World Cup 2010 - Prelude to South Africa

[Renasko]

Can you guys move the Henry stuff to another thread?

You're right, in a way. This Henry talk could go on, and on, and on. But it does fit with the thread, and it's not like anything else of consequence is going on, so...

So, the Irish FA have asked for a replay. I wonder how long it took for them to discover this little gem:

"The hand ball, was recognised the Fifa commissioner, the referee observer and the match officials, as well as by the player himself," read the FAI statement.

"There is precedent for the invalidation of such results. In 2005, the bureau of the Fifa World Cup organising committee reached a decision to invalidate the result of a World Cup qualification match between Uzbekistan and Bahrain on the basis of a 'technical error by the referee of the match'.

:cheers:

Doubt it'll happen, though, FIFA cunts.

[mormont]

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.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing against the view that the players have a duty to obey the rules. And your argument appears to be based on the fact players don't always fulfill that duty, in practise.

To argue that because people don't always fulfill a duty, it doesn't exist, would be pretty weak stuff. I've never claimed that players do always stick to the rules - that would be naive. What I've said is that they're expected to do so, that they therefore have a moral duty to do so, and that therefore it's entirely reasonable for us to condemn them when they don't. The corollary of that would be that it's entirely unreasonable to try to excuse cheating on the grounds that it's solely the ref's responsibility, that players have no duty not to cheat, etc.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Celtigo -- I will be happy to be wrong on this. But after seeing some truly woeful qualification matches (concacaf are going to get their asses handed to them, because our best sides are inconsistent, with quality varying from "mediocre" to "generally incompetent"), I am not feeling the love. There are good sides going -- don't get me wrong on that -- but I'm not convinced I'm going to be seeing a lot of quality football. Maybe just a lot of close matches. If I'm lucky, we'll get another Portugal v. Holland Kung-Fu throw-down. :lol:

[Altherion]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing against the view that the players have a duty to obey the rules. And your argument appears to be based on the fact players don't always fulfill that duty, in practise.

I'm not arguing, I'm just making an observation: the written rules are one thing and the unwritten ones are quite another. I make no moral judgement on this.

[Horus Ex Machina]

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.

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.

I agree completely, but I guess I'm upset that more of the blame isn't being placed on FIFA. Players should not be forced to do the job of officials and this type of thing happens all the time in sports. In a competition the magnitued of the World Cup, I'm not sure that I'd have done differently than Henry considering his age. Maybe I would have celebrated less. But that's why more and more sports are taking advantage of technology like replays. What about the 2 extra officials proposed? FIFA's been testing the "goaline ball" in Asia and still hasn't put it into regular use despite countless questionable goal or no-goal calls.

My point is that Henry isn't an official. He plays for France and that's where his interests lie. If you want integrity and Fair Play, well that's a noble wish, but FIFA has had the opportunity to implement the policies that would have eliminated the possibility of this happening. FIFA moves with sloth of dinosaur proportions and I think that with all of the Henry-focused debate, they're getting a pass.

[Hereward]

Celtigo -- I will be happy to be wrong on this. But after seeing some truly woeful qualification matches (concacaf are going to get their asses handed to them, because our best sides are inconsistent, with quality varying from "mediocre" to "generally incompetent"), I am not feeling the love. There are good sides going -- don't get me wrong on that -- but I'm not convinced I'm going to be seeing a lot of quality football. Maybe just a lot of close matches. If I'm lucky, we'll get another Portugal v. Holland Kung-Fu throw-down. :lol:

Piffle! It's going to be great! I want to draw Honduras. Have you seen their deposed president's moustache and cowboy hat combo. That stuff is gold.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Mr. X wants Slovenia because he loves przut so damned much. :lol:

[The Iceman of the North]

The final of these posts.

Overall I think this looks like a promising World Cup quality wise.

AFC

Of the presumed best teams, Iran and Saudi Arabia failed to qualify, opening the doors for the surprises (and presumed knocking-balls) North Korea and New Zealand.

CAF

As mentioned in the other thread, this is probably the best presentation Africa could hope for. Over the past decade or so, both Egypt and Senegal have been stronger than Algeria, but they were both knocked out fair and square by Algeria. Thus Algeria's participation is well deserved.

CONCACAF

With 3.5 spots, CONCACAF may have too many spots, but it's no dispute that the two best teams qualified together with one of the best second tier teams.

CONMEBOL

Despite the Argentine scare, the presumed best teams qualified out of South America. It was a small surprise that Chile did so well at the expense of Columbia, but the difference in quality between these two teams aren't that great.

OFC

With Australia leaving OFC, nobody expected to see a team qualified from the Pacific, but under-performance by some Asian sides paved the way for New Zealand.

UEFA

Although some presumed good teams like Croatia and Russia failed to qualify, while a team like Slovenia (the 35th best European team according to the FIFA ranking as of the group draws) did qualify. I feel that Europe is well represented. The difference in the quality of the twenty or twenty-five European sides below the top five or six isn't all that great. Even Slovenia have played in the Euros this decade.

Summary:

The only teams that I would never have expected to qualify, before the qualifications started, was North Korea and New Zealand. Other than that, I was a bit disappointed about the performance of South Africa in their "qualifying" run, but hopefully with the home advantage, they'll improve as well during the finals.

Final summary as of 14 November 2009

205 teams taking place in the competition

32 team qualified: South Africa, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Netherlands, North Korea, Brazil, Ghana, England, Spain, Paraguay, Ivory Coast, Germany, Denmark, Serbia, Italy, Chile, Mexico , United States, Switzerland, Slovakia, Argentina, Honduras, New Zealand, Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal, France and Uruguay

Highest ranking eliminated team (according to the September 2007 FIFA Ranking): Croatia (ranked 10)

Lowest ranking team qualified: New Zealand (ranked 156)

Highest number of undefeated matches: 14 (South Korea)

Most wins: 13 (United States in 18 matches)

Teams with 100% record: Spain (10 matches) and Netherlands (8 matches)

Best goal difference: +28 (England in 10 matches)

Best average goal difference: +2.83 per match (Solomon Islands)

Worst goal difference: -37 (American Samoa in 4 matches)

Worst average goal difference: -10 per match (US Virgin Islands)

Biggest win (not counting matches vs. Tuvalu): 29/08/07 Vanuatu 15 vs. American Samoa 0

Best campaign run (regardless of opposition): Spain (average points per match: 3, average goal difference per match: +2.30)

Best campaign run without qualifying (regardless of opposition): Burkina Faso (average points per match: 2.33, average goal difference per match: +0.67)

Worst campaign run for qualified team (regardless of opposition): Uruguay (average points per match: 1.40, average goal difference per match: +0.45)

[mormont]

I'm not arguing, I'm just making an observation: the written rules are one thing and the unwritten ones are quite another. I make no moral judgement on this.

This 'unwritten rules' stuff sounds like just another way of saying 'I am not the referee' (© T. Henry). It's bullshit. Here's some more of it:

Players should not be forced to do the job of officials... My point is that Henry isn't an official.

How on Earth can expecting Henry to obey the rules be 'forcing him to do the job of officials'? It's not the job of the officials to be responsible for how players behave. If it was, it would be the ref who was punished when the rules are broken. It's Thierry Henry's responsibility to make sure he obeys the rules of the game. That's why he is punished if he's caught. And so, since he's responsible for his own behaviour, he can carry the fucking can.

Do you really, truly believe players shouldn't be expected to obey the rules and shouldn't be publicly condemned for deliberately breaking them? That players should be allowed to act like children, with no responsibility for their own actions? That the only people who have any responsibility for how a game is conducted are the officials? That the rules are just another obstacle to be got around, like a particularly stubborn goalkeeper? That breaking them is just a clever play? That every angry Irish fan should regard this as no more morally reprehensible than a particularly good free kick? That it's unreasonable to condemn deliberate cheating by a man who knew full well that what he was doing was illegal, unfair, and immoral - and didn't give a damn?

If that's your view of football, you can keep it.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Celtigo -- I will be happy to be wrong on this. But after seeing some truly woeful qualification matches (concacaf are going to get their asses handed to them, because our best sides are inconsistent, with quality varying from "mediocre" to "generally incompetent"), I am not feeling the love. There are good sides going -- don't get me wrong on that -- but I'm not convinced I'm going to be seeing a lot of quality football. Maybe just a lot of close matches. If I'm lucky, we'll get another Portugal v. Holland Kung-Fu throw-down. :lol:

Pft. Depending on the draw, the officials might as well put two flocks of fainting goats on the pitch and see whose "players" fall down last.

[Horus Ex Machina]

How on Earth can expecting Henry to obey the rules be 'forcing him to do the job of officials'? It's not the job of the officials to be responsible for how players behave. If it was, it would be the ref who was punished when the rules are broken. It's Thierry Henry's responsibility to make sure he obeys the rules of the game. That's why he is punished if he's caught. And so, since he's responsible for his own behaviour, he can carry the fucking can.

Do you really, truly believe players shouldn't be expected to obey the rules and shouldn't be publicly condemned for deliberately breaking them? That players should be allowed to act like children, with no responsibility for their own actions? That the only people who have any responsibility for how a game is conducted are the officials? That the rules are just another obstacle to be got around, like a particularly stubborn goalkeeper? That breaking them is just a clever play? That every angry Irish fan should regard this as no more morally reprehensible than a particularly good free kick? That it's unreasonable to condemn deliberate cheating by a man who knew full well that what he was doing was illegal, unfair, and immoral - and didn't give a damn?

If that's your view of football, you can keep it.

I believe that running a sport on the "honor code" is no way to run a sport. While we're at it, let's get rid of officials and treat it like a pickup game where players call their own infractions. My point is that it's FIFA's job to make certain that it never happens again. You can deride Henry until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that he's probably going to the World Cup with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. My point is that if you truly want things to change then blame FIFA, bc the fixes for these situations are simple, they already exist, and they are all currently not being utilized by FIFA.

Continue to cry about Henry until the next time it happens, and it will happen again, and again, and again, until FIFA enacts the measures and technology to prevent it. But questionable calls usually benefit the bigger teams and clubs so there may not be enough urgency to force a change. From what I'm reading on blogs and the thread here, ppl are more worrried about Henry's lack of integrity than fixing any gaps in FIFA's officiating system. Watching Sky Sports yesterday, barely a mention went to the possibility of using replay technology. Ppl hate the idea of interrupting the flow of a match but these type of calls happen perhaps once a match. I think it's more workable than might be thought. Extra officials is a no-brainer which should happen today. No dispute, or can FIFA not afford to pay more officials? Football is so difficult to officiate bc of size and the existing crews need help.

I never excused what Henry did and I said that. But I'll not waste my time praying for sports governed by integrity to be the perfect system. As well to wish for flying elephants and purple tigers. Better time would be spent searching for real solutions.

[Black Wizard]

I am of the opinion that Thierry Henry can do no wrong.

A similar thing happened to Scotland in the final game of the Euro 2008 qualifying when Panucci dived in added time, so don't expect any sympathy from me. I'm just pleased that Aiden McGeady won't be going to the world cup.

I do find it quite amusing though that William Gallas has scored odd goals against both Celtic and Republic of Ireland this season.

Don't worry guys, you'll get over it soon enough.

[Mr. X]

Mr. X wants Slovenia because he loves przut so damned much. :lol:

You say this like it's a bad thing.

[mormont]

I believe that running a sport on the "honor code" is no way to run a sport.

Excellent. When someone suggests doing that, I'll tell them you're against it.

In the meantime, please don't bother with the tired false dichotomy stuff.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Pft. Depending on the draw, the officials might as well put two flocks of fainting goats on the pitch and see whose "players" fall down last.

Hey, at least we won't have to worry about any referee-missed handballs.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

"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.

Nope, not at all. At most it is an opinion that you disagree with. Players will do what they think they can get away with and that is why the officials are necessary. They are of course responsible for their actions in that they can be punished for them, but I don't see this as a moral responsibility not to break any rules but instead as a responsibility to his team to act in a way that is not a liability.

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

Ah, well argued, you demolished my argument thouroughly I see.

The point is that one can either chose the letter of the rules to be the important thing for the players to follow, or one can can chose to accept that players will focus on the rules as they can be applied by a referee on the pitch, which means that they will take advantage of the referee's limited perspective by sometimes diving, shoving and otherwise try to trick him. This last alternative produces a football that I enjoy watching and that is all the justification I need.

The fact that FIFA focuses on "fair play" means nothing to me. It is a political decision and like all political decisions I can disagree with it. I'm just not that interested in fair play when it comes to football. I'm interested in seing how players and teams navigate the "problem landscape" (if one could call it that) as it is shaped by their opponents, the rules of the game and how those rules are applied by the officials on the pitch. I would support changing the rules though, so that tricking the officials would be more difficult (such as technical aids like video reviews) or be less advantageous, but I cannot muster any outrage when a player breaks a moral rule that is completely irrelevant for my enjoyment of the game.

[mormont]

Nope, not at all. At most it is an opinion that you disagree with.

No, it is an opinion that I have shown to be wrong.

Ah, well argued, you demolished my argument thouroughly I see.

Can't demolish what is not there, I'm afraid.

The point is that one can either chose the letter of the rules to be the important thing for the players to follow, or one can can chose to accept that players will focus on the rules as they can be applied by a referee on the pitch, which means that they will take advantage of the referee's limited perspective by sometimes diving, shoving and otherwise try to trick him. This last alternative produces a football that I enjoy watching and that is all the justification I need.

That's very sad, not least for you.

[lessthanluke]

No, it is an opinion that I have shown to be wrong.

You have done nothing of the sort.

[Lord O' Bones]

What exactly did this Henry character do? I can't youtube from here, and I'm having trouble picturing how a handball could both result in a goal and not be seen.

[Altherion]

What exactly did this Henry character do? I can't youtube from here, and I'm having trouble picturing how a handball could both result in a goal and not be seen.

Henry did not score the goal himself. He was receiving a pass right near the goal line and he kept the ball from getting away from him with his hand and caused it to drop on his foot (I'm assuming his body was between the referee and the ball). He then passed the ball to Gallas who scored the goal with his head.