Hugh Dallas sends off player for u know what

[Thomas Flannigan]

Mark, (Flanoverseas)
An excellent post I must say. You have a number of good points which I will think about. Thank you for the very reasoned and civil tone too!
Tom Flannigan

[Rowdie]

I want to make a point that might have already been stated before but I will reiterate if it has.

First of all, intent only plays a part in SOME, not all, handballs.

First off, in almost every handball situation, barring just a very few exceptions(Maradona's HofG the most glaring) players do not intend to hit the ball with their hands. Most players have it either played from an opposing players shot or kick into their hand/arm, or the ball takes a wierd bounce and strikes their hand. Yet many of these unintentional handballs are still called. Why? BECAUSE INTENT ONLY MATTERS IF IT DOES NOT GIVE THE FOULING TEAM THE ADVANTAGE. Meaning, if a players commits the "foul against the game" that is a handball, but the ball goes right to the opposing team, and the handball, as most are, was unintentional, then and only then, is it not a foul.

IF, though, the player gives himself, or his team, an advantage by playing the ball with his hand, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, it IS a handball. No question about that exists in the FIFA rulebook.

A ball that is stopped from crossing the goal line by a players hand is, regardless of intent, a handball.

Hugh Dallas knows that. Every top level, and hopefully almost all lower level refs know that. The simple fact is that Hugh Dallas did not see the handball. That is the only excuse. Players were scrambling in the box. He was above the 18, and it all happenned in the blink of an eye. He just didnt see it clear enough to make the call. He lied later to cover up in front of an indignant media. Thats all.

As for the linesman who probably did see it, although Kahn may have indeed screened him from it as well, he probably did not have the authority to call the foul in the box. Many referees, at all levels, and especially in big games, tell their linesmen not to make calls in the box. They insist that the task is left to them to avoid second guessing. That way, if a mistake is made, it seems as if two people make it, not just one. A massive game like this would indeed probably be controlled like this.

That is the fact, I think, of this matter.

[MassachusettsRef]

I've avoided this thread because the play in the USA/Germany game was hashed and rehashed through at least 15 pages and hundreds of posts and there is no way that anything more constructive can be said on this subject. People have differing opinions and that's fine. However, as MarioKempes has, I'm sure, taken great pains to point out throughout this thread, certain arguments (like the one immediately above this post that a "handball" that stops a goal is a penalty, regardless of intent) are 100% incorrect and not supported in any way by any facts. No matter what you see on the Sunday amateur rec leagues (admittedly, there can be some poor reffing), intent has to exist for a handling call to be made.

The Laws are crystal clear; the foul is "deliberate handling", not "handball". If one wants to argue that Frings deliberatedly handled the ball, you have some circumstantial evidence to back you up, and you're entitled to your opinion. If one wants to argue that it wasn't intentional, there is also evidence to support that theory. It's all in the eye of the beholder on this call and, unfortunately for the US in this case, Dallas' opinion is the only one that matters.

But anyway, I digress from my main point. And that is, to ask, how in the world is the fact that a Scottish referee called a penalty in a Scottish league match for a handling offence worthy of a thread in the USMNT N & A forum? I know what the answers are going to be by some, but c'mon, did you think that Dallas wasn't going to make this call for the rest of his life because it was a controversial play at the WC? He, and probably every FIFA ref like him, has seen dozens, if not hundreds of similar plays throughout his career. Some he has deemed to be handling, some he has deemed to be accidental. The two plays are entirely disconnected, one happened in the World Cup, the other in the SPL. The only common denominator is Dallas. Talking about a particular referee hardly seems worthy of "news & analysis", nevermind having anything to do with the USMNT to begin with.

[M]

Originally posted by Rowdie
IF, though, the player gives himself, or his team, an advantage by playing the ball with his hand, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, it IS a handball. No question about that exists in the FIFA rulebook.


Show me.

[GoDC]

I thought we lost because Bruce left Razov home, not because of the missed handball call. :confused:

[Topo]

Hugh Dallas is so used to using his hand to score that he gets jealous when others do it.

[CrewToon]

I still don't know how much Hugh Dallas paid off FIFA to officiate that semifinal.

[GoDC]

Originally posted by Topo
Hugh Dallas is so used to using his hand to score that he gets jealous when others do it.

:D

[MarioKempes]

Originally posted by Rowdie
I want to make a point that might have already been stated before but I will reiterate if it has.

First of all, intent only plays a part in SOME, not all, handballs.

First off, in almost every handball situation, barring just a very few exceptions(Maradona's HofG the most glaring) players do not intend to hit the ball with their hands. Most players have it either played from an opposing players shot or kick into their hand/arm, or the ball takes a wierd bounce and strikes their hand. Yet many of these unintentional handballs are still called. Why? BECAUSE INTENT ONLY MATTERS IF IT DOES NOT GIVE THE FOULING TEAM THE ADVANTAGE. Meaning, if a players commits the "foul against the game" that is a handball, but the ball goes right to the opposing team, and the handball, as most are, was unintentional, then and only then, is it not a foul.

IF, though, the player gives himself, or his team, an advantage by playing the ball with his hand, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, it IS a handball. No question about that exists in the FIFA rulebook.

A ball that is stopped from crossing the goal line by a players hand is, regardless of intent, a handball.

Hugh Dallas knows that. Every top level, and hopefully almost all lower level refs know that. The simple fact is that Hugh Dallas did not see the handball. That is the only excuse. Players were scrambling in the box. He was above the 18, and it all happenned in the blink of an eye. He just didnt see it clear enough to make the call. He lied later to cover up in front of an indignant media. Thats all.

As for the linesman who probably did see it, although Kahn may have indeed screened him from it as well, he probably did not have the authority to call the foul in the box. Many referees, at all levels, and especially in big games, tell their linesmen not to make calls in the box. They insist that the task is left to them to avoid second guessing. That way, if a mistake is made, it seems as if two people make it, not just one. A massive game like this would indeed probably be controlled like this.

That is the fact, I think, of this matter.

I'm not going to bother correcting all your misconceptions. Just understand that you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. Most everything you wrote is wrong. What wasn't wrong was speculation.

I'm not trying to slam you personally, but I have to correct what you wrote. I suggest you read Law 12 of the Laws of the Game. You can find them at:

http://www.fifa.com/refs/laws_E.html

You will need to have Acrobat Reader installed.
After that, pick up a book on soccer refereeing from your local library. Or do a websearch on "handball and soccer".

[SJFC4ever]

All the law says is "handles the ball deliberately". So then it is up to the ref what "deliberately" means. Presumably Dallas has a very tight definition of what that means.

Another interesting "handball" decision was made in Rangers' next match against Aberdeen yesterday. It was a pretty similar situation to the Germany/USA one, except the ball clearly didn't (!) hit the player's arm. The referee in this case was John Underhill.

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
But anyway, I digress from my main point. And that is, to ask, how in the world is the fact that a Scottish referee called a penalty in a Scottish league match for a handling offence worthy of a thread in the USMNT N & A forum? I know what the answers are going to be by some, but c'mon, did you think that Dallas wasn't going to make this call for the rest of his life because it was a controversial play at the WC? He, and probably every FIFA ref like him, has seen dozens, if not hundreds of similar plays throughout his career. Some he has deemed to be handling, some he has deemed to be accidental. The two plays are entirely disconnected, one happened in the World Cup, the other in the SPL. The only common denominator is Dallas. Talking about a particular referee hardly seems worthy of "news & analysis", nevermind having anything to do with the USMNT to begin with.

I was wondering about this, too. How this puppy grew to be 130 posts long is incredibly surprising. I wonder if we'll have a semi-official "Hugh Dallas Match Report" thread as a result of all this interest.

But if one or two fans learn what the law actually says about this rule, then it might be worth it.

[dark knight]

Originally posted by Dr. Wankler


I was wondering about this, too. How this puppy grew to be 130 posts long is incredibly surprising. I wonder if we'll have a semi-official "Hugh Dallas Match Report" thread as a result of all this interest.

But if one or two fans learn what the law actually says about this rule, then it might be worth it.

It's the slow season - not much to talk about right now. Believe me, I've been resisting the urge to do all sorts of stuff to this thread.

The problem is - there still seems to be a lot of disagreement about what the right call should have been. I know more about what the law says - but I still don't agree with many of the referees who support Dallas' decision. I don't think you can have your arm away from your body and say it wasn't intentional.

[Red Star]

Originally posted by Chowderhead


I'm sorry but I've never subscribed to the one mistake justifies another argument. We caught a break against Mexico, for sure. But how can that excuse Dallas?

What most offended me was his lecturing, educator's attitude towards the Americans.



I hate to agree with anyone self-identified as Chowderhead, but this is truth. Dallas was patronizing toward the US team throughout the game.

Poor ref who lied about seeing the play and then made up a CYA afterwards. At best.

The number of posts shows this is still a sore point for US fans. I guess that is part of being a fan.

[Thomas Flannigan]

The German defender had his arm extended, blocking part of the goal. That was deliberate. It does not matter whether he moved his hand at the last second to block the ball. If you believe this was not a handball than defenders should always extend their arms, like American football players trying to block a field goal. Of course they don't because if the ball touches their outstretched hand it's a handball.
When players form a wall or jump in an attempt to block a free kick they keep their arms rigidly to their side to avoid handball calls. They would love to put their arms out, German-style, but they are asking for a PK if the balls touches their frozen hand or arm.
It is too bad Mario Kempes has joined the howlers who insult and ignore the arguments. It is easy to launch cheap shots like the Art Bell show. Mario's screen name comes from the Argentine player on the 1978 World Cup. London's Financial Times, and other respected newspapers, reported that Argentina got to the World Cup final that year by bribing Peru, via loan abatement and grain shipments, to throw a game to Argentina by at least 5 goals. This guy picks a screen name of a guy who won the World Cup because someone rigged an elimination round game and then he turns around and insults people who are concerned about systemic corruption and rigging of games. Irony is sweet. If people had complained more about prior scandals we may have had fair treatment at this World Cup.
My opinions.

[Thomas Flannigan]

This is how bad it has gotten. How many teams qualified for the 2002 World Cup with help from rigged games? Perhaps 5 or 6, but the list keeps growing.
Last November, United offered trips to Mexico for only 15,000 frequent flyer miles. I toyed with the idea of burning the miles before the airline died, and trying to get a ticket to the Mexico-Honduras, WCQ. I waited until the ref was announced because I didn't want to take another long trip to watch a rigged soccer game. They finally announced Carlos Batres of Guatemala, the man who reffed the U.S. loss to Costa Rica 2-0 last September. He is a fantastic ref. I figured the game would be on the level, so I went.
Batres reffed a superb game but Honduras looked flat. I figured it might be the altitutude. Now the congress of Honduras is holding hearings about allegations that some of the Catracho players took bribes from a big Mexican company to throw the game.
In the World Cup itself it is pretty hard to get teams, even corrupt teams, to throw a game, so it has to be done with the ref.
Just my opinions.

[Aidaen]

They would love to put their arms out, German-style

Oh, that's rich. I can just imagine the entire German team running around with their hands outstretched. "Herr Klose! Ich kann fliegen!"

In my opinion - this was just a bad call, not an indicator of FIFA, or anyone else for that matter's bias against U.S. soccer. While the subject of Mr. Dallas' patronizing attitude towards the members of the USMNT and his attempts to make himself the center of attention have been beaten to death, I don't think that is indicitave of his possible bias towards the German team. And who would want to root for Germany over anybody, anyway? :)

Mr. Flannigan - I understand that you were over in Korea for the Cup. (As you can see, I'm somewhat new to BigSoccer.) How was it? I'm hoping to attend Deutschland 2006, but the cost ($5k? for three weeks) is something of an obstacle, especially when you consider my financial situation, being a student in college.

Thanks!

[dark knight]

Aidaen -

Check out the Fans and Travel section of the US forums. There used to be a thread discussing the cost of Germany (may have been deleted in the crash).

Korea was well under $3000 for me. As for how it was, if you go once, you'll vow never to miss another one.

[GoDC]

Tom, could you tell mw who is going to win the next World Cup since the bribes must already be in place??

I am expecting an Asian or African winner to share the wealth and keep the US from getting any momentum going.

[Thomas Flannigan]

GODC. That was the first post you have directed towards me in months that was not an insult.
I don't know who will win the next World Cup. It is too early to tell. Germany, playing at home, will be hard to beat. Holland may also win it. I doubt if any team from Asia will even advance out of the first round. UEFA teams usually win in Europe.

[Thomas Flannigan]

Aidean, I think you can do the trip to Germany for around $2000, only for the first 3 games. Remember, we have to qualify for the World Cup and that weill not be easy.