Its fact by the rules of the game. He played outside the rules, and the rules punished him for doing so. The fact that Ghana was not able to take advantage of the rules, is not Suarez' fault. Yes I am looking at you Gyan. Besides Ghana cheated by getting the FK, that was a yellow card dive.
Not everyone is blaming Suarez. I'm not. He did exactly what he should have done. All I'm saying is that some believe the rules should be changed because it gives an unfair advantage to the team that committed the foul. In this case, I would argue that the punishment does not fit the crime. Yes, the rules are the rules, but sometimes the rules need to be tweaked a little. Goal line technology, the whole issue with diving, etc etc...people have been calling for rule changes for a long time. Some believe this situation also merits a rule change. All I'm saying is that saying stuff like "That's punishment enough" as if it's an opinion shared by everyone is misleading... And yes, Gyan should have buried it.
Most likely that he did after kicking the ball outside the goal. Only that he buried his head in shame, for missing such a shot.
It's really not punishment enough when a player uses the most punishable offense to stop a CERTAIN GOAL. That is the key here. It is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that the RAISED HAND stopped a goal. To make the penalty similar to a handball away from the goal is a rule that is needs to FIXED, and I believe it will be after the World Cup is over. There are degrees of handball faults in and around the goal area. accidental handball, intentional handball, intentional, raised handball, then repeat three above when in the goal. So there are at least six specific DEFENSIVE handball situations, and apparently there is not much of a difference in what penalty is assessed for each situation. My belief is what Suarez did should qualify for an auto goal (because he raised his hand) AND the loss of one of the five final penalty kicks.
The accidental handball isn`t a fault of no kind, so it never should be punished as if it was one. Besides, imho, a hand ball isn`t the most punishable offense. To me, any foul, attack or directly an agression of high caliber, that comprimises seriously the physical integrity of an opponent, is the most punishable offense, no matter where or when it has happened. Example : a direct kick with the lower part of the shoes directly to the testicles of the opponent after a 50 mts 6 second dash........., ufffffffff !!!!!,, it hurts me even to imagine how much that would hurt.
So when would it be an automatic goal and when will it not? That's judgemental. Like the idea, but it wouldn't work. Just like communism. Also, what if there is no handball, but the ref thinks he sees one. Or what if its unintentional? A penalty and a red card is already a lot, but an assured goal for something that didn't happen is ridicoulous
Actually there is only two kinds of intentional defensive handballs, which both are faults that should be always called by the referee, if it affects the continuity of the game or if it is transcendent for it. There is the ones that are done outside the goal area, where a free kick is granted, and there is the ones done inside the goal zone, where a pk should be granted for the offended side. The level of how drastic should the referee be against the offender is another completely diferent issue, that has nothing to do with the continuity of the game, so the referee can continue the game and after it has stop for whatever reason, then proceed to punish the player. If the handball doesn`t have a major transcendense, its up to the referee if he should punish or not the player, but if it affects the continuity of the game, the referee should at least show the player a yellow card, but if the handball really avoids the attacking team an almost certain chance of scoring a goal, then the referee should show the player a direct red card, which is the situation that happened to Mr. Suarez.
The funniest thing is that had Suarez not handled the ball, there was a good chance he could have headed the ball away. Either way, it was intentional and he was sent off and a penalty was given. Perhaps FIFA should have banned him for more than one match and I wouldn't disagree with that, but that's that. And I don't think that we should start classifying handballs, because the only thing that will happen is additional controversy -look for example at Kewel's handball against Ghana; was that intentional or not? Moreover, if a player is brought down by a goalkeeper while he was ready to score, should that also qualify as an "auto-goal" or in that case is a sent-off and a penalty enough? In my point of view, the rules in regard to that are just fine; Ghana might feel hard done, but they were given the chance to score and they blew it, but that's football. If nothing else, FIFA should focus on establishing the much needed goal-line technology and leave the rules as they are.
QFT. Auto-goal calls would be botched more often than than they would render "justice" served if the rules were changed in this way.
This is the FIFA response to the issue: http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/worldcup/story/Blatter-Suarez-handball-could-prompt-rules-change Per the story NO auto is being considered.
lol, I knew if I read the story I would find something that didn't make sense. here it is... "You have seen in this competition and in others that it's so difficult to say if a ball is in or out,'' he said. "But when a ball is not in, definitely, no referee can declare that it is a goal.'' My point is if you gathered a 100 of the best soccer experts together and asked them if Suarez blocked a certain goal with his hand, they would all say yes, because in this particular situation, it was a 100% certain goal. In most other situations, there will probably be doubt, and an auto goal may not be required. So the use of an auto goal will be very rare. As for the goalie intentionally interfering on a one on one. I think that is an excellent question that requires deep analysis. Once again there would have to be a 100% degree of certainity involved as to whether the goalie stopped a certain goal or not before an auto goal was called. However, if the rule is left as is, in addition to a penalty kick, I would extend the game FIVE MINUTES OF OVERAGE, and the goalie would be out of the net. At which point the odds of a hand ball would probably be dramatically increased.
Sure, I see what you mean. I meant from the spirit of the game. The entire game is supposed to be played without use of the hands except for side line throw ins (and the goalie of course), so to have a raised hand from a non goalie prevent a goal seems to be the height of going against the spirit of soccer. However I agree that causing intentional physical harm to another player is worse, but in a different category as well.
8 days later and this is still being discussed? We've moved on people...lol Next time, we'll practice PK's so this will not be an issue
Yes, but have we beaten the record for the longest known "gooooooooooooooooooaaaaaasssssssssllllllllllllllllllll" call by Andres Cantor?
I highly doubt FIFA institutes auto goals. Situations like the Suarez handball don't happen often enough to warrant changing the rules. This is a group (FIFA) that has yet to put technology on the goal...you think they're going to change the rules to allow auto goals when players clearly exploit the current rules (like Suarez)? No, they're not. I think the way Uruguay has gone out (Forlan set piece hitting the top of the goal like Gyan) is poetic justice enough. Ghana is a very good team that will have more chances to prove themselves. Please, let this thread die.
Why is that a reason to not fix the rule? It doesn't necessarily matter how often it happens, it also matters WHEN it happens.
I'm trying to think how they would think and you have to take their lack of creativity and modernization into account (a major reason people have been so critical of them). SHOULD they change the rule? Certainly! It should not be allowed that a guranteed goal is taken away in a game where goals are sometimes so hard to come by. And there is no one with two eyes that can say that wasn't going to be a Ghana goal for the win. Even in sports like basketball and American football, scores will be given if it's shown that they were made (goaltending in basketball and replay in American football). And those are sports where teams score a lot more than teams do in soccer. That's another reason I don't see instant goals being allowed...the only way you could do it without scrutiny is through instant replay. Otherwise it's at the referee's judgement whether a ball was going into the net or not. That'll just create more problems. And at this rate, it'll be another 50 years before FIFA institutes instant replay...if ever.
This is an excellent point. I had not considered that an autogoal would require instant replay. The solution could be to allow each team one instant replay per half, and if they are correct when asking for it, they get to keep their one replay option.
It important to realize that Youtube has only been around for five years. So in 2006, youtube was still in its infancy. Four years later and the tools of communication are so much vibrant that soccer really does need to look at how their game plays back in replay. Too many wrong calls in low scoring games could prove very frustrating.
If we're gonna do instant replays it should be based on the play not based on the strategic use of timeouts. This thing sounds a lot like NFL.
That is a valid point. However, the converse is that referees with that much power may use it in situations other than this. That is the concern. Also, the penalty kick often means that the penalty is much worse than the crime. There are plenty of instances of handballs on non-descript crosses that are awarded penalties. Would you say the punishment is just there? Outside of this one play, I don't think it's ever beneficial to give up a penalty.
I agree 100% that the goal should count. The player shouldn't have to make the same goal twice. By forcing him to make the PK, the offending player technically is telling the scorer that he has to prove himself again, but this time with the goalie staring at him, trying to intimidate him. The goalie is now that much more prepared and the kicker no longer has the advantage. There is now that much more pressure with the whole stadium weighing on his every move. It's not fair! The goal should count, ejection from the game for the offending player and I'll even suggest that they include the PK as part of the penalty, much like in the NBA for a three point shot. Make it a two goal possibility. How about that Uruguay! Still think you won the game? I don't. You cheated your way out of a loss.
You are right my friend. It is very similar to "goal tending" in basketball. If the defense blocks the ball from going in, and was clearly going to go in, the basket counts and the player does not have to make the basket again. I know that those are not rules, but maybe it should be. If it is not fair nobody wins! Think about it.