Alright, i hope this is the last discussion about Scotland-Italy referee's decisions.

First of all i hope all the people who think that Referee has helped Italy will post here.

Here we go

Zambrotta's Handball



As you see in these 3 frames, the arm is united with body, and ball hits between shoulder and higharm ( sorry i don't know the right english name, hope you understansd, but overll you see it in the imgs )

Due to football rules, that's NOT a handball and that's not a foul.
So NO PENALTY.

Di Natale Diswallowed goal



This is the frame before he scores.
As you see he's in line with the defender, so there is no offside.
But look at the ref assistant. if you look at him he's perfectly in line with the action and had a perfect view. So the users who said that there were many players who didn't let the assistant follow the action is wrong.

Scottish goal



This is the frame before he scores.
As you CLEARLY see he's very much in front of the last defender, and everybody should have seen it.
And now look at the ref assistant, he's in line with the action and no way he should have allowed the goal. So the users who said that there were many players who didn't let the assistant follow the action is wrong.

Last Italian free kick

There is nothing to debate, it was a free kick FOR SCOTLAND. Wrong decision from referee.



SO, dear whining people, with clear images, do you still think Referee and assistant decided the Scottish defeat ?

Thanks for the attention

Everyone knows Di Natale's goal should've stood, and that Scotland's was offside. It's just that some aren't prepared to admit it (at the moment).

Well, they have clear images in front, let's see if the well known british fair play will come out

Games over, the results in the book.

typical sweaty socks ruining the traditional british fair play

it was not a penaty, fergie was offside, di natale wasnt, and it was a scotland free kick, congratulations to italy , they had to come here n do a difficult job and they done it, its over now and theres no point in trying to find excuses. lets just concentrate on making it to the next world cup and hope for an easier qualifying group than this one.

Great images, but i would like to add a little injection to the rules debate....being a scottish serving referee, i make decisions every week about what is and what isn't hand ball.

The rule is clear to the extent that where a player uses any part of his arm to touch the ball intentionallyit is deliberatley handball...

The rules are equally clear when it comes to a players hand being in anunatural position when the ball stikes his hand/arm.

after reading this post, i sat down with my sky plus and rewatched the illeged incident over and over, and have come to the conclusion that the player seemed to deliberately drop his shoulder, he didn't pull his shoulder away, he didn't pull his arm away. he dropped his shoulder deliberately in the hope of getting some part of his body to the ball.

when he took this action he knew by doing so, that he ran the risk of the ball hitting his arm, so the question is not whether the ball hit his arm/shoulder the question is did he deliberately try to put any part of his body in front of the ball even if it meant the ball striking his hand?

If the player had to be questioned after the game and admitted that he did deliberately hope to stop the ball with his body/ knowing that there was a chance that it would strike his arm. then by the lengthy interpretations of the law, he deliberatley chose to handle the ball......penalty.

But we all know that what FIFA define and what actually happens is two different stories.

So as a scottish referee i asked myself this question,

Bearing in mind the position of the referee, would i have given it as a penalty....the answer is catagorically........NO!

If i had been looking straight in line with his shoulder (from the side) would i have given it? the answer would be Yes....

But even that answer doesn't sum up the distance that the linesman has to look and watch the shoulder drop.

Ultimately the first thing they teach all referee's is

You can only give a decision that you actually see, (you may not guess at it)

But if you want to argue about offsides and goals then you have to also argue the point about the hand ball.....

But what do i know....i'm only a referee.....lol

For Zambrotta i think there is a penalty because the hand don't move but the body move.

On the goal of Italy we see that the linesman try to see better, the goal seems available but it's not easy without a replay. And there is an Italian player who hide the Scottish player, so it's not easy for the linesman to see.

On the Scottish goal, the linesman is not on the same line than the players, he seems to be offside.

You couldn't convince me it was a penalty even if you showed me it from every possible angle. If you keep looking at it in slow motion, you completely lose the real effect of the incident. Zambrotta only had time to get his arms back and out of the way. He couldn't possibly have avoided contact with the ball with his arm. Maybe the words "intentional" and "unintentional" are just inappropriate in real life. Noone has yet invented a machine that reads into players' minds.

Maybe the rules aren't "clear" enough. You can't convict anyone for their intentions unless you can categorically prove them.

So, why arent' these (and many other) rules fixed? I think it's because it's the last thing () some people have left in their hands to decide the results away from the field. You can just blame it on the referee, he didn't see it, he made a mistake. Look at what happened in the Italian league the past years. They gave yellow cards to ensure some players would be absent in the following games. It wouldn't be possible if the ref's decision could be really overuled.

Proper rules remove doubt and personal judgement, and provide justice. Football is no longer anywhere near that.

Arm doesn't move because he didn't want to let it disconnect from body.

A good move from an experienced player to avoid the chance to get a penalty against.


About the referee comment about, nothing to say, good post

I agree too much is left to the appreciation of the referee on football. For the same foul : a two footed tackle from behind you can get a play on to a red card, no consistency at all.

The Italy goal was onside.

The Scotland goal was offside. However, you're shot is very poor, as it isn't showing when the ball is struck (or anywhere near, for that matter) and so it looks more obvious than it actually was. It was close. But yes, it was offside - i have never said otherwise.

The free-kick was one to Scotland.

The penalty was subjective. It could have gone either way. Personally i believe it was the act of an experienced defender who knew what he was doing. He moved towards the ball but kept his arm by his side so it couldn't be deemed intentional, even if it may have been. Proving that it is intentional is another matter.

But basically, the result could have been 2-0 or 2-1 based on personal enterpretation of the latter decision. So it's pretty irrelevant.

the scottish who wrote in the newspapers "robbery" were drunk
but you know, attack the italians is funny for some nations

just remember how many times the ref bought the italians getting "shot"

they fall over like bloody Titus Bramble on ice.. and thats saying something!!!