The Iceman of the North Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 It is the job of the referee to make sure that rules are followed; players are only there to win matches.There's something called fair play. It's not ok to break the rules as long as the referee doesn't notice.If the referee had spotted the handball, Henry wouldn't be banned, right? If you were to ban him you would give him a harsher penalty for something that he can't control: what the referee sees or dont see, and that is wrong.He would have gotten a red card and be banned for a couple of matches. What Henry ought to have done was admitted to the referee that he stopped the ball with his hand. Since he kept silent he deserves a stronger penalty.Apart from this it is not entirely clear if the referee can change his judgement even if Henry admitted to handball after he had allowed the goal. If a player protests a fault call for handball, the ref isn't allowed to listen is he? Why should he be allowed to do so in this case? He can only go on what he and the linesmen sees.The goal would stand, but Henry's honour would be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJDonegal Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 A referee behind the goal lines seems like an awful waste of manpower to me... He'd only have one or two decisions every other match to make. No offisdes to call, and most touch calls would be obvious enough to the referee that he doesn't need them there.Would video technology have been an issue here? The referee, from what I've heard, didn't seem to even consider the handball possibility. Sure the Irish players put up a lot of fuss, but is that what would be needed to refer to a video decision?? Surely it just comes down to the referee just not knowing what he saw for sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 He would have gotten a red card and be banned for a couple of matches.Don't exaggerate. The one and only circumstance I've ever seen under which a handball was cause for a red card was when the player was effectively goalkeeping. Every other time, it is a yellow card when particularly egregious and when not (which is most of the time), simply a free kick. This is not the kind of infraction that gets bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuroishi Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 A referee behind the goal lines seems like an awful waste of manpower to me... He'd only have one or two decisions every other match to make. No offisdes to call, and most touch calls would be obvious enough to the referee that he doesn't need them there.Would video technology have been an issue here? The referee, from what I've heard, didn't seem to even consider the handball possibility. Sure the Irish players put up a lot of fuss, but is that what would be needed to refer to a video decision?? Surely it just comes down to the referee just not knowing what he saw for sure?Well, this new referee could also have a lot to say during the corner and free kicks struggles. Grabbing your opponent shirt and dragging him to the ground or giving him some elbow in the face would be a lot harder with another referee who would just spend his time watching your every move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball07 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 No comment. I feel worse than I have ever felt in my life...I don't blame Henry though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanrn Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Don't exaggerate. The one and only circumstance I've ever seen under which a handball was cause for a red card was when the player was effectively goalkeeping. Every other time, it is a yellow card when particularly egregious and when not (which is most of the time), simply a free kick. This is not the kind of infraction that gets bans.Don't forgetting using your hand to score...That should be a Red Card and if you don't get shit, your team wins and you spent the next 20 years fuckin boasting about. That card should be made from steel and should be used to slice you into chunks to send to the 4 corners of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The goal would stand, but Henry's honour would be safe.I seriously would have lost respect for Henry if he did this. Rules in sports are not moral imperatives, they are aestethical guidelines which exist to give each sport a unique stage where its specific kind of drama can take place.I have no problems with players acting like the referee's application of the rules of the game take primacy over the rules themselves. In fact I welcome it, since it makes for a more exciting and dynamic experience for the viewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I seriously would have lost respect for Henry if he did this. Rules in sports are not moral imperatives, they are aestethical guidelines which exist to give each sport a unique stage where its specific kind of drama can take place.I have no problems with players acting like the referee's application of the rules of the game take primacy over the rules themselves. In fact I welcome it, since it makes for a more exciting and dynamic experience for the viewer.Seriously, You're happy Henry cheated? I'll just say that I have the exact opposite reaction to his actions and generally I think most fans aren't in favour of more cheating to make it a 'more exciting and dynamic experience for the viewer'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I believe Red Cards for handballs are pretty much only for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.It says a lot about the culture of football that so many people aren't blaming Henry.Yes, handling the ball was something he probably did on instinct, and I don't blame him for that. I don't call him a cheat because he handled the ball.I absolutely blame him for not owning up to it and allowing the goal to stand.It was cowardly and it is cheating.I care not one jot if a lot, most, or even 99% of all other footballers would have done the same. My standards for what isn't cheating are higher than that.But then Football's officials continue to refuse to punish cheaters despite all of their big talk, so maybe I shouldn't have such high expectations for the reputation of the sport.In rugby union, after the "Bloodgate" incident at Harlequins, the player involved was originally banned for 12months and then the Director involved had to quit his job and was banned from working in Rugby for 3 years.I'm not saying that what Henry did deserves that level of punishment. I don't believe that it does. But that sort of response showed that the officials of Rugby Union were serious about deterring cheating in their sport.The fact that football refuses to take such measures is what leads to players thinking it's ok to cheat and for so many fans to shrug their shoulders and say "I can't blame them."Yes, we can blame them and to not do so brings shame to the entire sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireball07 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Rugby has always been stricter than football with regards rules.I don't think any player in the history of the game has admitted to cheating involving a goal. Celebrating it was the worst thing he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renasko Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hasn't there been a couple of incidents where a team has taken the ball and kicked it into their own net, or letting the other team score, to even things fairly out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Don't forgetting using your hand to score...That should be a Red Card and if you don't get shit, your team wins and you spent the next 20 years fuckin boasting about. That card should be made from steel and should be used to slice you into chunks to send to the 4 corners of the UK.I sense a certain bitterness here. I wonder, what could be the ? :)More seriously, no, I don't think I've ever seen using one's hand to score punished with a red card either during or after the match. It's a pretty rare instance; I can only think of the famous 1986 example and Messi's 2007 carbon copy thereof. In fact, Henry didn't actually score the goal -- he just gave a pass that led to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Rugby has always been stricter than football with regards rules.I love rugby and in many ways I think it's a far superior game to football but to be fair it does have a somewhat inconsistent attitude towards cheating and rules. Some forms of cheating are regarded as completely unacceptable while others are routinely expected and even encouraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hasn't there been a couple of incidents where a team has taken the ball and kicked it into their own net, or letting the other team score, to even things fairly out?It's not possible to even things out when away goals are involved. If the Henry-Gallas goal had not counted and nobody scored, the match would go to penalties. However, once the goal was there, penalties are out of the question: if Ireland had managed to score again (and France did not), they'd win it outright and since they did not, they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renasko Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 True that, Altherion. There was no going back after that goal was scored. I'd love to hear Henry's post-match interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well, Uruguay booked the final spot, getting the 1-1 tie at home. There seemed to be some sort of altercation happening in the last third of the game... riot police brought in to protect Costa Rica's bench. The better team probably went through, though Costa Rica had at least one opportunity to get the 2nd away goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renasko Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Gah, just noticed...this thread is winding down. I'll not start another on the WC again. Horrible note to finish on. Looking forward to the actual WC, though.I think I'll support the Dutch. Or maybe Algeria. They could do with all the help they can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lessthanluke Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 If Robbie Keane had been in Henrys place do you think he would admitted it? No chance.Cheating and getting away with is part of football. As sad as that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLU-RAY Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Saw the handball, it was egregious, etc.On an unrelated note: France. They have a lot of talent in their side (or at least, many name players), shouldn't they be a better team than what they've shown over the past few years? Is their manager just that shit, or what's the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Started a new thread here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.