Read Comments Comments (8)

• Opanin Kwabena Dakwa, J’burg 2 hours ago

  Mr. Quarcoo, the penalty wasn’t awarded because the Egyptian player’s hand was in a normal position while falling and so it wasn’t a penalty. While falling, the natural thing he could do was to support his body with his ...
  read full comment

  Mr. Quarcoo, the penalty wasn’t awarded because the Egyptian player’s hand was in a normal position while falling and so it wasn’t a penalty. While falling, the natural thing he could do was to support his body with his hand and the ball touched his hand in the process.

  reply
• Kiki 2 hours ago

  Your assessment is correct. If the Egyptian player was standing with an arm stretched and the ball hit it, then it would have been a penalty. In this case, the ball hit the arm whilst he was supporting his body from falling, ...
  read full comment

  Your assessment is correct. If the Egyptian player was standing with an arm stretched and the ball hit it, then it would have been a penalty. In this case, the ball hit the arm whilst he was supporting his body from falling, so the arm will be considered to be in a "natural position."

  reply
• Martin A 1 hour ago

  Quarnoo is wrong about the Burundi referee not awarding South Africa a penalty, even going to the extent of impugning the referee 's character by alledging that he may have been bribed. No penalty was awarded because the ball ...
  read full comment

  Quarnoo is wrong about the Burundi referee not awarding South Africa a penalty, even going to the extent of impugning the referee 's character by alledging that he may have been bribed. No penalty was awarded because the ball hit the Eqyptian's hand while his hand was in its natural position as he was getting off the turf. VAR even confirmed that it wasn't a penalty. The referee is owed an apology from Quarnoo, the self-styled sports ambassador.

  reply
• Martin A 1 hour ago

  Quarcoo is wrong about the Burundi referee not awarding South Africa a penalty, even going to the extent of impugning the referee 's character by alledging that he may have been bribed. No penalty was awarded because the ball ...
  read full comment

  Quarcoo is wrong about the Burundi referee not awarding South Africa a penalty, even going to the extent of impugning the referee 's character by alledging that he may have been bribed. No penalty was awarded because the ball hit the Eqyptian's hand while his hand was in its natural position as he was getting off the turf. VAR even confirmed that it wasn't a penalty. The referee is owed an apology from Quarcoo, the self-styled sports ambassador.

  reply
• Spirit 1 hour ago

  Till there's a boycourt they will not stop. Var is a catel

  Till there's a boycourt they will not stop. Var is a catel

  reply
• Kojo Sromani 21 minutes ago

  Football is governed and played according to laid down rules. The rules were applied perfectly by the referee, so why the unnecessary complains? The standard of Ghana football has deteriorated and continues to fall because of ...
  read full comment

  Football is governed and played according to laid down rules. The rules were applied perfectly by the referee, so why the unnecessary complains? The standard of Ghana football has deteriorated and continues to fall because of the way we view things; we disregard the rules and think that we can do things our own way. While the South Africavs themselves have acknowledged that the referee was right based on the rules, here we are in Ghana making unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing and possible bribe-taking by the referee; where is this coming from? Its a Shame.

  reply
• Koo Manu 1 hour ago

  Most of these people have never read and understood the laws of the game.

  Most of these people have never read and understood the laws of the game.

  reply
• Kwame 14 minutes ago

  Performance of SA upfront players were also abysmal

  Performance of SA upfront players were also abysmal

  reply