World Cup 2010 - Prelude to South Africa

[mormont]

I don't believe anyone who says they haven't handballed or tried to in the heat of a moment. It's an instinct that footballers train themselves to overcome but sometimes you just do it.

Again: Henry's reaction is clearly not instinctive.

[Paddy]

I understand that we will never eliminate cheating. That's so obvious that I don't see what the point is in mentioning it.

What I find weird is that in response to a denouncement of an uncontested example of cheating, instead of agreeing with it and saying that it is unacceptable and we should try our best to not let that happen again, some people are saying cheating is ok so long as you dont get caught; it's not the players job to not cheat; and to let it go because "we will NEVER eradicate cheating from sports."

Why does thinking that it is impossible to eliminate cheating mean that we shouldn't call out cheating when we see it or try to make the cost of cheating high enough that people will be reluctant to do it?

And yes, if you want to reduce it to cheating/not cheating, all of those are forms of cheating.

But your attempt at a "where will it all end?" is not convincing. Not all cheating is equivalent and the examples you give are not as serious as deceiving the referee to directly create a goal.

Have you not considered that the reason that your examples happen as frequently as they do is because there is no cost to the deceiving player if their attempt at deception is not successful?

[Slick Mongoose]

I seem to remember Henry rolling around on the floor clutching his face at the last world cup. Cheating git.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

I don't recall many instances of a player actively using their hand to score. Oliver Kahn did it once in a Bundesliga game and only got a yellow card (though he got away with a lot more shit than most other players during his career so this might not be the universal standard) but it was his second of the game.

It is not possible for the referee to give red for handball if it´s not for "goalkeeping".

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Nonsense. Have you actually read the rules of the game? They are explicitly clear on this point. Players are required to adhere to the rules. The referee's duty to enforce the rules doesn't remove the player's duty to stick to them.

I skimmed through the rules again now and could not find any mention of this. The phrase "fair play" is also absent. I think you're wrong about this.

Rules aren't moral imperatives? What a load of rubbish. They most certainly are. That's why the rules of football explicitly include inherently moral phrases like 'fair play'. It has nothing to do with 'aesthetics' or any of that pseudish waffle in the last sentence.

Rules and laws in other parts of society can definitely be moral imperatives, but I don't think this is the case within sports. Rules in sports exist to shape the game and give each sport its own special characteristics. If there is a moral demand on the contestants it is that they should follow the rules to the extent that the competitive experience isn't destroyed. When you are playing football with your friends there is a high demand on self-policing for creating a functioning game experience, but if a referee is present this dynamic changes: the referee can now balance the game and it is no longer up the the players to the same extent. The player can now act as if the referee's implementation of the rules is the important thing (and not the actual rules in the rulebook) and still play a functioning and balanced game. It will not be exactly the same game, but it will still offer the competitive experience.

You think blatant cheating is more exciting and dynamic, and so is a Good Thing? I think you might just be alone in both those assertions.

I may have exaggerated a little, but I don't watch football because I want to see a bunch of people follow the rules; I watch it to experience the drama and the darwinian fight for the win. A little bending of the rules can add to both these factors.

[DJDonegal]

Rules and laws in other parts of society can definitely be moral imperatives, but I don't think this is the case within sports. Rules in sports exist to shape the game and give each sport its own special characteristics. If there is a moral demand on the contestants it is that they should follow the rules to the extent that the competitive experience isn't destroyed. When you are playing football with your friends there is a high demand on self-policing for creating a functioning game experience, but if a referee is present this dynamic changes: the referee can now balance the game and it is no longer up the the players to the same extent. The player can now act as if the referee's implementation of the rules is the important thing (and not the actual rules in the rulebook) and still play a functioning and balanced game. It will not be exactly the same game, but it will still offer the competitive experience.

The gulf in difference between playing a properly officiated match and a kickabout with your mates is phenomenal, and attempting to make a comparison between the two does not support your argument in any way.

Firstly, when you play with your mates, you're with your mates!! What's the competition? What's at stake? What do you have to gain from cheating your mates?? When playing in a proper competition, you are not with your mates. Your opposition are not your friends and you probably haven't ever met them before in most cases, so you don't care what they lose. A player can be a lot, a helluva lot, more cynical in a match than with friends.

Secondly, I don't know how serious you take football with friends, but we don't think of it as necessary for "a high demand of self-policing". We know the rules, and we'll play by them. We'll laugh if someone handles it and kicks it in the goal, because it's probably just been done for the laugh. Rules are broken not out of a will to win, but out of the camaraderie that rises from the laughter and experience of it. Nobody except the neurotically competitive would seriously try and employ those tactics in a kickabout just to get away with it.

The difference is not in the employment of an official referee - it's in the opposition. And because the opposition in one scenario are not your friends, then an officiate is needed to enforce fair play because some people will wrongly attempt to break the rules.

[mormont]

I skimmed through the rules again now and could not find any mention of this. The phrase "fair play" is also absent. I think you're wrong about this.

"Fair play" is the term now used to cover the issues that used to be called, and are still referred to in the rules as, "unsporting behaviour". You will certainly find that the rules of the game explicitly forbid unsporting behaviour: see for example page 36 of the official FIFA pdf document, although there are numerous other references.

You'll also find on that page and throughout the laws language that clearly indicates that the player has a duty to obey the laws. "A player must not...", etc. The notion that the only people on the pitch who have any responsibility for the conduct of the game are the officials is not only dumb, but wrong.

ETA - there is also the official FIFA Code of Conduct, which players are expected to adhere to.

Rules and laws in other parts of society can definitely be moral imperatives, but I don't think this is the case within sports.

Can you actually justify this view with anything more than the rather weak waffle you're spouting just now?

[The WaterDancer Knight]

Sure what Henry did was very very bad. But football is just a game. And a very immoral one when you take the huge amount of money involved. So, expecting players to be some moral figure seems ludicrous.

Seriously, the irish team had 210 minutes to qualify. During all that time they managed to score only one goal while their opponent, the french team, was good for only 45 minutes and crap the 165 other minutes. And in football, you could be the best of the best if you're unable to score you're eliminated.

Too bad for the Irish but perhaps next time they'll remember that.

[Isis]

More honest players than Henry have made more blatant deliberate handballs (Paul Scholes, for example, though he didn't get away with it).

Can I see this list that ranks players in order of their honesty? :P

I've seen all sorts of weird and wonderful things in Sunday league football but I never really saw anybody dive or roll around that much, not the way you see players do in the PL now - certainly nothing Drogba-esque at least. Maybe that's showing my age (and changing trends) because I've not watched any for almost ten years.

[Paddy]

Sure what Henry did was very very bad. But football is just a game. And a very immoral one when you take the huge amount of money involved. So, expecting players to be some moral figure seems ludicrous.

Seriously, the irish team had 210 minutes to qualify. During all that time they managed to score only one goal while their opponent, the french team, was good for only 45 minutes and crap the 165 other minutes. And in football, you could be the best of the best if you're unable to score you're eliminated.

Too bad for the Irish but perhaps next time they'll remember that.

:rolleyes:

Thanks for the condescension.

Unlike you, every other French person I've heard from today is pretty ashamed of the way your team performed and how you managed to progress and have been gracious in their reaction.

Yes, it's only a game. The French also had 210 minutes to qualify with a set of players who were heavy favourites to progress based on their skill level.

And yet, they could only manage 45 minutes of decent football, one goal which only went in because of a bad deflection and one goal which was created by cheating.

Last night in Stade de France, only one team played to the principles of football which make it a game that people care a whit about or even go to see at all.

Perhaps next time, you and Thierry Henry will remember that.

[Paddy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/20...-france-ireland

This article does a good job of getting across my point of view. Though I don't agree with the last paragraph because it seems to be implying that what Henry did was worse than Maradonna's "Hand of God" goal because Henry is a better person than Maradonna.

ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying I think Henry is a worse person than Maradonna :P

I'm saying I don't really believe that a person's character can make the same offence better or worse. And I don't really believe in the concept that someone can be a better person than somebody else, there is simply their actions and behaviour.

[HP Loveshaft]

Can you guys move the Henry stuff to another thread?

[DJDonegal]

Can you guys move the Henry stuff to another thread?

Why?

We're not talking about Henry per se, we're talking about Henry's actions which took place during a World Cup qualification match, the ramifications of those actions, and the implications. Moving it to a different thread is pointless. It's perfectly relevant to talk about it in here.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Why?

We're not talking about Henry per se, we're talking about Henry's actions which took place during a World Cup qualification match, the ramifications of those actions, and the implications. Moving it to a different thread is pointless. It's perfectly relevant to talk about it in here.

Indeed. This is exactly the place to talk about Henry's actions, because it happened during a WC qualifier.

[Celtigo]

Ireland demand justice, but with scum like Blatter (and Platini) running the show I doubt it will matter:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/iris...article1369553/

[Xray the Enforcer]

I just hope that the WC itself doesn't suck. Between the players hating the vuvuzelas (because they can't even communicate with each other on the pitch) and a goodly contingent of utter cannonfodder making it through to the final competition, I have the sinking feeling that this is WC is going to feature a lot of substandard football.

[Altherion]

You'll also find on that page and throughout the laws language that clearly indicates that the player has a duty to obey the laws. "A player must not...", etc. The notion that the only people on the pitch who have any responsibility for the conduct of the game are the officials is not only dumb, but wrong.

While you're entirely correct regarding the letter of the law, you're being more than a little bit naive and idealistic. The way the game is actually played is that breaking the rules is a tactical decision; it is done when the rewards outweigh the risks. Handballs are rare so it's hard to use them as a definitive example, but think how many times you've seen this:

A defender is chasing after an opposing player who, if he gets away, will be one on one with the goalkeeper. The defender is close, but cannot catch up so he takes the other guy down before they reach the penalty area. This is standard operating procedure on many (most?) teams -- the defenders are instructed to play this way because the foul kick and the yellow card (and this almost always results in a yellow card) are less harmful than a player going one on one. It's not nice, but this is how the game is played at the professional level.

[Celtigo]

I just hope that the WC itself doesn't suck. Between the players hating the vuvuzelas (because they can't even communicate with each other on the pitch) and a goodly contingent of utter cannonfodder making it through to the final competition, I have the sinking feeling that this is WC is going to feature a lot of substandard football.

Really? People are already calling this a World Cup of quarterfinalists. Africa is sending its best contingent ever, CONCACAF has its three most talented sides in the competiton, England is finally looking like a contender, every "big" European squad made it, Spain has finally shed the choker reputation, Asia has its best sides represented, South America has some extra spice with Chile involved, and this cup will be played in winter so no one will be dying of heat stroke or slowing the game down to a walking pace.

Yeah a few decent Euro Squads like Sweden, Russia, and the Czechs didn't get in and New Zealand is probably going to get run over, but these are minor complaints.

This could be some of the most exciting soccer we've ever seen at a World Cup. Certainly an improvement over 2006.

[Horus Ex Machina]

Second, there are examples of players telling the referee they made the wrong decision when awarding them a penalty. Jon gave one. Another I can think of is Robbie Fowler telling the referee that David Seaman hadn't fouled him after the referee awarded a penalty. I can't remember who was involved, but I remember seeing a clip on a sporting quiz (probably "They think it's all over") of a match deliberately missing a penalty because the referee gave the wrong decision.

Paulo DiCanio, when in position to score in a game against Everton in 2000 instead caught the ball in his hands because he saw that the goalkeeper had gone down injured and needing treatment.

Arsenal even gave a replay to Sheffield United in the 1999 FA Cup because they scored a goal from a throw-in which was conceded in order to allow a player to receive treatment. And that wasn't even anything to do with the rules (Arsenal did nothing against the rules of the game in scoring).

There's a bit of a difference in matches between clubs in which the opportunity comes every year and WC qualifiers which only come every 4 yrs. Had it been an FA Cup match or Copa Del Rey, then hell, turn myself in and try again next year. Not to excuse Henry's gesture, but how many players have admitted to a foul in a WC qualifier or group or knockout match which may never come again for someone Henry's age?

[Paddy]

There's a bit of a difference in matches between clubs in which the opportunity comes every year and WC qualifiers which only come every 4 yrs. Had it been an FA Cup match or Copa Del Rey, then hell, turn myself in and try again next year.

You're right that there's a difference. I wasn't giving the Arsenal example as support of a replay, but as an example of people in football who put Fair Play above their own advantage.

In fact, I think the match should not be replayed.

Not to excuse Henry's gesture, but how many players have admitted to a foul in a WC qualifier or group or knockout match which may never come again for someone Henry's age?

Just because it might be a bigger penalty to yourself to do the right thing in this situation does not stop it from being the right thing and it does not stop what Henry did from being cheating.

Again, the "how many players would do the same" argument means nothing. If every player in the history of the game would have done it, it is still wrong and deserves to be pointed out and criticised in order to improve the reputation of the game and discourage it from happening again.

Not directed at you horus, but this also applies to those who say "If Robbie Keane had done it, you wouldn't be complaining." as I keep seeing that argument being put in other places.

Wrong. I would. I would feel happy that my team are in the World Cup Finals - do not doubt that - but I would feel ashamed at having my team get there by cheating.

Pretty much the way that almost all French football fans (except WaterDancer Knight) appear to have reacted. And for that, I respect them.

And how about we put it another way? "If Robbie Keane had done it, I bet French football fans would be really angry." That statement is equally valid.