Republic of Ireland V Armenia - Tuesday, 11th October 2011 - Euro 2012 Qualifier

Originally Posted by gormacha

Then we agree, no?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

Given the replays are fairly inconclusive, is it not fair to say it's relevant that he raised his hands? To the letter of the law it makes no difference, but realistically keeper's hands stay down (as they should've), there's no argument. It was silly and I've little sympathy for him.

Surely intent is not a red card offense for hand ball unless contact is made?

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Or can the adjudicating panel say there is some doubt, therefore the red card is rescinded?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.

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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.

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

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.

So if you intend to stop the ball with your hands but you miss the ball, then that's a yellow card offense?

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

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.

Sorry, yeah, but the intent determines if it was a foul is what I should have said.

There's no intent if you miss it because no offence would have been committed. It's not murder.

I must check this out.

Originally Posted by geysir

So if you intend to stop the ball with your hands but you miss the ball, then that's a yellow card offense?

What? No? How could you get a yellow for not handballing it. Intentional handball is a yellow, it was implied.


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)

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

What? No? How could you get a yellow for not handballing it. Intentional handball is a yellow, it was implied.

You can get a yellow if the ref believes/assumes you handled it.
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

Originally Posted by geysir

You can get a yellow if the ref believes/assumes you handled it.
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.

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

it never goes higher than his outstretched arms and bounces at a downward angle away. 1 conclusion, handball.

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.

Cox should have just hit it higher and ended all debate!

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

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.

That's a belief, an assumption there was a hand ball involved.
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

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

I thought he was slightly unsighted by St Ledger in front of him?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

et
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

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.