No. I've stated why it's relevant to the discussion. Keeper should keep his hands down when five yards outside his box - if he does that no sending off, no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
The letter of the law would only apply if we could make a conclusive argument either way. Since we appear to agree it's inconclusive, the keeper should rightly feel silly he let himself get into the situation in the first place.
Surely intent is not a red card offense for hand ball unless contact is made?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
I'd say the refs red card decision is final unless it can be proved otherwise. The goalie will have a hard time proving that.
Or can the adjudicating panel say there is some doubt, therefore the red card is rescinded? I think that's unlikely.
What the goalie can't legitimately dispute is that he did not make it easy for anyone to believe he did not handle the ball.
Maybe his mother believes him, but deep down maybe she has her doubts, but will stand by him.
It is ironic that we do benefit from such a controversy in such an important decider game - even if their goalie created the controversy.
I think he's saying the other way around: that hand ball is not a red card offense unless there's intent. Intent is defined broadly though and certainly the combination of inadvertent contact with the arm + the intention to block the ball with his arms if necessary would make it a red card offense.
A red card for hand ball is for denying a goalscoring opportunity, it hasn't got anything to do with intent. Intent is a yellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
So if you intend to stop the ball with your hands but you miss the ball, then that's a yellow card offense?Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
Sorry, yeah, but the intent determines if it was a foul is what I should have said.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
There's no intent if you miss it because no offence would have been committed. It's not murder.
I must check this out.
What? No? How could you get a yellow for not handballing it. Intentional handball is a yellow, it was implied.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Four examples:
attacker or defender handles the ball to gain
control
•
foul, no misconduct
---------------------------
defender handles the ball to break up
attacking play
•
foul, misconduct (caution for unsporting behaviour)
-------------------------------
attacker handles the ball in an attempt to
score a goal
•
foul, misconduct (caution for unsporting behaviour)
-----------------------------
defender handles the ball to prevent a goal
•
foul, misconduct (send off for preventing the goal)
You can get a yellow if the ref believes/assumes you handled it.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
Our dear friend, the Armenian goalie, intended to handle the ball and deprive a goalscoring opportunity, but he is claiming the ball did not hit his hand
And there appears to be no conclusive proof, either way
But in the event of an appeal, I believe the ref's decision is final unless proved otherwise
Well I firmly believe he handled it. Look at the trajectory of the ball after it hits his chest. An upward lob from Cox, hitting him should bounce up the way yes? Wel it doesn't, it never goes higher than his outstretched arms and bounces at a downward angle away. 1 conclusion, handball.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
That's what I thought - not quite immediately, because in real time I thought it was chest, but quickly afterwards. However I also thought that the ball rebounded back so far that it must have come off something hard, like his chest.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
Cox should have just hit it higher and ended all debate!
That's a belief, an assumption there was a hand ball involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
It's a belief I had also, but I have to say there is no conclusive proof, there may well be other explanations for the flight of the ball and fwiw, Cox was uncertain "I don't think it was a handball by the keeper".
I find the goalie sending off debate quite interesting in terms of how do you view it objectively. Armenians must be sick that they were down to 10 so early in the game for an offence that they believe didn't appear to happen (personally I'm about 60/40 that it hits his chest and is no handball). However, they should be equally sickened that he charged out, arms aloft while being lobbed well outside the penalty box. I know I would be if it was Ireland. It appears there was technically no offence (much debate on this above) but he was asking for it (yes you ARE asking for it with arms aloft to block a ball/put the attacker off outside the box - would a defender do it? It's outside the box - no difference between defender and goalie). So the ref is left with no margin for error.
Think about another incident in the same game, same half only earlier and at the other end of the field. Armenia break into the Irish box one on one. Given rushes out to close down the attacker and goes to slide down as the Armenian predictably knocks it wide past him, hoping to be taken out and win the inevitable peno and straight red. How many times do we see this situation in football?
But Given is a top goalie, out-psyching the attacker with a wee slide and no chance of contact leaving only a blatant dive as an option for his opponent as the ball runs out of play, which he doesn't take up, thankfully.
How many times have we seen keepers clumsily flail down with arm outstretched as the striker boots it out of play past him only for the purposely dangling leg to meet arm/body (or often clear olympic dive and no contact) and the aforementioned peno/red card combo awarded? Might technically be a foul (or should it be if ball is running out of play?) and when it happens to my team Im always ****ed with the striker for 'conning' a peno, but I'm even more sickened with my keeper for being a fool falling for the blatant con.
But Given didn't do that cos he's a top,top,top,top keepah. And their boy was a goontard. End of.
I'm so stealing Goontard.
No doubt Shay is a top keeper, top lad and has been a great servant to the green jersey.
But the goal conceded on Tuesday night was one of the poorest from his perspective for us. Should've have at least parried it away IMO.
Interesting from Estonia's recent results that they appear to achieve better results away than at home. Not all that dissimilar to ourselves. I hope the win in Belgrade was a once off flash in the pan cost to go there and win is a serious result.
I thought he was slightly unsighted by St Ledger in front of him?
The ball also swung in further than he expected. Still a poor effort mind.
wrt rushing out, he did very well to pull out. He got lucky in Paris moments before the Henry handball. He committed himsel;f and didn't make it. I hate seeing keepers do that. It's so predictable. No danger, rush of blood, penalty.
Handball or no handball, the Armenia keeper was asking for trouble charging out, arms aloft like he was a flanker rushing to charge a fly half's clearance kick. I think it was probably the wrong decision but not a heinous error. Everything about it probably looked like handball to the ref.
btw, I watched a bit of Leeds v Doncaster last night. On 73 mins Doncaster took a shot, Leeds FB was standing upright, ball hit the Leeds FB's chest in a similar place, and the ball bounced down! Joe_d's explanation might not stand up to scrituny in this light :)
He was - said so after the game. In fairness to Shay he said he should've done better, while citing being unsighted. He saw and late and was diving backwards but was annoyed at himself though said he wouldn't beat himself up too much since they got the result. Fair dues.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Yep fair do's the Armenia's deserved a goal anyway, and indeed the scored 2.
Was clever of the Armenian to shoot from any unsighted position make it hard
to pick up the flight of the ball.
Stutts I thought with your background you would have realised this. I'm 98 percent sure that he didn't handle it. trajectory/gravity has nothing to do with it, I mean how can you say he was standing upright at a 90 degree angle, even so hit a ball at a wall going up, depending on spin etc it wont always bounce back up at an angle. The one thing I am unsure about and thats why I left 2% margin of error is that at some point after bouncing off his chest it brushed his arm. This is the part that is hardest figure out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
My background? I haven't done geometry or physics since my inter!
Was responding to joe_d's belief...
For me (being geometrically deficient) the tv replays are inconclusive but Cox's eye witness post-match statement, carries considerable weight.
Sorry stutts, i keep thinking for some reason you majored(haha) in maths and minored in physics :) NTS there :)
http://www.armradio.am/news/?part=sport&id=21104
Arm radio reports that UEFA have refused to rescind the red card dished out to the Armenian goalie.
'Earlier, Armenia filed an official protest to UEFA over decisions by the referee in EURO 2012 qualifier, looking to have goalkeeper Roman Berezovsky’s red card rescinded.
Berezovsky was sent off by Spanish referee Eduardo Gonzalez after 26 minutes for handball outside his area but TV replays clearly showed he chested the ball clear'
Clarity is an easily obtained perspective for the eagle eyed Armenians.
One result that took the breath away this week in WC qualifying was Armenia whipping Denmark 4-0! in Copenhagen.... Amazing, the Danes must be in a bad way coz they've always been fairly consistent but won't qualify now.... Didn't Armenia also whip Slovakia away 4-0 in Euro 2012 qualifying too? If only they could find consistency....
They beat them 4-0 and 3-1.
I think that's the key difference and it will prove so at the end of this campaign, there was a team capable of beating those closest to us in the group that were ranked below us. We need something like that now really, and unfortunately we don't have a team in our group to do that.
I would say there is a chance of an upset when the Swedes visit Kazakhstan. Armenia did well to beat Denmark away, but the match before they lost home to Malta, they are a team that can play very well if they have confidence - I remember reading somewhere that in the last 4 years they've only lost 1 and drawn 2 games when they've taken the lead.
What would we have done if we'd gone 1 up in Denmark?
Taken off our ball players and lost 2-1. * ProbablyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Hung on for grim death to that goal. And probably failed to win. The evidence is all about us, when we take a lead v. an 'equal'.
Yep, I agree. We don't have that "they're there for the taking" instinct.
As Austria were for a period recently you mean ? Well, I thought they were anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
We lost that killer instinct when Stan leftQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Denmark 0 Republic of Ireland 4
They absolutely were there for the taking. We blew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
Except we should. And something that all the 'glass half-full' brigade choose to ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
As the fault, IMO, belongs to Trap and his often dubious tactics.
I feel like you slammed each letter of that post "typewriter style".Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Better than being in the "glass is half empty" brigade. Since that match, there have been numerous games with last minute goals. Why didn't all those sides go on and win comfortably? Because unless you're Man U or Barca etc, it seldom works like that. We are probably slightly better than Austria but certainly not 2 or 3 goals better and they weren't there "for the taking". Easy to say but I don't agree they were. It is natural and has been since time immemorial to fall back and try and defend a lead as time ticks down. The mistake that was made was not making a substitution in the 91st minute. Remember when we took the lead against Italy. They were there "for the taking". O'Shea overlaps down the wing, is caught out of position and Italians attack and equalise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Never thought I'd be typing this in an old Armenian thread.
The thing is we always looked like scoring under stan but we always looked like conceding also.
Trap came in and said his first job was to make us stronger defensively and to concede little. He did that initially but now we dont ever look like scoring but we do concede. Perhaps with those changes we would look like scoring again.
Do you know the Turks still won't admit that they massacred the armenians? I know b/c there is a big sign in front of an armenian church that says so.
Take your point, but his whole mindset is so defensive. It's all about not conceding, when we don't have players quite good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlsFan
So a bit more attacking endeavour would be welcome on occasion.