admin wrote:Sorry but it is a questionable decision. The fact that everyone is questioning the decision by definition makes it a questionable decision.
Nothing questionable about it, look at the picture you posted, and answer why his NON-offending hand is by his side but his offending hand is well away from his body compared to the non-offending one??? Easy, because he wanted to make contact with the ball and thats exactly what he did. Nothing questionable about it, straight red and penalty, easiest decision the ref had to make last night
You have a different opinion on the matter and I respect that but I dont think you are unbelievable. I just think you have a different viewpoint. I am entitled to express my viewpoint.
Where did i say i didnt respect your opinion??? I just said that its unbelievable that anyone could basically not agree that this was a red card. If you were a neutral in last nights game, you wouldnt be questioning anything, thats the truth of it all. I definitely do not agree with your opinion, but i also never stated i disnt respect it or you werent entitled to it
"the clearest red card hand ball of all time" - I dont think so.
You may not think so, but i know so. Its so blatantly obvious, only a minority of Australian football supporters wouldnt think so
The comparision with Vidic is about intent - Vidic has extended his arm and dived towards the ball - the ball is going away from Vidic who extends his arm out - hand to ball - clear intent - Harry has had the ball belted at him from 3-4m away - hit straight at him - Harry is turning to face the ball and the ball - tries to get his shoulder to the ball - not his hand - has come off his shoulder/bicep - and it is questionable if it was intentional hand ball. If you think Vidic's handball was not intentional then I cant see how you can claim that Kewell's was intentional!!!.
Did Vidic stop a goal bound or goal scoring opportunity??? No, he actually created one for no reason the idiot and if i were coach id be livid with him for that reason alone, that Germany were never going to score from that ball until Vidic decided to give them a free chance

The fact that it didnt stop a goal bound ball or a goal scoring opportunity tells me that comparing the 2 would be like comparing apples with oranges and i stand by that, its a no brainer really. Yes they were both intentional but one ball was going in the back of the net while the other was heading for the sideline for a Serbian throw in, a massive difference i would of thought
