posted Dec 28, 2007

But that is the whole point. As the vast majority of unbiased fans on this thread will attest, the ball did not strike Cole anywhere that could be construed as handball. Only one angle looked like handball (sadly the angle the ref had) but others clearly showed no change in rotation or direction of the ball, therefore no contact.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

can someone please tell me the last time someone successfully overturned a red card? surely both these incidents deserved a closer look rather than just immediate dismissal? is there therefore any point in having an appeal system? an illusion of democracy?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

The appeals system seems or in fact is completely futile or just awry.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

I think the FA are more worried about opening up a can of worms by allowing cole's appeal: imagine chelsea then appealing that the penalty shouldn't have been allowed and that the result should have been 4-3, taking it to court when the FA refuse to change the result and winning the case because the FA have admitted that the ref was wrong. Far easier to bury their heads in the sand and back the ref

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

The perfect outcome of the "Cole" case was for the red card to be removed on the grounds the award of the penalty was sufficient. Nobody on this planet, after watching the incident a million times can say for certain Cole handled the ball. The video evidence suggests he did not.In my view an appeal is just a time wasting excercise and another opportunity for those who sit in judgement to lodge another large claim for expenses.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

i dont think there was any contact with cashleys arm and the ball it was good defending and being in the right place at the right time. People are mentioning that there was no change in direction or rotation of the ball etc, well there too was no change in the direction of ballack surely if Z.K. had made contact with ballack from he direction he was coming into challenge ballack would of gone more too the right and not fallen over like he had been shot going in the same straight direction. . the force would of turned his body?? Didn't Carsson come out and smother the ball too? Ballack knew he'd lost it so went for the pen i'm thinking. The free kick for chelsea to score for i think it was a bad decision as both players who went for that ball got no where near it and it was a different Aston villa player who cleared it so how that was awarded to chelsea i don't know but life goes on ppl

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

Some people posting on here seem to have pretty poor eyesight. In Ashley Coles case the ball hit his chest, skimmed off his shoulder and then got diverted out of goal by his forearm that was moving forward from his normal body movement at trying to get to the ball. I don't think he knew much about it but it was still handball and still would have gone in if he didn't handball it. Whether or not its a red because he didn't mean to do it can be debated for a long time.

In Zat Knights case there was contact between the 2 players in equal measure. Not much contact but enough for Ballack to decide he could go down and get the penalty. Both players were challenging for the ball in equal measure and it should not have been a penalty. If it was outside the box it wouldn't have been a free kick. IMO neither players should have been sent off but Ashley Coles is more like a sending off offence, it was handball which stopped the ball going in but it wasn't intentional. Is that still an automatic red? Should we have penalty goals like rugby?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

Hasher from Mexico, I think you should watch it again now you have sobered up.
I've seen it a few times now and have failed to spot it anywhere near Cole's hand/arm. The last touch appeared to come from his upper chest close to his shoulder.
If it was anywhere else, then even messrs Linneker, Shearer & Lawenson missed it on MOTD.
I never expected the FA to do the right thing & overturn the card but on the bright side, at least Bridge should start at LB for a change.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

No one is undermining the referee's, but without video evidence at the time of the incident there is no way they can get these decisions correct all the time.
The appeal system should be there to correct a mistake, but it appears the FA are reluctant to admit that their ref's are human.
Shame all this should overshadow a great match.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 28, 2007

If they didn't overturn the handball decision, then they should never, ever overturn a redcard again...

I thought that perhaps they could just remove the ban w/o actually having to say that the call was wrong and cost CFC 2 points.

Since there is nothing to do about it, a 1 game ban is not so bad.

I thought that straight reds were 3 games...anyone know why Zat and AC only got 1?
------------------

I think straight reds are only 3 games bans for serious foul play or dangerous play.

I have to say I agree with you, I am a servere A Cole hater, but there is no way in the world that was a handball let alone deliberate.

Z Knights's red was even worse, wuite possibly the harshest ever refeering decision.

Why can't refs simply develope the balls to admit they got it wrong, then maybe players will stop giving them a hard time on the pitch.

It is not often players get really incensed by a refs decision only to then find out the ref was right, it just doesn't happen much

add comment | complain about this comment