional/Intentional handball happens at the worst it is a yellow card with a penalty given.
@CinderRaven Actually, you might want to read the laws correctly douchebag - Law 13 (Fouls and Misconduct): A Player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences...number 4 states "Denys an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handball"
However, as the player made no intent to play the ball, I would not have given either a red card nor a penalty.
@WTCMProductions2010 Actually no Cocksucker if in outdoor your hand is by your side and it hits you hand it is consider nothing have a look at the replay dick.
@CinderRaven I quote from the Laws of the Game and yet you still think you have an argument. I did make a spelling mistake however, "denys" should have been "denies" - but whatever. My decision would have been, since I have been a referee for 15 years, would be to let play continue. I have looked at the replay a million times, my opinion stays the same. For to penalise someone for handball, the play has to actually play the ball with his arm or hand.
@WTCMProductions2010 Interesting this is your interpretation I have refereed for 25 years at the hghest level below national and have not found a ref he would not have classified this as a handball what is your logic? Mine is that I believe 1 he lent into the ball ie moved towards it 2 he clenched his fist and his arm drifted off the body (unnatural position) and 3 he was making his body bigger. Now you only need one of these to find it intentional, I believe I can argue all three
@WTCMProductions2010 so although I bel;ieve he only wanted to chest it he got his arm into a position that meant once it hit it he was toast.. nothing sinister just the law. I firmly believe at the other enbd of the field Harry sways out of the way and lets the ausssie goal be scored and this is why it had to be handball.. and I am a mad socceroos supporter but can't see it any other way cheers
@CinderRaven Outdoor laws are the exact same as indoor laws unless stated in the competition rules. There is no such thing as an unintentional hand. The laws of the game state nothing of a yellow card nor penalty. You might want to quote something if you are going to chat total crap.
Oh, and btw, stop swearing at everyone - you sound like a 9 year old girl. It's pathetic.
@CinderRaven no choice in the matter and I quote "a player shall be immediately dismissed for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity for an offence punishable by a penalty or direct free kick" So it was the location on the line that meant Harry had to be sent off, sure if he was on the halfway line it would have been just a free kick.. Nothing evil just the laws
@dombarca97 naah part of the football game is bad decisions... sometimes they go your way sometimes not but thats football and thats what makes a good game...
the worst bloody calll ive ever seeen i think the only way u can become a reff in the worldcup is to give australia a red card or penalty in every world cup wat a joke
@TJW2790 Thanks, it's nice to know that somebody on YouTube actually knows the laws of the game. Laws of the game are at ussoccer.com/Referees/~/media/ECF01495634D47D3BC97E71F495EA201.ashx
People need to learn the rules of the sport. The referee only has one choice to make. Did it hit his hand or not? If it didn't, then its play on, no penalty. If it did, then Kewell's handball denied an obvious goal, he awards a penalty and sends Kewell off. There are odd occasions where its an accident, but most of the time its deliberate. Handball on the line always has been, and always will be a red card.
@JDeguara Finally someone who understands the official ruling. I remember arguing exactly this point immediately after the incident and no one wanted to believe me as they were too upset.
@RussellThePumpkin That's what I did too but people just kept arguing with the point that it wasn't deliberate and I said it doesn't matter if it's deliberate if the handball denied a goal which the keeper clearly had no chance of saving
@JDeguara Sorry, but you need to read the rules. A DELIBERATE hand ball inside the penalty box denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a red card and penalty. An unintentional hand ball inside the box, whether stopping a goal scoring opportunity or not, is an INDIRECT free kick inside the penatly box (There is such thing, read the rules) and no card can be given as it was unintentional, unless the player has been infringing the rules constantly.
@Pepsimaximo1 No. That's incorrect.There is no deliberate or accidental handball when it comes to stopping an obvious goal. I know this because it's never an indirect free kick for handball in the box. Only on back pass is such a kick given.
@JDeguara There actually is, my friend is a referee and has quoted directly from the rulebook and what they were taught in the course. An accidental hand ball is an indirect freekick no matter what the circumstances and no matter where it is on the pitch. I could also quote directly from the Laws of The Game if you like, but it's very vauge on that ruling. Alteast the simplified version (internet version).
@JDeguara Oh my god, stop being so close minded. You have clearly not read and re-read the rules, you really need to check over them. The rule, even in the simplified version of the rules, explicitly says that a DELIBERATE hand ball inside the penalty area is a penalty kick and a yellow or red card depending upon the circumstances.
Read the entire of Law 12 and you will see that accidental or unintentional hand balls are not mentioned. Except in the indirect free kick part where it states:
"An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of
the referee, a player:
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
@JDeguara Now seeing as an accidental or unintentional hand ball is still an offense, and the "direct free kicks" and "cautionable offenses" parts of Law 12 only specifically state things about DELIBERATE hand balls, the only other place for an accidental hand ball to come under is indirect free kicks.
As I said it is very vague on this ruling, but the only two conclusions that you can possibly draw from this rule is the conclusion that I have come to, OR that an accidental hand ball is not an offense
@JDeguara I know you'll only see this comment in your inbox, so come onto the video and look at all my comments that I posted, regarding Law 12, before you reply.
@JDeguara And anyway, you asked me to quote the rule, I did, and you have nothing to say to that but "it's pointless arguing with you"? Please just admit defeat.
Bull-f***ing-SHIT! 1. It hit his chest, then bounced away from goal, meaning it WAS NOT GOING IN. 2. The part of the arm it did hit, is NEVER sanction for handball. Jackass corrupt people at FIFA!
FIFA is the most fucked up, rigged organisation in history. winning the world cup is meaningless as the entire contest is rigged. fuck europeans and their sports!
its almost impossible for Harry Kewell not to handball it cuz the shot was so powerful, but the referee had no choice. But the Referee ignored all Australian protests. When Neil and Kewell pointed to the replay screen, Rosetti didn't even make an effort to look! that is pretty rude
It doesn't matter if you "intend" or "deliberately" hit the ball with your arm or hand, it's a handball. You can't stand in front of the ball, expand you chest, hope it hits your chest but you arm blocks it by mistake. It still hit your hand.
As this CLEARLY WASN'T INTENTIONAL (his hand was by his side and it was fast) then according to FIFA laws it Should Not have been a penalty and should not have been a red card. It should have been play on... according to FIFA rules.
Nevertheless FIFA rules are stupid. We got penalised 3 games for this. Harry v Ghana, Harry missing Serbia and the goal itself (which is worth a game nowadays). Stupid rules. Stupid Step Ladder. Why an Italian ref after 2006 ? why not a Ghana ref Sep ? Appologise !
@ricky5538 fully agree that the triple penalty is too strong. I don't see his hand by his side however. At normal pace he moved towards the ball, his arm tensed off his body in preparation for chest impact and he got hit on the upper arm. he was left high and dry and to me it was a clear handball but at least you are arguing for play on not a penalty only as that is not possible. The real problem with the law is if that ball hits Harry and goes in, it would have been just a goal, nothing more
@ricky5538 is there a solution. Well I suggest this... take a leaf out of rugby and just give it as a goal not send to the spot. This way you won't see the Uruguayan situation. I lot of people rightly struggle to see how that offence and Harry's were identical under the current guidelinesbut as the LAws stand they were
In Germany under Hitler the laws were to kill innocent people. The blind soldiers who followed the laws done this. When those German soldier die, they have to answer for their actions to God. People should follow laws blindly but see why they were put in place.
In Germany under Hitler the laws were to kill innocent people. The blind soldiers who followed the laws done this. When those German soldier die, they have to answer for their actions to God. People should follow laws blindly but see why they were put in place.
Wardos stop commenting ! The point is Australia gets cheated time and again at World Cups by FIFA. How does Cahill get sent off when the Karate kick to kill in the final by Netherlands didn't ? Secondly, How come the Serbian stretching deliberatly diving to touch the ball doesn't get sent off ? Also how does Uruguay get to win a game where there was three goalies in the goalbox using there hands ? Also how come the like 5 handballs in Australias games by the opponents doesn't get penalised ?
@ricky5538 I am not arguing that point and in part I agree but if you want to actually know the laws I will tell you. the maximum penalty for a non goal bound handball is a yellow card for unsporting behaviour. Denying a goal gets a red it is as simple as that. There is no grading of deliberate handball it is or isn't deliberate if it isn't play on So unfortunately as the laws stand the Uruguay handball is the same as Harry's once it is deemed intentional, though he should have got a longer
@ricky5538 suspension in my opinion. Tim send off was tough but the ref was in the best spot and the ball was way out in front. Yes the netherlands foul was a red. I guess the point you are making is consistency which is fair , my point is that althouh the refs made some bad decisions , the kewll handball wasn't one of them, the besciano tackle in that game was the major mistake not the handball
As if that was a red, ok the rule needs to be explained so I hope there are refs reading this: If the last man intentionally hand balls the ball in the penalty box and is the last man its a red card and a penalty against the offending team. Harry's hand ball didn't touch his hand he kept his arms by his sides and it was unintentional - a penalty but no red card or even yellow for that matter.
@me31669 That just isn't the law. Trust me I am an A league ref. It can only be play on or a penalty plus red card. The laws say nothing about last man .. stop making things up. It is a red card if an offence punishable by a direct free kick denies an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity. So the intention determines the handball not the sanction. If it is accidental handball it is play on -like Cahil's v serbia. The hand is defined up to the shoulder
@me31669 So it was a handball. The oly question is whether it was intentional and under the guidleines it clearly was. The guidleines say don't examine a players mind see if one of three things happened, did the player move towards or away from the ball, did his arm mobve off the body into an unantural position or was the player making his body bigger, you only need one of these Harry has all three . He clenched his fist tried to chest the ball but when it hit his arm, it became intentional
@me31669 Everyone is trying to examine the mind. You don't do this. Thing of it as adetermination of a series of body movements that may or may not have to happen. These movements can be reflex eg close in catches in cricket are reflex but they are also intentional. Just imagine with all Harry's skill if he was at the other end of the field and an aussie shot on goal, heis reflexes would have got him out of the way
@wardos69 Hey! being an a league ref gives you no credibility in my eyes. I've been to heaps of a league games and the refs have always sucked to the max, I'm not going to explain it again, what I said in my first post is the official rule, I happen to have copied it straight out of an official fifa rule book that I won in a competition in Scotland given to me by the Celtic Footbal club , it doesn't have anything to with cricket and my main point is - it wasn't even a hand ball
@me31669 Mate I have refereed for 25 years and at least give me the courtesy of knowing the laws, please call them laws they are not rules. There is none of what you say in the laws. The laws are very very small no mention of last man or any of the methods of determining intent. These are all in the guidelines. Don't tell me what the official laws are I can recite them and the guidelines word for word paragraph for paragraph. I really don't vare if you think I have credibility or not
@me31669 That is not the point. Football federation Australia surveyed the top 900 refs in Australia about the Harry kewell handball and not a single ref thought it was accidental under the guidelines. Now you can be arrogant enough to say well you all wrong or you can be humble enough to say well I guess Iam not clear on how the laws are applied, and try and find out .. it is up to you
@me31669 so go to the laws on the fifa site, there is a nice pdf there. Do a text search for the phrase last man.....
It just isn't there Now you may have an old law book as the 2006 guidelines had the phrase but these are not the laws that governed the world cup. I guess my frustration is you say I have no credibility because I am an A league ref (and I have refereed two internationals) but somehow you are meant to have more when you have done neither... not sure how that works....
I'm Australian but this is clearly a red card because he used his arm to stop the ball from going in the goal, if it was already going out, no red card. It was unfortunate for us though, but good overall because Ghana went through which was good for Africa.
@MogliBrudda Its not supposed to be a red card if its unintentional, it didn't even touch his hand it hit above the elbow with his arms at his sides thats not a red card by fifa rules.
@me31669 It is not supposed to be anything if it is unintentional eg cahill's v serbia. I think everyone would be calmer if the word voluntary was used intead of deliberate or intentional. Intentional has connotations of being bad , it is not interpreted as such merely did the player make body motions that need not have had to occur. Clearly harry did, he leant in to try and chest it but got hit, nothing sinister just the laws
@wardos69 C'mon, do you actually think I have time to read through your 4 comment spaces worth of ranting? first of all there are no "laws" only rules of the game - if its not a hand ball its not a red card. It shouldn't have been a hand ball by my interpretation of the rules, Now you can go on about being a ref all you want but I once got yellow carded for being fowled. you're all too cocky. Most players know the rules better than refs. Tim Cahill's was a red card, it was from behind.
@me31669 Well that sums it up. You don't know they are called laws so what is the point of telling you what they say , read the 2010/11 laws of the game of football then come back to me. Oh and they also make no mention of challenges from behind , that is yet again just an example of what may be deemed excessive. The red card was for an excessive force challenge that is all. Things like from behind are all just used as examples but they are not in the laws.. please just read them.
@wardos69 I don't care what it said on your crappy handbook, football is a game not a constitution it has rules not laws, it shouldn't have been a red card.
@me31669 Mate it is not my crappy handbook It is the Laws of the game of Football on the FIFA site and yes it is on my version because they are the official laws Go to the Fifa site Google Wikipedia or whatever and type in Laws of the game of football for god sake please then once you see that I am at least right about what they are called you can also assume I might know what is inside. When was the last time you heard it called the offisde rule look at the fifa site go on I dare you
@wardos69 I hate to kill your storm but the word law doesn't even mean the same as a games rule, all games have rules and they always have had whereas all governments have laws, just because fifa calls them the laws doesn't mean they are. They have always been called "the official football rules" and enthusiastic people like players, coaches and refs dubbed them "laws of the game" so it probably has some shit like that written on your book but its just a play on words left over from the wars
@me31669 mate just don't tell me the difference between laws and rules I am a lawyer! Just look at what they are called. I don't for the life of me know whay you don't just look it up. It is not my book it is FIFA's sent to me by the FFA cause I am an FFA referee. Now you can say yours says rules but I bet it doesn't! Ans which is likely to be right one distrinuted by the FFA or one handed to you five years ago because you wona z divsion gala day. you don't have to believe me just look it up!
@wardos69 Nah, it shouldn't have been a red card or a penalty for that matter because it wasn't a hand ball, his arms were by his sides and the ball hit him, he didn't hit the ball, he actually moved a bit in that split second so it would connect more with his body and it never touched his hand and was above the elbow so its not a hand ball, a referee-lawyer wow you just become more and more trusty and credible...not. I guess that means the a league is rigged whenever your officiating.
@me31669 lol. I guesss we will agree to disagree BTW it is still a hand ball up to the shoulder not the elbow and the way I see it his arm came off his body and were not by his sides. I guess one way to change the law idsthat it is only a hand ball if the ball hits the part of the arm that comes off the body, but this is not the current law. He moved towards not away from the ball and it hit him on a part of the body deemed to be a handball. It is as simple as that cast iron handball
@wardos69 Australia was undefeated in qualifying matches all the way to the world cup and Schwartzer was unconceded at ANZ stadium, they had already defeated Spain and the Netherlands and others in friendly's Socceroos were too scary for the Europeans, the kick was aimed square at his hand it just floated up because it was the jabulani and hit him in the chest/shoulder then it rolled down but never touched his hand - not a hand ball but by the corrupt officials call a hand ball. rigged
@me31669 I should say that at a recent FFA refs meeting the main thing that was discussed was the fact that as it was 100 % agreed that it was a handball and yet there was still debate this can only mean one of two things.. All supporters coaches etc are idiots which is clearly not true or that how the law is to be applied is not properly explained in the laws themselves.. this is absolutely the case. You and I really sholdn't be debating this as the laws should make it crystal
@wardos69 It was only a hand ball because thats what the corrupt refs said but it wasn't scientifically a hand ball by any stretch of the imagination therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty or a red card and if the the official fifa rules or laws or whatever bullshit it is deemed him to have hand-balled it then those rules/laws are wrong and don't serve justice to the games principle and need reviewing.
@me31669 No question the hand ball law needs reviewing certainly it should stop at the elbow. But the referee can only referee the laws put before him at the time. I am sure these laws will change but this will take time. believe it or not FIFA don't have contraol over the laws. It is a throw back to the origins of the game in the UK . There are 8 reps who control the laws 4 from FIFA and one each from England , Northern Ireland Scotland and wales and you need 6 votes to change a law
@wardos69 Its the 4 from fifa who resist all the change, its obvious just look at what happened after the Henry handball against Ireland, the ref could have turned a blind eye on harry and be far less of a villain or he could have taken a page out of the serbia vs Australia refs book but cahil wasn't the last man it couldn't be a red although it should have been because cahils was intentional the acting skills from those tv ads payed off. Harry's alleged Hand ball should have just been play on.
@me31669 I am sure it is the 4 from FIFA who resist.I will just disagree with re the two handballs Cahil's was an unexpected ball though his arm was out of position, harry's was clearly expected as he moved to block with his chest and got hit on the arm. Clearly intentional and note phrases like last man are just colloquial they are not in the laws or the guidelines. They get used in commentary and people take that as gospel. I prefer to just go by the laws and the guidelines-less subjective
@wardos69 Cahil noticed the ball was there then flicked it away with the back of his hand its clear on the replay, Harry Kewel would need some kind of ultra fast Lleyton Hewitt reflexes or something to get out of the way of that ball and you have to move your arms a little to move your body into the line of the ball, the point is Harry Kewel didn't really hand ball it, its not fair play, fifa need to change their motto.
@me31669 clear why it is that to all referees this was the only decision possible. FIFA do themselves no favours in staying silent on refs decisions. I would not mind being examined, in fact would welcome it. Instead supporters are left in the dark, players make dumb comments (harry- yes it was a penalty no it wasn't a red... even you rightly point out that this isn't possible..if it wasn't deliberate it was play on) and we are left with too much controversy.. Oh well things will change
@wardos69 Its because fifa is rigged and all refs are payed off, they knew they could try and force a handball penalty thats why a bullshit for nothing free kick was given against Australia- so Australia doesn't go through because of the European oligarchical football mafia that always try and rigg it so the European teams win, they knew they could beat Ghana and Germany fluked it against an understrength Socceroos who needed to be eliminated for the good of European football
@me31669 The have never been called the official football rule, they have always been called " The Laws of the Game, 20xx" depending on the year before replying again on this meaningless point please go to the fifa site or google and type in laws of the game and find the offical pdf it isn't that hard. I know the difference between laws and rules , I am just telling you that rightly or wrongly the ones that govern football are called laws..
@me31669 if you even care the ones that govern rugby and rugby league are also laws but the ones that govern AFL are called rules. It is not a legal question , it is a factual one.
@me31669 I guess, I knowwhat your next response will be something about who cares what FIFA calss them , they are just big noting themselves blah blah.. the point is FIFA runs the game and FIFA calls them laws so just accept that you are not killing my party , you are merely stating something that is cast iron factually 100% incorrect. That is unless the books distributed to all qulaified referees worldwide also have the same misprint :-)
Its just an association football kind of cultural thing of over importance to call them laws but I guarantee you if you took the matter to court they'd have all the books changed to say rules and regulations pretty quickly to stop fifa turning into some kind of U.N shit. P.S your book is crappy and all games have rules, it shouldn't have been a red card by the correct interpretation of the official rules of the game of association football.
@wardos69 You can't be right about anything, even if you have "proof" because your a referee, referee's are always wrong you (all referees) always panic in complicated situations, make the wrong decision and refuse to have any kind of video refereeing to see what really happened. Football referees can't be trusted if they're not willing to listen and look (at a replay) - by the law of averages (a real law) referees suck to the max so that means you must suck
@me31669 nice balnaket assertion there... refs are always wrong and players and spectators are always right. So does that mean when I played top division football I knew the laws and the moment I became a referee I didn't? interesting claim there. Note I have never contended the refs at this WC did a good job, I don't think they did. All I have said is that Harry Kewell's handball wasn't one of the bad decisions, like PAul wade former socceroo captian said.."most obvious red card he has seen
@me31669 as for your comments most players know the rules better it is clearly false. Listen to Harry "yeh it was a penalty but it wasn't intentional so it shouldn't have been a red" If it wasn't intentional it was play on end of story. If he admits a penalty he is admitting one of the 10 free kick offences happened in the box. Assuming he didn't do he other 9 he is only admitting intentional handball. players don't have the faintest clue about the laws cause they don't read
that was fucked up! i actually do not like the australian team and even i stil say that was complete bullshit. wtf is wrong with the fifa referees this year!
Every Red card shouid be signed off by a video referee now days, end of story! Referee stupid decisions should be a thing of the past by now. FIFA have the technology to put this in place but decide not to use it.....one has to wonder why?
@revo764 Not a bad idea on the red card review. Unfortunately though Harry would not have been saved in this situation. As an A league referee I can tell you I have not found a single colleague at my level or higher that would have not deemed the handball deliberate. Once that threshold is crossed the penalty and red card were the only option. Deliberate determines the offence of handball, sanctions are determined by the penalty kick and caution/send off laws
I'm Australian and I'm tired of people whining about this and Cahill's send off. The referee is always going to give a red card for this unless a player kicks it from less than 3-4 yards away. People are moaning about 2 calls that in reality aren't very controversial. I noticed that most Aussie news reports didn't even mention Cahill's handball in the box. We need to get over it people.
@paksta your an idiot. I've seen you on every video for this spreading garbage. Stop being a troll and fuck off back to your shit hole and watch some proper football and learn the rules idiot, otherwise your just a complete freggin embarrassment
@warneinsane yawn. 456 A-League referees recently met for a conference and when polled they unanimously agreed that it was the correct decision. Get over it and move on. And congratulations on not resorting to caps.
@warneinsane and incidentally. I got pissed off for a day and quoted Australia's ref representative for the 2006 World Cup. You've been posting garbage and abusing people with valid opinions on the same videos I visited for far longer.
@paksta lol suck it up you tosspot I know where your from so get fucked. You don't have any connections with football let alone the A-league, I saw in one post you said you were an A-league ref. What a freggin joke. Learn the rules, watch some games and get a life, stop being a loser troll, writing bullshit.
@warneinsane Learn to read, it'll boost your IQ a notch. And quit moaning endlessly about a decision nobody internationally cares about or thinks is incorrect. Even the Aussie ref representative to the last World Cup said it was definitely the correct call. It's done. Learn and move on. Really, move on.
@paksta you need to learn english as well drongo. Did you go to school? Maybe you suffer from a serious form of deficiency which only allows you to spread shit on youtube wow kudos to you. Troll. I don't post a freggin 100 msgs on one video saying its this or that do I? Troll. I'm surprised the owners of these videos just don't ban your trolling ass. But hey it pushes up the comments count so who gives a fuck right, about some bum who's got nothing better to do with their shitty useless lives.
@warneinsane Lol, yes, you do. Check other videos about Kewell's handball. You post plenty of equally inane posts ripping people who are usually making logical points. None of your posts ever make any sense or have a point. Even so, it was a laugh seeing you admit you need to learn English and the last part of your post was pretty cool and ironic. I know I said to move on, but please keep it up, this is funny. Post another one.
i remember years ago when it was suppose to touch the HAND for a HAND ball, penalty now its your arm and soon to be u cant use ur chest otherwise its a HAND ball give it a feww years or so and you cant touch the ball what so ever or its a HAND ball
Tubzywubzy1 2 weeks ago
yes handball red card?? fuck off that was not deliberate
andrew123coxta 1 month ago
@andrew123coxta sicerely hope your being sarcastic
seandb95 2 weeks ago
@seandb95 in away i was but it wasnt deliberate
andrew123coxta 2 weeks ago
völlige Fehlentscheidung!!!
TheKingMars7 1 month ago
Thats not deliberate. he doesn't move his arm or hand towards he ball to block it. His arm is just there but what could you expect from biased referees who only want europe in the finals.
TheUnitedfan11 1 month ago
@TheUnitedfan11 Despite the fact that Ghana are an African nation, LOL! Referees have given us a shit deal in the world cup in nearly every game we've played, but on this occasion he was spot on.
Moppy1988 1 month ago
That is not handball. Handball is below the elbow and that wasn't below the elbow. USLESS REFEREE
lanegane1 2 months ago
@lanegane1 No handball is intentionally below shoulder. Still wrong decision, not deliberate, no red card imo.
asdfghjklkjhgfdsa555 1 month ago
@lanegane1 What a stupid comment. You can't make up the rules bro.
Moppy1988 1 month ago
Deliberate or not...
What else could he have done?
Step aside and let the ball go in.
Then 21-million Aussies would have red-carded him for life.
He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Geeljasjes 2 months ago
@Geeljasjes He should have had his hands behind his back... goal line defending 101. Kewell has no one but himself to blame, and deserves the ire of the Australian public for what he did, but like the cowardly whinger that he is, he is hiding behind a combination of a refereeing decision and the ignorance of the Australian public
Moppy1988 1 month ago
ref needs to get glasses
soccerunited77 2 months ago
It was deliberate, so it should have only been a penalty, not a red card.
EinsteinOnCrack 3 months ago
@EinsteinOnCrack Are you trolling or just stupid?
Moppy1988 3 months ago
LOL fucking twat.
in galatasaray he was like: I'm injured till the worl cup begins. blablabla..
and then he plays five mins and gets red card. what a fagg
Darawallah 3 months ago
@JDeguara: you are right. Deliberately handling the ball is a direct free kick offence. If it denies a goal or obvious goalscoring opportunity, it's a send-off.
@Pepsimaximo1: you are so wrong. Accidentally / unintentionally handling the ball is not an offence at all. If it's deliberate, penalty kick and send-off - if it's not, the referee takes no action. The clause you have quoted is for offences that are misconduct on their own for which no other restart is mentioned in the laws (ie dissent).
thetillegrakid 4 months ago
@thetillegrakid That's not true; have you even read the Laws of the Game? Are you a referee? Well I am, and I have, so take it from me-intent doesn't matter. The criteria is "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling".
pneshati 4 months ago
@pneshati The offence is "denying a goal an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by DELIBERATELY handling the ball", so clearly deliberate does matter. Have another read of Law 12 before you misquote it.
thetillegrakid 4 months ago 5
@thetillegrakid Actually that didn't look deliberate...
lanegane1 4 months ago 3
@lanegane1 Why's he got his arm there then if he doesn't intend to stop the ball?
Moppy1988 1 month ago
@thetillegrakid Deliberate doesn't matter.
pneshati 4 months ago
It's pointless arguing. You obviously think you're right and that a world cup referee and most of the football community are wrong.
JDeguara 5 months ago
@JDeguara I dont think that just "I" am right. I think that I, and hundreds of thousands of other people that have actually READ and correctly interpretted the Laws of The Game, are right.
Pepsimaximo1 4 months ago
@JDeguara You are clearly not quoting from any known law, so please just open up your mind and take in the possibility that you may be wrong, despite those 8 people whom agree with you.
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@dombarca97 that is contradictory as it denies and obvious goal scoring opportunity, therefore a red card
seanls15 7 months ago
as an australian i think the decision was bullshit, but in the referee's defence, he only had one chance to see it ( we had slow motion replays) If the ref had the aid of a video referal, he'd probably be happy to admit he was wrong
cigerweed 7 months ago
@cigerweed even with the video referral he would be right, same as us proud aussie, but this was a card and penalty
seanls15 7 months ago
@seanls15 I guess i should stick to supporting AFL, cause i probably don't know the hand-ball rule properly ... i'm just a soccer supporter every four years when the world cup is on!
cigerweed 7 months ago
@dombarca97 Thumbs down. It's an awful idea.
RussellThePumpkin 7 months ago
THAT WAS AN ACCIDENT!
THE REF IS AN IDIOT!
GlitchesForBlack 8 months ago
I don't understand why you people insist it's a red card, penalty yes, but he had his eyes closed and was expecting an impact of a ball coming at least 80km/h. If he had enough time to think "i'm going to handball this" don't you think he would've moved to the right a step instead?
enzo352 9 months ago
@enzo352 not the point he was trying to block it and got caught , at the other end of the field he gets out of the way. The act doesn't require conscious thought just actions with the body that means once you get hit it is deliberate. Put it this way if I throw you something from 2m away and you catch it instinctively, you didn't catch it accidentally!
88wardie 8 months ago
@88wardie So if someone throws a ball to you @ 80 km/h you are going to instinctively put your hand out and catch it, you wouldn't have enough to react let alone catch the ball. There is no way he had enough time to think about how the ball was going to be stopped and his arm was in that position prior to the strike. Besides all of that, it's a yellow and a penalty not a straight red. Especially taking into consideration the scoreline and the time, he would have no real reason to handball it.
enzo352 8 months ago
@enzo352 The point is he doesn't have to have enough time to think it is not a conscious decision it is a body movement decision thi is where people get it wrong. If Harry is at th other end of the field he gets out of the way. Cricketers face balls going 150km and they get out of the way or hit it for 6 all instinctively. It would be far easier if the law said "not involuntary" instead of intentional as people are thinking that the player needs conscious thought. This is not the case
88wardie 8 months ago
@enzo352 I know it is hard to understand but I train hundreds of referees on the law every year and the point is Harry instinctively tried to block the ball with his chest, the hand drifted off the body the fist clenched, all by reflex but when he got hit it had to be deliberate simply because that is what he was trained to do if it was a hand grenade his instincts would have been to move the other way.
88wardie 8 months ago
@enzo352 Great players can't have it both ways , you certainly won't find players who deflect a hard hit cross in for a goal claiming it was an accident cause they didn't have time to think. They then can't hide behind conscious thought in defence. Nothing sinister just the way the laws have been applied.
88wardie 8 months ago
im not a ghana fan, i like australia more than ghana. but this is still a handball!
13tinoG 9 months ago
the ref was a leeds fan ...
wwwsnoop9 10 months ago
FUCKSAKE that really pissed me of a red card??? that ref is a cockhead if shouldve atleast been a yellow and a penalty but a red? Hes pulling his arm away and closing his eyes.
CinderRaven 10 months ago
how isnt this a red card? im sorry, he didnt move his hand behind his back or make any attempt.
ScUDeRiA197 11 months ago
@ScUDeRiA197
Ok you try moving your hand away as an attempt to stop a blast thats going 150 km/h dickface
marzell250 10 months ago
@marzell250 thats tough! his hands were out and he prevented a sure goal.. dickface.
ScUDeRiA197 10 months ago
most of you are really idiots. Rosetti is most probably the best refree in the world. Very strict and yet also consistent. As explained above, in other comments, the reason for the red card is not really hand ball, but impedement of a goal scoring opportunity by usuing a hand motion. simple...it's sad that Rosetti missed his chance for refing the final and gave it to cunt Webb because of his linesman
firecamedown 1 year ago
That is obviously a red card. Even though it wasnt an intentional handball it ruined a goal scoring opportunity. So the ref was correct.
talizzlee 1 year ago
@talizzlee your an idiot.. If it wasn't intentional then it cant be a red card....
ozzradd 1 year ago
@ozzradd actually, yes it can. If anything ruins a goal scoring opportunity and would normally be just a regular foul, its a red card. For example, if the last man back poorly tackles someone who had a breakaway, even if the tackle would have just been a foul without a card in regular play, it becomes a red card. Elementary my dear ozzradd.
talizzlee 1 year ago
@talizzlee actually no dickhead if you know the rules correctly it says, If an Unintentional/Intentional handball happens at the worst it is a yellow card with a penalty given.
CinderRaven 10 months ago
@CinderRaven Actually, you might want to read the laws correctly douchebag - Law 13 (Fouls and Misconduct): A Player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences...number 4 states "Denys an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handball"
However, as the player made no intent to play the ball, I would not have given either a red card nor a penalty.
WTCMProductions2010 9 months ago
@WTCMProductions2010 Actually no Cocksucker if in outdoor your hand is by your side and it hits you hand it is consider nothing have a look at the replay dick.
CinderRaven 8 months ago
@CinderRaven I quote from the Laws of the Game and yet you still think you have an argument. I did make a spelling mistake however, "denys" should have been "denies" - but whatever. My decision would have been, since I have been a referee for 15 years, would be to let play continue. I have looked at the replay a million times, my opinion stays the same. For to penalise someone for handball, the play has to actually play the ball with his arm or hand.
WTCMProductions2010 8 months ago
@WTCMProductions2010 Interesting this is your interpretation I have refereed for 25 years at the hghest level below national and have not found a ref he would not have classified this as a handball what is your logic? Mine is that I believe 1 he lent into the ball ie moved towards it 2 he clenched his fist and his arm drifted off the body (unnatural position) and 3 he was making his body bigger. Now you only need one of these to find it intentional, I believe I can argue all three
88wardie 8 months ago
@WTCMProductions2010 so although I bel;ieve he only wanted to chest it he got his arm into a position that meant once it hit it he was toast.. nothing sinister just the law. I firmly believe at the other enbd of the field Harry sways out of the way and lets the ausssie goal be scored and this is why it had to be handball.. and I am a mad socceroos supporter but can't see it any other way cheers
88wardie 8 months ago
@CinderRaven Outdoor laws are the exact same as indoor laws unless stated in the competition rules. There is no such thing as an unintentional hand. The laws of the game state nothing of a yellow card nor penalty. You might want to quote something if you are going to chat total crap.
Oh, and btw, stop swearing at everyone - you sound like a 9 year old girl. It's pathetic.
WTCMProductions2010 8 months ago
@WTCMProductions2010 Im sorry but there is no unintentional handball but dont you think that a red card was a bit excessive
CinderRaven 8 months ago
@CinderRaven no choice in the matter and I quote "a player shall be immediately dismissed for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity for an offence punishable by a penalty or direct free kick" So it was the location on the line that meant Harry had to be sent off, sure if he was on the halfway line it would have been just a free kick.. Nothing evil just the laws
88wardie 8 months ago
If they use Video Refs, where is their Corruption money gonna go?
superfreek1234 1 year ago
@dombarca97 I totally disagree, I am a referee. I think moments like the one in the video are what makes football such a compelling sport.
kaanxxx 1 year ago
@dombarca97 naah part of the football game is bad decisions... sometimes they go your way sometimes not but thats football and thats what makes a good game...
aTrueProduction 1 year ago
THE REFREES A DICKHEAD
DROLL30 1 year ago
Australia's top referee even said that Kewell's dismissal was correct. The referee got it right.
gringo22100 1 year ago
@gringo22100 lmao, nice try but you can't rank referee's. I could just as legitamently say that I am the world's best referee.
Pepsimaximo1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i am Australian and i agree with the ref here it was definitely a red card
it was enlarging the body which makes it deliberate and it was last line of defense there was no other option
darbyrox11 1 year ago
im australian and i agree with the ref here it was definately a red card
it was enlargening the body which makes it deliberate and it was last line of defence there was no other option
darbyrox11 1 year ago
@darbyrox11
it looked accidental to me but the penalty was a good call but the red card was stupid
Herb615 1 year ago
@Herb615 Why? He prevented a goal using his arm. That's are red card.
SnipinG1337 1 year ago
@SnipinG1337
it was accidental. His eyes were closed and the ball hit his upper arm
if it was a blaiten hand ball then I can understand but the ref was way too strick
Herb615 1 year ago
@SnipinG1337 No actually a red card was to harsh it would usually be a yellow card and a penalty.
CinderRaven 10 months ago
obvious red in my opinion. blacked a goal scoring opportunity illegally. plus, im against video refs, real refs make the game more exciting.
WagglyApples 1 year ago
the worst bloody calll ive ever seeen i think the only way u can become a reff in the worldcup is to give australia a red card or penalty in every world cup wat a joke
joeldagangsta101 1 year ago
READ THE LAWS OF THE GAME! IT IS DENYING AN OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY BY HANDLING! RED CARD WITHOUT A DOUBT!
pneshati 1 year ago
@pneshati your exactly right i fully support you
TJW2790 1 year ago
@TJW2790 Thanks, it's nice to know that somebody on YouTube actually knows the laws of the game. Laws of the game are at ussoccer.com/Referees/~/media/ECF01495634D47D3BC97E71F495EA201.ashx
pneshati 1 year ago
@TJW2790 thanks :)
pneshati 4 months ago
is it penalty? no why?
it was an unintentional handball ( or a chest your choice) on his own line. Ball to hand not handball
nath1356 1 year ago
ALL THE REFS IN THE WORLD CUP MADE FUCKED UP DESISIONS IMEAN HOW THE HELL IS THAT red card
217daneify 1 year ago
But isn't it weird how they robbed us last world cup and twice this world cup. Come on just get the best premier league referees not just anyone.
anthonystar5 1 year ago
@anthonystar5 i noe aye
217daneify 1 year ago
People need to learn the rules of the sport. The referee only has one choice to make. Did it hit his hand or not? If it didn't, then its play on, no penalty. If it did, then Kewell's handball denied an obvious goal, he awards a penalty and sends Kewell off. There are odd occasions where its an accident, but most of the time its deliberate. Handball on the line always has been, and always will be a red card.
JDeguara 1 year ago 7
@JDeguara Finally someone who understands the official ruling. I remember arguing exactly this point immediately after the incident and no one wanted to believe me as they were too upset.
RussellThePumpkin 8 months ago
@RussellThePumpkin That's what I did too but people just kept arguing with the point that it wasn't deliberate and I said it doesn't matter if it's deliberate if the handball denied a goal which the keeper clearly had no chance of saving
Mirokism 7 months ago
@Mirokism Idiots. :D
RussellThePumpkin 7 months ago
@JDeguara but it wasnt deliberate?
SonyCamry 6 months ago
@JDeguara Sorry, but you need to read the rules. A DELIBERATE hand ball inside the penalty box denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a red card and penalty. An unintentional hand ball inside the box, whether stopping a goal scoring opportunity or not, is an INDIRECT free kick inside the penatly box (There is such thing, read the rules) and no card can be given as it was unintentional, unless the player has been infringing the rules constantly.
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@Pepsimaximo1 No. That's incorrect.There is no deliberate or accidental handball when it comes to stopping an obvious goal. I know this because it's never an indirect free kick for handball in the box. Only on back pass is such a kick given.
JDeguara 5 months ago
@JDeguara There actually is, my friend is a referee and has quoted directly from the rulebook and what they were taught in the course. An accidental hand ball is an indirect freekick no matter what the circumstances and no matter where it is on the pitch. I could also quote directly from the Laws of The Game if you like, but it's very vauge on that ruling. Alteast the simplified version (internet version).
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@Pepsimaximo1 You're friend should check his rulebook again. Handball on the line has, and always will be a mandatory red and a penalty.
JDeguara 5 months ago
@JDeguara Oh my god, stop being so close minded. You have clearly not read and re-read the rules, you really need to check over them. The rule, even in the simplified version of the rules, explicitly says that a DELIBERATE hand ball inside the penalty area is a penalty kick and a yellow or red card depending upon the circumstances.
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@Pepsimaximo1 Can you quote this rule?
JDeguara 5 months ago
@JDeguara Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
- handles the ball DELIBERATELY (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@JDeguara
Read the entire of Law 12 and you will see that accidental or unintentional hand balls are not mentioned. Except in the indirect free kick part where it states:
"An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of
the referee, a player:
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player"
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@JDeguara Now seeing as an accidental or unintentional hand ball is still an offense, and the "direct free kicks" and "cautionable offenses" parts of Law 12 only specifically state things about DELIBERATE hand balls, the only other place for an accidental hand ball to come under is indirect free kicks.
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@JDeguara
As I said it is very vague on this ruling, but the only two conclusions that you can possibly draw from this rule is the conclusion that I have come to, OR that an accidental hand ball is not an offense
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@JDeguara I know you'll only see this comment in your inbox, so come onto the video and look at all my comments that I posted, regarding Law 12, before you reply.
Pepsimaximo1 5 months ago
@JDeguara And anyway, you asked me to quote the rule, I did, and you have nothing to say to that but "it's pointless arguing with you"? Please just admit defeat.
Pepsimaximo1 4 months ago
ball to hand stupid ghana and bastard ref
TheScavenger777 1 year ago
Yes penalty but no red card he tried to get his hand out of the way for god's sake
zerirocks 1 year ago
THE REF IS A BIASED MORON
DROLL30 1 year ago
Bull-f***ing-SHIT! 1. It hit his chest, then bounced away from goal, meaning it WAS NOT GOING IN. 2. The part of the arm it did hit, is NEVER sanction for handball. Jackass corrupt people at FIFA!
thelegendaryred16 1 year ago
FIFA is the most fucked up, rigged organisation in history. winning the world cup is meaningless as the entire contest is rigged. fuck europeans and their sports!
goldensurfer16 1 year ago
its almost impossible for Harry Kewell not to handball it cuz the shot was so powerful, but the referee had no choice. But the Referee ignored all Australian protests. When Neil and Kewell pointed to the replay screen, Rosetti didn't even make an effort to look! that is pretty rude
7SuperCRonaldo17 1 year ago
in the space of 2 seconds. australian dreams were shattered and ghana were let off the hook
MrBen51309 1 year ago
It doesn't matter if you "intend" or "deliberately" hit the ball with your arm or hand, it's a handball. You can't stand in front of the ball, expand you chest, hope it hits your chest but you arm blocks it by mistake. It still hit your hand.
GetDrunk 1 year ago
As this CLEARLY WASN'T INTENTIONAL (his hand was by his side and it was fast) then according to FIFA laws it Should Not have been a penalty and should not have been a red card. It should have been play on... according to FIFA rules.
Nevertheless FIFA rules are stupid. We got penalised 3 games for this. Harry v Ghana, Harry missing Serbia and the goal itself (which is worth a game nowadays). Stupid rules. Stupid Step Ladder. Why an Italian ref after 2006 ? why not a Ghana ref Sep ? Appologise !
ricky5538 1 year ago
@ricky5538 fully agree that the triple penalty is too strong. I don't see his hand by his side however. At normal pace he moved towards the ball, his arm tensed off his body in preparation for chest impact and he got hit on the upper arm. he was left high and dry and to me it was a clear handball but at least you are arguing for play on not a penalty only as that is not possible. The real problem with the law is if that ball hits Harry and goes in, it would have been just a goal, nothing more
wardos69 1 year ago
@ricky5538 is there a solution. Well I suggest this... take a leaf out of rugby and just give it as a goal not send to the spot. This way you won't see the Uruguayan situation. I lot of people rightly struggle to see how that offence and Harry's were identical under the current guidelinesbut as the LAws stand they were
wardos69 1 year ago
In Germany under Hitler the laws were to kill innocent people. The blind soldiers who followed the laws done this. When those German soldier die, they have to answer for their actions to God. People should follow laws blindly but see why they were put in place.
ricky5538 1 year ago
In Germany under Hitler the laws were to kill innocent people. The blind soldiers who followed the laws done this. When those German soldier die, they have to answer for their actions to God. People should follow laws blindly but see why they were put in place.
ricky5538 1 year ago
Wardos stop commenting ! The point is Australia gets cheated time and again at World Cups by FIFA. How does Cahill get sent off when the Karate kick to kill in the final by Netherlands didn't ? Secondly, How come the Serbian stretching deliberatly diving to touch the ball doesn't get sent off ? Also how does Uruguay get to win a game where there was three goalies in the goalbox using there hands ? Also how come the like 5 handballs in Australias games by the opponents doesn't get penalised ?
ricky5538 1 year ago
@ricky5538 I am not arguing that point and in part I agree but if you want to actually know the laws I will tell you. the maximum penalty for a non goal bound handball is a yellow card for unsporting behaviour. Denying a goal gets a red it is as simple as that. There is no grading of deliberate handball it is or isn't deliberate if it isn't play on So unfortunately as the laws stand the Uruguay handball is the same as Harry's once it is deemed intentional, though he should have got a longer
wardos69 1 year ago
@ricky5538 suspension in my opinion. Tim send off was tough but the ref was in the best spot and the ball was way out in front. Yes the netherlands foul was a red. I guess the point you are making is consistency which is fair , my point is that althouh the refs made some bad decisions , the kewll handball wasn't one of them, the besciano tackle in that game was the major mistake not the handball
wardos69 1 year ago
that reff should be fired!!!! they should've done the game again without kewels red card
PowerhouseTom 1 year ago
As if that was a red, ok the rule needs to be explained so I hope there are refs reading this: If the last man intentionally hand balls the ball in the penalty box and is the last man its a red card and a penalty against the offending team. Harry's hand ball didn't touch his hand he kept his arms by his sides and it was unintentional - a penalty but no red card or even yellow for that matter.
The referees all need refresher classes.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 That just isn't the law. Trust me I am an A league ref. It can only be play on or a penalty plus red card. The laws say nothing about last man .. stop making things up. It is a red card if an offence punishable by a direct free kick denies an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity. So the intention determines the handball not the sanction. If it is accidental handball it is play on -like Cahil's v serbia. The hand is defined up to the shoulder
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 So it was a handball. The oly question is whether it was intentional and under the guidleines it clearly was. The guidleines say don't examine a players mind see if one of three things happened, did the player move towards or away from the ball, did his arm mobve off the body into an unantural position or was the player making his body bigger, you only need one of these Harry has all three . He clenched his fist tried to chest the ball but when it hit his arm, it became intentional
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 Everyone is trying to examine the mind. You don't do this. Thing of it as adetermination of a series of body movements that may or may not have to happen. These movements can be reflex eg close in catches in cricket are reflex but they are also intentional. Just imagine with all Harry's skill if he was at the other end of the field and an aussie shot on goal, heis reflexes would have got him out of the way
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Hey! being an a league ref gives you no credibility in my eyes. I've been to heaps of a league games and the refs have always sucked to the max, I'm not going to explain it again, what I said in my first post is the official rule, I happen to have copied it straight out of an official fifa rule book that I won in a competition in Scotland given to me by the Celtic Footbal club , it doesn't have anything to with cricket and my main point is - it wasn't even a hand ball
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 Mate I have refereed for 25 years and at least give me the courtesy of knowing the laws, please call them laws they are not rules. There is none of what you say in the laws. The laws are very very small no mention of last man or any of the methods of determining intent. These are all in the guidelines. Don't tell me what the official laws are I can recite them and the guidelines word for word paragraph for paragraph. I really don't vare if you think I have credibility or not
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 That is not the point. Football federation Australia surveyed the top 900 refs in Australia about the Harry kewell handball and not a single ref thought it was accidental under the guidelines. Now you can be arrogant enough to say well you all wrong or you can be humble enough to say well I guess Iam not clear on how the laws are applied, and try and find out .. it is up to you
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 so go to the laws on the fifa site, there is a nice pdf there. Do a text search for the phrase last man.....
It just isn't there Now you may have an old law book as the 2006 guidelines had the phrase but these are not the laws that governed the world cup. I guess my frustration is you say I have no credibility because I am an A league ref (and I have refereed two internationals) but somehow you are meant to have more when you have done neither... not sure how that works....
wardos69 1 year ago
those refree are bustrads.
musicboy1211 1 year ago 19
he should have cut his arm off to avoid the ball but he didn't.
Conclusion: he deserved a red card.
chochunkit 1 year ago
yeah that shouldnt be a red... thats not fair :\
aleksas5555 1 year ago
I'm Australian but this is clearly a red card because he used his arm to stop the ball from going in the goal, if it was already going out, no red card. It was unfortunate for us though, but good overall because Ghana went through which was good for Africa.
MogliBrudda 1 year ago
@MogliBrudda Its not supposed to be a red card if its unintentional, it didn't even touch his hand it hit above the elbow with his arms at his sides thats not a red card by fifa rules.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 It is not supposed to be anything if it is unintentional eg cahill's v serbia. I think everyone would be calmer if the word voluntary was used intead of deliberate or intentional. Intentional has connotations of being bad , it is not interpreted as such merely did the player make body motions that need not have had to occur. Clearly harry did, he leant in to try and chest it but got hit, nothing sinister just the laws
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 C'mon, do you actually think I have time to read through your 4 comment spaces worth of ranting? first of all there are no "laws" only rules of the game - if its not a hand ball its not a red card. It shouldn't have been a hand ball by my interpretation of the rules, Now you can go on about being a ref all you want but I once got yellow carded for being fowled. you're all too cocky. Most players know the rules better than refs. Tim Cahill's was a red card, it was from behind.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 Well that sums it up. You don't know they are called laws so what is the point of telling you what they say , read the 2010/11 laws of the game of football then come back to me. Oh and they also make no mention of challenges from behind , that is yet again just an example of what may be deemed excessive. The red card was for an excessive force challenge that is all. Things like from behind are all just used as examples but they are not in the laws.. please just read them.
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 I don't care what it said on your crappy handbook, football is a game not a constitution it has rules not laws, it shouldn't have been a red card.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 Mate it is not my crappy handbook It is the Laws of the game of Football on the FIFA site and yes it is on my version because they are the official laws Go to the Fifa site Google Wikipedia or whatever and type in Laws of the game of football for god sake please then once you see that I am at least right about what they are called you can also assume I might know what is inside. When was the last time you heard it called the offisde rule look at the fifa site go on I dare you
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 I hate to kill your storm but the word law doesn't even mean the same as a games rule, all games have rules and they always have had whereas all governments have laws, just because fifa calls them the laws doesn't mean they are. They have always been called "the official football rules" and enthusiastic people like players, coaches and refs dubbed them "laws of the game" so it probably has some shit like that written on your book but its just a play on words left over from the wars
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 mate just don't tell me the difference between laws and rules I am a lawyer! Just look at what they are called. I don't for the life of me know whay you don't just look it up. It is not my book it is FIFA's sent to me by the FFA cause I am an FFA referee. Now you can say yours says rules but I bet it doesn't! Ans which is likely to be right one distrinuted by the FFA or one handed to you five years ago because you wona z divsion gala day. you don't have to believe me just look it up!
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Nah, it shouldn't have been a red card or a penalty for that matter because it wasn't a hand ball, his arms were by his sides and the ball hit him, he didn't hit the ball, he actually moved a bit in that split second so it would connect more with his body and it never touched his hand and was above the elbow so its not a hand ball, a referee-lawyer wow you just become more and more trusty and credible...not. I guess that means the a league is rigged whenever your officiating.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 lol. I guesss we will agree to disagree BTW it is still a hand ball up to the shoulder not the elbow and the way I see it his arm came off his body and were not by his sides. I guess one way to change the law idsthat it is only a hand ball if the ball hits the part of the arm that comes off the body, but this is not the current law. He moved towards not away from the ball and it hit him on a part of the body deemed to be a handball. It is as simple as that cast iron handball
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Australia was undefeated in qualifying matches all the way to the world cup and Schwartzer was unconceded at ANZ stadium, they had already defeated Spain and the Netherlands and others in friendly's Socceroos were too scary for the Europeans, the kick was aimed square at his hand it just floated up because it was the jabulani and hit him in the chest/shoulder then it rolled down but never touched his hand - not a hand ball but by the corrupt officials call a hand ball. rigged
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 I should say that at a recent FFA refs meeting the main thing that was discussed was the fact that as it was 100 % agreed that it was a handball and yet there was still debate this can only mean one of two things.. All supporters coaches etc are idiots which is clearly not true or that how the law is to be applied is not properly explained in the laws themselves.. this is absolutely the case. You and I really sholdn't be debating this as the laws should make it crystal
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 It was only a hand ball because thats what the corrupt refs said but it wasn't scientifically a hand ball by any stretch of the imagination therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty or a red card and if the the official fifa rules or laws or whatever bullshit it is deemed him to have hand-balled it then those rules/laws are wrong and don't serve justice to the games principle and need reviewing.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 No question the hand ball law needs reviewing certainly it should stop at the elbow. But the referee can only referee the laws put before him at the time. I am sure these laws will change but this will take time. believe it or not FIFA don't have contraol over the laws. It is a throw back to the origins of the game in the UK . There are 8 reps who control the laws 4 from FIFA and one each from England , Northern Ireland Scotland and wales and you need 6 votes to change a law
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Its the 4 from fifa who resist all the change, its obvious just look at what happened after the Henry handball against Ireland, the ref could have turned a blind eye on harry and be far less of a villain or he could have taken a page out of the serbia vs Australia refs book but cahil wasn't the last man it couldn't be a red although it should have been because cahils was intentional the acting skills from those tv ads payed off. Harry's alleged Hand ball should have just been play on.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 I am sure it is the 4 from FIFA who resist.I will just disagree with re the two handballs Cahil's was an unexpected ball though his arm was out of position, harry's was clearly expected as he moved to block with his chest and got hit on the arm. Clearly intentional and note phrases like last man are just colloquial they are not in the laws or the guidelines. They get used in commentary and people take that as gospel. I prefer to just go by the laws and the guidelines-less subjective
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Cahil noticed the ball was there then flicked it away with the back of his hand its clear on the replay, Harry Kewel would need some kind of ultra fast Lleyton Hewitt reflexes or something to get out of the way of that ball and you have to move your arms a little to move your body into the line of the ball, the point is Harry Kewel didn't really hand ball it, its not fair play, fifa need to change their motto.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 clear why it is that to all referees this was the only decision possible. FIFA do themselves no favours in staying silent on refs decisions. I would not mind being examined, in fact would welcome it. Instead supporters are left in the dark, players make dumb comments (harry- yes it was a penalty no it wasn't a red... even you rightly point out that this isn't possible..if it wasn't deliberate it was play on) and we are left with too much controversy.. Oh well things will change
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 Its because fifa is rigged and all refs are payed off, they knew they could try and force a handball penalty thats why a bullshit for nothing free kick was given against Australia- so Australia doesn't go through because of the European oligarchical football mafia that always try and rigg it so the European teams win, they knew they could beat Ghana and Germany fluked it against an understrength Socceroos who needed to be eliminated for the good of European football
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 The have never been called the official football rule, they have always been called " The Laws of the Game, 20xx" depending on the year before replying again on this meaningless point please go to the fifa site or google and type in laws of the game and find the offical pdf it isn't that hard. I know the difference between laws and rules , I am just telling you that rightly or wrongly the ones that govern football are called laws..
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 if you even care the ones that govern rugby and rugby league are also laws but the ones that govern AFL are called rules. It is not a legal question , it is a factual one.
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 I guess, I knowwhat your next response will be something about who cares what FIFA calss them , they are just big noting themselves blah blah.. the point is FIFA runs the game and FIFA calls them laws so just accept that you are not killing my party , you are merely stating something that is cast iron factually 100% incorrect. That is unless the books distributed to all qulaified referees worldwide also have the same misprint :-)
wardos69 1 year ago
Its just an association football kind of cultural thing of over importance to call them laws but I guarantee you if you took the matter to court they'd have all the books changed to say rules and regulations pretty quickly to stop fifa turning into some kind of U.N shit. P.S your book is crappy and all games have rules, it shouldn't have been a red card by the correct interpretation of the official rules of the game of association football.
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 I wasn't arguing whether the should be called laws or rules I was just saying are called laws.....so stop calling them rules
wardos69 1 year ago
@wardos69 You can't be right about anything, even if you have "proof" because your a referee, referee's are always wrong you (all referees) always panic in complicated situations, make the wrong decision and refuse to have any kind of video refereeing to see what really happened. Football referees can't be trusted if they're not willing to listen and look (at a replay) - by the law of averages (a real law) referees suck to the max so that means you must suck
me31669 1 year ago
@me31669 nice balnaket assertion there... refs are always wrong and players and spectators are always right. So does that mean when I played top division football I knew the laws and the moment I became a referee I didn't? interesting claim there. Note I have never contended the refs at this WC did a good job, I don't think they did. All I have said is that Harry Kewell's handball wasn't one of the bad decisions, like PAul wade former socceroo captian said.."most obvious red card he has seen
wardos69 1 year ago
@me31669 as for your comments most players know the rules better it is clearly false. Listen to Harry "yeh it was a penalty but it wasn't intentional so it shouldn't have been a red" If it wasn't intentional it was play on end of story. If he admits a penalty he is admitting one of the 10 free kick offences happened in the box. Assuming he didn't do he other 9 he is only admitting intentional handball. players don't have the faintest clue about the laws cause they don't read
wardos69 1 year ago
that was fucked up! i actually do not like the australian team and even i stil say that was complete bullshit. wtf is wrong with the fifa referees this year!
shazzam29 1 year ago
@shazzam29 nuthin
idrizhibeljic 1 year ago
I have come to my conclusion that FIFA hate countries that's national language is English
jamesmann321 1 year ago
Every Red card shouid be signed off by a video referee now days, end of story! Referee stupid decisions should be a thing of the past by now. FIFA have the technology to put this in place but decide not to use it.....one has to wonder why?
revo764 1 year ago
@revo764 Not a bad idea on the red card review. Unfortunately though Harry would not have been saved in this situation. As an A league referee I can tell you I have not found a single colleague at my level or higher that would have not deemed the handball deliberate. Once that threshold is crossed the penalty and red card were the only option. Deliberate determines the offence of handball, sanctions are determined by the penalty kick and caution/send off laws
wardos69 1 year ago
I'm Australian and I'm tired of people whining about this and Cahill's send off. The referee is always going to give a red card for this unless a player kicks it from less than 3-4 yards away. People are moaning about 2 calls that in reality aren't very controversial. I noticed that most Aussie news reports didn't even mention Cahill's handball in the box. We need to get over it people.
paksta 1 year ago
@paksta your an idiot. I've seen you on every video for this spreading garbage. Stop being a troll and fuck off back to your shit hole and watch some proper football and learn the rules idiot, otherwise your just a complete freggin embarrassment
warneinsane 1 year ago
@warneinsane yawn. 456 A-League referees recently met for a conference and when polled they unanimously agreed that it was the correct decision. Get over it and move on. And congratulations on not resorting to caps.
paksta 1 year ago
@warneinsane and incidentally. I got pissed off for a day and quoted Australia's ref representative for the 2006 World Cup. You've been posting garbage and abusing people with valid opinions on the same videos I visited for far longer.
paksta 1 year ago
@paksta lol suck it up you tosspot I know where your from so get fucked. You don't have any connections with football let alone the A-league, I saw in one post you said you were an A-league ref. What a freggin joke. Learn the rules, watch some games and get a life, stop being a loser troll, writing bullshit.
warneinsane 1 year ago
@warneinsane Learn to read, it'll boost your IQ a notch. And quit moaning endlessly about a decision nobody internationally cares about or thinks is incorrect. Even the Aussie ref representative to the last World Cup said it was definitely the correct call. It's done. Learn and move on. Really, move on.
paksta 1 year ago
Comment removed
warneinsane 1 year ago
@paksta you need to learn english as well drongo. Did you go to school? Maybe you suffer from a serious form of deficiency which only allows you to spread shit on youtube wow kudos to you. Troll. I don't post a freggin 100 msgs on one video saying its this or that do I? Troll. I'm surprised the owners of these videos just don't ban your trolling ass. But hey it pushes up the comments count so who gives a fuck right, about some bum who's got nothing better to do with their shitty useless lives.
warneinsane 1 year ago
@warneinsane Lol, yes, you do. Check other videos about Kewell's handball. You post plenty of equally inane posts ripping people who are usually making logical points. None of your posts ever make any sense or have a point. Even so, it was a laugh seeing you admit you need to learn English and the last part of your post was pretty cool and ironic. I know I said to move on, but please keep it up, this is funny. Post another one.
paksta 1 year ago