Nemanja Vidic Handball= Yellow, Harry Kewell Handball = Red

Yeh spot on article!

well said.

Yawn. Denying clear goal-scoring opportunity = Red. Vidic didn't deny such an opportunity. Deliberateness has nothing to do with it.

I do sympathize with Australia. I really do. But that being said, i recently watched the slammin salmon and just feel inspired to share a quote – “Excuses are like assholes, everybody's got one…but nobody wants to admit it.”

Australia had good chances to take the lead over Ghana in the second half, that they wasted due to poor finishing. I really do feel sorry for them, because I do find it a bit harsh, but at this level, you miss chances you go out. That applies to everyone.

In FIFA's Laws of the Game (2005), Law 12 states that a free kick or penalty will be awarded if a player “handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)”.

It adds: “Referees are reminded that deliberately handling the ball is normally punished only by a direct free-kick or penalty kick if the offence occurred inside the penalty area. FIFA continues …”A caution or dismissal is not normally required.”

obviously fixed match, no one wants Australia to be in this world cup but they have every right and deserve to be there more so than many of the other teams in the competition.

Pg 35 of the 2010/2011 FIFA Laws of the game:

“A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following seven offences:denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)”

I have no idea where some American and Australian fans get this sense of a conspiracy against Anglophone nations. Who are “they” and why would they take a special interest in not seeing your teams succeed?

Dumbfounding, to be honest.

There is a reason behind this. Kewell was denying a goal scoring opportunity = red card. Vidic's did not directly deny a goal scoring opportunity = yellow. Sorry Aussies, but there's nothing wrong with the referee's decisions in these two matches.

At first: I'm German, as you may or may not know. I wish he would have given a red to Vidic, but Vidic didn't prevent a goal from being scored, therefore: Yellow card.

Kewell did clearly block the shot with his arm. Not fully intentional, but he still kept Ghana from scoring with his arm. Tough look for him, but it was what it was. That's a clear red, my friend.

JoseKJosue: I'm sure glad that you aren't in any position that is required to interpret rules since you clearly don't even know how to read the relevant Law of the game that you have quoted…Perhaps you should read where the Law actually uses the word 'deliberately' nimrod

As soon as you cite your source of what was going through Kewell's mind when he did it. ;)

Looks deliberate to me. Referee had all the reason to believe it was deliberate, as the Australian had no reason to have his arms raised.

Possibly FIFA fears that Australia will rout the big powerful nations and lift the cup. *cough, cough* Australia had a lead at their hands and couldn't get the job done.

I'm not sure I like all these red cards in the box. Perhaps a PK and a yellow awarded. removing a player from the field AND providing a PK seems much….A yellow and a PK is more than enough. They need to get this sorted, cause giving the opposing team both a new chance to score (PK) and an extra man advantage seems WAY over board to me.

Watching the replay, should not have been a red card. Hit him below the shoulder (still a hand ball to be clear)…Nothing near the 'Hand of Gaul'. It's just too hard to move the trunk of your arm in mere split seconds.

As I have stated elsewhere, the decisions were correct in both these incidents. The reason is that the ball is going away from goal when Vidic handles. It is therefore not a clear goalscoring opportunity. Deliberate handball when there is not a clear goalscoring opportunity is punished by a yellow.

Kewell's offence doesn't matter if it was intentional or not. If the ball hits the hand and is therefore prevented from going into the net, it is a red card. These regulations (Law 12, professional foul) were changed in 1998 to cover this exact circumstance.

I would appreciate an answer to these questions in all sincerity. The question for me is what should players in Kewell's position actually do? The ball was shot at Kewell at a high speed from relatively close range. Until the ball hit Kewell he could not have known it would hit his chest/upper arm rather than just his chest (or head). Must players in Kewell's position dive away from the goal in these circumstances? Is it fair that they are sent off the field and the opposing team is awarded a penalty and (usually) the game?

Kewell saved the goal with handball,Vidic touched one that was going nowhere…so it's clear why he received only yellow….

Soccer continues to be a joke. If you watch the video reply, the ball hits the chest of Kewell then the shoulder. I don't believe the game was fixed, but these refs just want to be in the game when they should let the game just play. The first Australian match had the Mexican ref make his presence, sending Cahill off for a weak challenge at the ball as well.

I say bring in video replay and take away the power from the ref have and you'll see the game flow much better and less stupid, borderline calls.

The rules state 'goal or goal scoring opportunity'..

Are you saying that a cross to a man in the penalty area thats intentionally handballed away doesn't meet those criteria?

I surely hope not.

OK… understand why HK got a red card… deliberate or accidental.. it prevented a goal scoring opportunity. He got a red card, Ghana got a PK and Kewell misses out on the Serbia game. Seems harsh. But…. what if HK deliberately hand balled the shot but the shot went into the goal? What would have been the penalty here? Yellow, red ????
If only yellow then we have a clear inconsistency and irrationality in the rules.
Can anywone enlighten me here?

if he deliberately handled the ball, but the ball still went into the goal, it would have been a yellow card.

If you watch the video replay, you see the exact opposite of what you describe, as the ball hits him squarely on the arm.

If you bring in video replay and take the power away from the ref, the game will not flow better. In fact, it will not flow at all, as the game will have to be frequently stopped in order to review plays. There is no way to have video review in soccer because of the running timer.

I suspect you don't know very much about soccer.

Thanks Charlotte,
If you are correct, then soccer's rules have a real problem. Clear inconsitencies and double standards. Certainly not enough judgemental room for the ref.
Cheers

it shoud be a yellow card, buy, he was standing on the line of goal, and vidic wasnt…
I think right decision, but i should been yellow :P

You are absolutely right,but check the replay,as I said,cross was going to no one,and Vidic himself said he had no intention,it was a pressure of the moment,which is irrelevant,but just to mention it. I think red would be too harsh decision… And Kewell,well he saved a goal. Don't get me wrong,I'm not biased,just commenting the situation(s). I've seen this happen many many times and players received equal punishments,respectively… And Kewell was hit,he had no intention,he tried to block with chest/shoulder,but the fact that he was standing on the line is the one he was sent off for…

Kewell stopped a goal, Vidic didn't – hence red for one, yellow for the other.

I do agree that it is harsh in Kewell's case since he didn't move his arm to the ball, but that is a whole different debate. As the laws stand he had to receive a red card – there's nothing the ref can do about it. Should the law be different? Perhaps. But that's a different question.