May be it is and may be it isn't a "handball" violation. The rule prohibits "intentionally playing the ball with a hand" and not the hand or arm touching the ball. In real time, without the benefit of six camera angles or even with, there is considerable doubt what happened. When there is doubt the goal should stand.
1
Just bring video review to soccer ... every other sport has it ... and it is good
There has been a lot of talk about Brazil not being Brazil - baloney. Brazil still has the best talent in the world but because most talented Brazilians play in Europe, their "style" has been co-opted by European coaching. The real problem is that Brazilian coaches like Dunga refuse to acknowledge what their players can do given European coaching and try to shoehorn them into some perverted sense of what is Brazilian style football. Dunga has to go and the Brazilian football association has to find a coach who can use their players given their abilities. P.S. I'll never forgive Dunga for calling Ronaldinho a "clown" and not picking him to play in the world cup. Dunga must go.
The only thing this egregious call might do is to paper over the fact that Dunga assembled a squad unable to score against either Ecuador or Peru. The problem is, is there a Brazilian manager out there who could extract better from the players available? Can Brazil do the unthinkable (for them) and hire a foreigner?
From what I saw in three matches, I'd keep Filipe Luis, Willian, Coutinho and Miranda. Almost all the rest of the squad can, as far as I'm concerned, go pound sand. You know, as old as he is, Kaka might have made a difference...
From what I saw in three matches, I'd keep Filipe Luis, Willian, Coutinho and Miranda. Almost all the rest of the squad can, as far as I'm concerned, go pound sand. You know, as old as he is, Kaka might have made a difference...
2
I'm still irritated by Germany's handball to prevent a goal by the US in the 2002 World Cup.
It is time for video replay for goals. And it would have taken less time than the 4 minutes it took in the Brasil/Peru match to get the call wrong.
That being said- Brasil should have played better and been up 2-0 at that point. Credit to Peru for keeping it close.
It is time for video replay for goals. And it would have taken less time than the 4 minutes it took in the Brasil/Peru match to get the call wrong.
That being said- Brasil should have played better and been up 2-0 at that point. Credit to Peru for keeping it close.
2
The easy solution is for soccer to come into the 21st century and use replays. It was clear on the replay that the ball hit the player's hand before going into the goal, and this was not at all clear otherwise. The referee spent four minutes on this, and got it wrong, and with today's technology he could have spent two minutes and gotten it right.
1. Once you give the call, you can't take it back. Even if it was a bad call. You just can't .... "Asi es el futbol" - Unable to translate this fully but it could be something like "That's soccer"
2. "Mighty", is NO LONGER the adjective, unfortunately. Believe when we say UNFORTUNATELY because "we" who have witnessed Brazil's jogo bonito, miss it A LOT!
3. The Peruvian team is a new team handpicked to produce different results than the ones achieved by the old and overrated team Peru previously had (hence the 48th place in the ranking). They are a new team with very few exceptions. They are now gaining experience... they are trying.
4. Ecuador was to face USA regardless. DO NOT belittle Ecuador, they are a strong team - currently top 2nd Russia 2018 qualifiers. They have everything to beat USA.
5. Handballs, offside goals that are a go, diving that leads to penalties etc... "Asi es el futbol".
2. "Mighty", is NO LONGER the adjective, unfortunately. Believe when we say UNFORTUNATELY because "we" who have witnessed Brazil's jogo bonito, miss it A LOT!
3. The Peruvian team is a new team handpicked to produce different results than the ones achieved by the old and overrated team Peru previously had (hence the 48th place in the ranking). They are a new team with very few exceptions. They are now gaining experience... they are trying.
4. Ecuador was to face USA regardless. DO NOT belittle Ecuador, they are a strong team - currently top 2nd Russia 2018 qualifiers. They have everything to beat USA.
5. Handballs, offside goals that are a go, diving that leads to penalties etc... "Asi es el futbol".
The issue is the continued resistance of FIFA to instant replays. These devices are already used very effectively in Rugby League in England. The TV commentators have the devices, the referees don't--bad system. Until that changes, unaided referees will continue to make occasional bad calls. It's actually amazing how many close calls they get right, in retrospect. But in some cases their errors are catastrophic, as was the case last night in Peru vs Brazil. FIFA is a problem in more ways than one.
@Victor Mather, I think we can all agree (even Brazilians) that Brazil hasn't been "mighty" for a while. It is a shadow of what it used to be. If this would have been a good Brazilian team the final score of the match should have been 3-1.
Call it karma, or the universe balancing itself out, DONT forget when Brazil played Ecuador a few days ago, their was a controversial no-goal call.
FIFA needs to bring technology in order to have the referee, review the play. Otherwise we are going to have divers, fake penaltys and scenarios like this one.
Call it karma, or the universe balancing itself out, DONT forget when Brazil played Ecuador a few days ago, their was a controversial no-goal call.
FIFA needs to bring technology in order to have the referee, review the play. Otherwise we are going to have divers, fake penaltys and scenarios like this one.
4
Is it cheating? My take on this is different. [I have no stake, neither monetary nor emotional, in Peru vs. Brazil] If a referee makes an honest error, makes a bad call (non-call in this case) then I don't consider it cheating, just bad luck. If the Peruvian player did not intentionally hit the ball with his arm, but the ball bounced off his arm accidentally, and the referee did not see it, then I don't consider it cheating.
In basketball, a defender can legally block a shot on its upward trajectory, but touching a ball on its downward arc is "goaltending" and the shooter is awarded a field goal. Suppose a defender blocks a shot on its way down, and the referee doesn't see it that way, is this cheating? Suppose it's a "buzzer beater" and the two points would make the difference between a win and a loss. Cheating? He broke the rule and got away with it. But I don't consider it cheating. Cheating's doing something like putting cork in a baseball bat, or taking air pressure out of a football. Premeditated stuff.
In basketball, a defender can legally block a shot on its upward trajectory, but touching a ball on its downward arc is "goaltending" and the shooter is awarded a field goal. Suppose a defender blocks a shot on its way down, and the referee doesn't see it that way, is this cheating? Suppose it's a "buzzer beater" and the two points would make the difference between a win and a loss. Cheating? He broke the rule and got away with it. But I don't consider it cheating. Cheating's doing something like putting cork in a baseball bat, or taking air pressure out of a football. Premeditated stuff.
1
@BR, if the ball inadvertantly strikes the player's arm and goes in, it is a good goal.
Part of the problem is that the slew of commentators misunderstand the rules of the game, using phrases like "make themselves big (ger), or "arm in an unnatural position," which happen not to appear in the rules of the game at all. What is clear is that the rules say that an infringement is when "the hand strikes the ball," and not when "the ball strikes the hand." In other words, the only thing that counts is intent by the player using his hand. It's amazing how many referees seem not to understand that part of the rules, either. It's certainly borderline the penalty called on DeAndre Yedlin against Colombia, where he appeared to have his back to the play.
On the other hand, all of Maradona's "Hand of God," Henry handling to his foot to pass to Gallas, Suarez catching the ball v. Ghana and yesterday's match fulfill the definition of infringement due to the intent of willfully handling. Only Suarez was penalized among the four, and the referee actually in that case could have ruled the play a goal without the penalty had he thought there was 100% chance of a goal without the infringement (as it appeared to me).
Part of the problem is that the slew of commentators misunderstand the rules of the game, using phrases like "make themselves big (ger), or "arm in an unnatural position," which happen not to appear in the rules of the game at all. What is clear is that the rules say that an infringement is when "the hand strikes the ball," and not when "the ball strikes the hand." In other words, the only thing that counts is intent by the player using his hand. It's amazing how many referees seem not to understand that part of the rules, either. It's certainly borderline the penalty called on DeAndre Yedlin against Colombia, where he appeared to have his back to the play.
On the other hand, all of Maradona's "Hand of God," Henry handling to his foot to pass to Gallas, Suarez catching the ball v. Ghana and yesterday's match fulfill the definition of infringement due to the intent of willfully handling. Only Suarez was penalized among the four, and the referee actually in that case could have ruled the play a goal without the penalty had he thought there was 100% chance of a goal without the infringement (as it appeared to me).
2
At that level, taking your arm, putting it out there, and swatting the ball in (which this guy did) would be the equivalent of running across the basketball court and dive-tackling a basketball player right before a buzzer shot...and not getting the whistle blown.
Now, where your analogy sort of stands is that the difficulty level of making the right call during the diving tackle on the basketball court is very low...but the difficulty of calling that hand ball from 30 yards away, at a run, during the game is very high.
And this is why good soccer refs are good soccer refs. But that Peruvian player *cheated*. He did not "get away with one."
Now, where your analogy sort of stands is that the difficulty level of making the right call during the diving tackle on the basketball court is very low...but the difficulty of calling that hand ball from 30 yards away, at a run, during the game is very high.
And this is why good soccer refs are good soccer refs. But that Peruvian player *cheated*. He did not "get away with one."
1
Your analogy fails at the point that goals in soccer are about 50X more valuable than goals in basketball. Certainly, this may have just been a referee error but the consequences for the game are HUGE, vs. the consequences of the same in a basketball game.
FIFA should use every technology at it's disposal to make sure goals are legit or not. And they should do the same to punish flagrant fouling or flopping. Officials should be able to review video after the game and hand out bans for the players when incontrovertible proof is there.
FIFA should use every technology at it's disposal to make sure goals are legit or not. And they should do the same to punish flagrant fouling or flopping. Officials should be able to review video after the game and hand out bans for the players when incontrovertible proof is there.
I see they are cleaning up the sport.........
1
First off, please correct. In 2009, Thierry Henry handled the ball to his own foot, then passed to Willam Gallas, who scored for France against Ireland to decide that WC playoff tie.
Secondly, re Brazil, not only should Peru have had a penalty in the first half, but Ecuador had a perfectly good looking goal chalked off in the opening match against Brazil, which would have left Brazil requiring a win last night, which they weren't going to get.
Third, Brazil, despite being the biggest name brand in football, can NOT expect to advance in a group where they failed to score a single goal against any team not named Haiti. If they had a single goal against Peru, they would have advanced, as group winners, too.
Fourth, as a Brazil fan of decades' standing, these last two years have represented the worst Brazil selecaos I have ever been unfortunate enough to watch. Willian and Coutinho seem to be perfectly competent wings, but the collections of center forwards make the dreadful Serginho of the 1982 version look like a world beater in comparison.
I don't care about shooting or passing statistics. Did Brazil REALLY look like scoring against traditional second tier competition in Ecuador and Peru (itself without anyone even vaguely resembling Nene Cubillas)?
This program needs to be uprooted and rethought before it does the unthinkable and fails to qualify for a World Cup for the very first time. THAT would be the final indignity.
Secondly, re Brazil, not only should Peru have had a penalty in the first half, but Ecuador had a perfectly good looking goal chalked off in the opening match against Brazil, which would have left Brazil requiring a win last night, which they weren't going to get.
Third, Brazil, despite being the biggest name brand in football, can NOT expect to advance in a group where they failed to score a single goal against any team not named Haiti. If they had a single goal against Peru, they would have advanced, as group winners, too.
Fourth, as a Brazil fan of decades' standing, these last two years have represented the worst Brazil selecaos I have ever been unfortunate enough to watch. Willian and Coutinho seem to be perfectly competent wings, but the collections of center forwards make the dreadful Serginho of the 1982 version look like a world beater in comparison.
I don't care about shooting or passing statistics. Did Brazil REALLY look like scoring against traditional second tier competition in Ecuador and Peru (itself without anyone even vaguely resembling Nene Cubillas)?
This program needs to be uprooted and rethought before it does the unthinkable and fails to qualify for a World Cup for the very first time. THAT would be the final indignity.
7
And this…
Back in 1995, Dunga was captain of Brazil in the Copa in Uruguay, when striker Tulio clearly handled the ball before scoring a vital goal against Argentina in the quarterfinals. There would seem to be no record of Dunga complaining then.
Back in 1995, Dunga was captain of Brazil in the Copa in Uruguay, when striker Tulio clearly handled the ball before scoring a vital goal against Argentina in the quarterfinals. There would seem to be no record of Dunga complaining then.
The "hand of god" returns. First with Argentina and then France (vs Ireland in a WC elimination match). It is part of the game. In the case of France and Thierry Henry, it was shameful.
It would be great if athletes owned up to errors. But they don't. And football/soccer with their "falls" where players roll around in sheer agony only to get up and play minute later is the worst. Deception is part of the game. Sad.
If sport is how we learn to interact - play as a team, learn from losing - then issues like this say you can cheat, know it, and do it and not be held accountable.
It would be great if athletes owned up to errors. But they don't. And football/soccer with their "falls" where players roll around in sheer agony only to get up and play minute later is the worst. Deception is part of the game. Sad.
If sport is how we learn to interact - play as a team, learn from losing - then issues like this say you can cheat, know it, and do it and not be held accountable.
3
Maradona's wasn't shameful? His was worse, and in a more consequential match (WC Quarterfinal vs. WC qualification playoff between two teams, neither of which had qualified directly as group winners).
4
dude, if you actually played, then you'd know exactly how much it can hurt when someone leaves a stud on your ankle bone...or runs their studs down the small muscles and tissue lining the inside of your shin (literally what happens 99% of the time).
Watch Costa Rica vs. Columbia, and you will see Costa Rica's winger hurdle a slide tackler and literally kick the guy in the side of the head--you've watched MMA--as soon as that foot is in contact with the skull, it doesn't take much, there is so much mass behind it.
Then you've got the cleat slashing, elbows on the head, blows to the throat... there was a Costa Rican that lined up an actual uppercut on Clint Dempsey last week (remember him feeling his tooth? watch the left hand of the Costa Rican carefully in the replay).
The best are absolute magicians. Check out Gareth Bale run at Skrtel in the box (Wales-Slovakia, Sat) and take a dive (think it was the end of the 1st half). You thought it was a dive. Garath Bale spins around and drops his heel on Skrtel's knee like an axe--leg flexed, full speed. If he meant to do that, it was unreal. And, to me, it looks like Skrtel noticed. 10 min later, he is "cramping" in the calf area (more like dealing with a contusion in the muscle belly). The pain is real. Not a joke. Just doesn't happen when you think it does.
When you want to hurt someone, do you tackle them? No--you hit them with a hammer or stick them with a knife. What do you think studs, elbows and knees are?
Watch Costa Rica vs. Columbia, and you will see Costa Rica's winger hurdle a slide tackler and literally kick the guy in the side of the head--you've watched MMA--as soon as that foot is in contact with the skull, it doesn't take much, there is so much mass behind it.
Then you've got the cleat slashing, elbows on the head, blows to the throat... there was a Costa Rican that lined up an actual uppercut on Clint Dempsey last week (remember him feeling his tooth? watch the left hand of the Costa Rican carefully in the replay).
The best are absolute magicians. Check out Gareth Bale run at Skrtel in the box (Wales-Slovakia, Sat) and take a dive (think it was the end of the 1st half). You thought it was a dive. Garath Bale spins around and drops his heel on Skrtel's knee like an axe--leg flexed, full speed. If he meant to do that, it was unreal. And, to me, it looks like Skrtel noticed. 10 min later, he is "cramping" in the calf area (more like dealing with a contusion in the muscle belly). The pain is real. Not a joke. Just doesn't happen when you think it does.
When you want to hurt someone, do you tackle them? No--you hit them with a hammer or stick them with a knife. What do you think studs, elbows and knees are?
Just once, just once I would like to see a soccer player --or a professional athlete in any high profile sport for that matter-- come forward and admit to wrong doing or wrongful advantage owing to a referee's bad call. Or here's a scenario you won't ever see --Brazil kicks off after the bad call and the Peruvian side allows them to dribble the ball unimpeded into the Peruvian goal to tie the game, compensating for the referee's bad call. Rather we are treated to 'hand of God' farces and a cheering Peruvian side and spectators. What a terrible example for their and our kids. I wonder if there were any articles in Lima newspapers this morning bemoaning the fact that Peru had movedon by cheating?... It is long past time for soccer futebol to move into the 21st century by allowing review of film footage on critical plays. Professional sports --players, managers and owners-- are far too corrupted by fame and fortune to be entrusted with something as delicate as fair play. Just look at FIFA...
7
The US would rather play Ecuador instead of Brazil, therefore the referee received a call thereby which he could not disagree with the call made.
The US would play Ecuador, regardless of the outcome of the Peru vs. Brazil game. Ecuador was guaranteed to second place in the group. This game determined who would play Colombia.
4
If brazil won usa would of still played Equador your theory is bunk.
3
The call had absolutely no influence in who the US plays next. They were set to play 2nd place of Group B, which was always Equador, independent of yesterday's result. Colombia plays 1st place in Group B (either Peru or Brazil).
3
It does even out as Chicama mentioned as the penalty should have been awarded in the first half for that clear foul inside the goalbox. Also, it may have been a hand ball, but it is not 100% clear that it didn't hit his upper thigh instead.
2
@ Rodrigo — As I explain below, it’s pretty clear from the videos that the ball did strike Ruidíaz’s thigh, but only •after• it bounced off his forearm — contact that is absolutely unmistakable. It was a foul, and the call should have been No Goal.
— Brian
— Brian
Brazil was the beneficiary of a blatant refereeing mistake in the game against Ecuador, whose goal was wrongly disallowed. Had Brazil lost that game, it wouldn't have qualified even if the "mano de dios" had not been counted. Ecuador would have gone first with 7 points, and Peru second with 5 points because Ecuador and Peru drew, while beating poor Haiti.
2
Had the Ecuador goal been counted, the dynamics of that game would have changed completely. Cannot affirm that if they suffered that goal, that they wouldn't have made tactical changes or that they wouldn't come into yesterday's game with different attitude. They lost yesterday because they lost their luster: the "hand of God" did not eliminate them. Back to the drawing board, otherwise, they will not qualify for the next World Cup.
That goal chalked off against Ecuador was about 77th or 78th minute. Now having seen three Brazil matches, what makes you think Brazil could have recovered? Saw the 82 selecao turn around a 0-1 deficit in its opening match in Spain v. USSR, that should actually have been at least 0-2, as the referee blew an obvious penalty when Luizinho pulled down Ramaz Shengelia, but this Brazil has nothing resembling Socrates or Eder, whose goals turned that match. Even Willian and Coutinho don't compare in the least to Eder, who himself was far less celebrated than Socrates, Zico, Falcao and Junior.
2
I was at the game last night. There was no absolute clarity that the shot was made using a hand. None pictures and videos do not show that with certainty. His leg could have assisted and that is what the player asserted. So, to lead this article with the assertion of foul play, or a goal made by using the hand, is inaccurate reporting. To write a article with such a blaring gap in inaccuracy is a disservice for the readers. I am reconsidering my monthly subscription.
4
The view from overhead and to the right (the last in the clip) is completely clear. The ball didn't touch his leg. Ruidiaz whacked the ball in with his right hand.
4
No, the video was crystal clear showing his hand slapping the ball in.
Given the length of the delay, I was sure they were going to defy rules and let the fourth official make the ruling based on replay review. By the way, although FIFA won't admit it, that's what happened when Zinedine Zidane was red carded in the 2006 WC Final. The fourth official saw the headbut that the central ref and linesmen had missed, and passed the word on.
But failing to "get the call right" makes the delay all that much more a head scratcher. Terrible officiating, par for football's course.
Given the length of the delay, I was sure they were going to defy rules and let the fourth official make the ruling based on replay review. By the way, although FIFA won't admit it, that's what happened when Zinedine Zidane was red carded in the 2006 WC Final. The fourth official saw the headbut that the central ref and linesmen had missed, and passed the word on.
But failing to "get the call right" makes the delay all that much more a head scratcher. Terrible officiating, par for football's course.
4
I agree with you Luis. The ball did not touch his arm and bounced off his thigh. Take a closer look at the photo at the beginning of this article. You can see the shadow of his arm, but not the shadow of the ball. His leg is obviously between his arm and the ball. The video angle from inside the goal also shows his leg hitting the ball while his arm is moving away in the opposite direction. A great play deserving recognition. Peru wins fair and square.
1
Peru was not awarded a penalty kick against Brazin on the first half. A Peruvian attacker was clearly tripped in the penalty zone. So it all evens out.
3
Although statistically a PK is almost surely a goal, I think it's different than a clear hand pass that gives Peru a goal. At least if a PK was awarded the player still has to put it on frame and get past the GK. But how the ref and the assistant (who were closest to the play) didn't see that is amazing to me. And 4 mins is absurd to make a decision.
4
Same is true of England, btw, for the last 20 years, but England has the money to fix things, just seems to lack the will-power.