World Cup 2010 - Prelude to South Africa

[Black Wizard]

The so-called 'Hand of God' goal was clearly a header.

[Paddy]

Mormont,

what you say is exactly why I haven't entered into the video evidence debate. I do like the overall idea of it, but I'm not sure that there's a great way to use it.

A friend of mine suggested it that all goals should be reviewed and any incidents where a penalty decision has to be made. To counter the "start-stop" issue, he suggests that the game always plays on and then the video referee can inform the referee if a penalty should be awarded (or free-kick/goal-kick/corner/throw-in or whatever) at which point the referee stops play and everything that happened in the interval is invalid and we go back to the outcome of the original incident.

I don't like this idea. There are issues with the timekeeping (though that can be solved by giving that responsibility to the video ref, 4th official or a dedicated timekeeper), and with confusion over the outcome (a defender fouls an attacker; play goes on while the incident is reviewed; the defender passes the ball forward and his team score; the video referee determines it was a foul. Now that goal does not stand). I think that it's an awkward solution . I'm not dismissing it. I'm just not sure about it.

Apart from that, I've been told that FIFA's official issue with the video evidence is that they will not introduce a feature to the game which cannot be applied at all levels.

On one hand I'm a little sympathetic to that principle. On the other, other sports seem to be fine with it.

[Bronn Stone]

I'm sorry, I dont understand. Before you said that the FFF should offer a replay to Ireland and give them one because their football team will be seen as villains because of the unfair nature of how they qualified, but now you are saying that the FFF wont feel villified and that the villification is on FIFA?

I agree that FIFA seem to be taking the majority of the flak, but for not introducing better measures to ensure players can get away with less cheating. Not to give Ireland another chance.

No. I was trying to make the point that the FFF won't mind being vilified - at least not enough to risk letting Ireland back in. And that FIFA is taking the heat now because the rules are clear - even if the outcome is wrong. If FFF doesn't want to do the right thing, and ask for a replay, the FIFA can't require one. Nor would it be right for them to publicly suggest that FFF do - or even admit to the possibility.

But were I FIFA I'd cave to the interest of Fair Play if FFF made the request.

[Bronn Stone]

The so-called 'Hand of God' goal was clearly a header.

Maradona's head apparently has a wrist, an elbow and a shoulder.

[Renasko]

If France withdrew

That is never going to happen.

[The WaterDancer Knight]

: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.

Sorry, I wasn't condescending. If It appared so, I appologize fro it.

If I'm not ashamed of how France qualified is mostly because I'm not a football fan. I stopped to be one after France-Germany in 1982 World Cup. Now I rarely watch games on TV and I have never been in a stadium for a football game. With the only exception was in 1998, od course.

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.

On that we agree. If the French goal is refused because of Henry's handball, Ireland is still player better, still deserving to be qualified but still unqualified. I watched only the overtime of this game. And until the French scored, I was sure it was going to end by penalty shoots. With a edge for the French because they're at home. Yes the Irish were playing better, but being better than such a crap French team doesn't mean they were playing good.

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.

The way so many people are vilifiying Henry in this thread is beyond understanding. People expeting professionals football players to be some paragoin of marality in a sport that has nothing to do with morality, is at best naive. Henry cheated. That's bad but that's all what it is. Cheating happens all the time in football. Teams are elliminated buy being cheated all the time in football. Too bad for Ireland. Next time score enough goal and it won't happen again.

[kuroishi]

Apart from that, I've been told that FIFA's official issue with the video evidence is that they will not introduce a feature to the game which cannot be applied at all levels.

On one hand I'm a little sympathetic to that principle. On the other, other sports seem to be fine with it.

And one could also argue that the difference between the levels already exists, as there is no fourth referee on amateur level. But video would deepen the gap.

But I heartfully agree with the slight criticism against video, people too often support it (because by watching football on tv, they feel it stupid that they should see more than the referee) without really thinking about the implications or the difficulty of implenting it. Rugby and football are two really different games, and you can't stop a football game as you would stop a rugby game.

But I don't really want to go into a debate about its use, especially as a french after last wesnesday's events...

I don't know if the world is going to forget about this game or forgive us really soon. When Maradona scored his "hand of god" goal, he was a member of a semi-third world country playing against an imperialist country who had warred against his own country a few years before. And he was Maradona, he was already an idol, considered as one of the best players in history, and a half-god for all Argentina (has anyone seen the Emir Kusturica documentary ? It was flawed, but really showed the status of Maradona in South America)

France, on the other hand has been perceived for some years (maybe it has always been the case but I wasn't really aware of it) as an arrogant country. There, we're in the position of the big, full of itself country cheating in order to trash the small and brave country... We're the bad ones all the way, and I think that a lot of person won't let us forget it.

And Henry has already a reputation of being overproud and full of himself and this gesture won't help him.

I don't really know how this will turn out at the World Cup, but I'm very afraid that we'll have to bear with the consequences of this for a long time... And I would really had prefered losing this game to that.

As football go, we are a proud people :P (obviously, some of you will say). We always consider ourselves as the good ones, and until 1998 as the losers full of panache, who seldom won international titles (be it with our national team or ou club sides) but kept our honor as we lost. The 1982 WC semi-final, the 1976 champions league final lost by Saint-Etienne, the 1990 champions league semi-final lost by Marseille... All of this is deeply rooted in our perception of football. And being very, painfully clearly the bad ones on Wednesday's game is having a deep effect in France. Reading the media or the supporters on french-speaking forum, speaking with people shows that almost everyone is under shock, either looking for ways to excuse ourselves, or thrashing the team, Domenech and Henry. The team will have a hard time finding support again. And our pride is going to suffer a lot.

Of course I shouldn't complain as we are the one that get to go to world cup, but in the end I feel like our football is going to suffer a lot from this. And I'm really not sure that going to this world cup is going to compensate that.

[Jon AS]

Even in the Henry incident, the ref gave the goal before anyone could possibly have objected, since he (obviously) wasn't aware in time that there was a problem. So in a sense, the problematic part of allowing video challenges is not just the video, it's the principle of being able to challenge the ref's decisions. How do you manage that?

I'm not as well versed in the rules as you are (and way too lazy to go look them up myself), but there already has to be some kind of rule that allows the referee to overturn his own decisions. It happens relatively frequently when a ref gets input from one of his assisstants and it also happened in the Klose example I gave earlier. The referee in that case took back the penalty and the yellow card he had awarded for what he had believed to be a foul.

[mormont]

I'm not as well versed in the rules as you are (and way too lazy to go look them up myself), but there already has to be some kind of rule that allows the referee to overturn his own decisions.

Since I still have the pdf on my desktop ;):

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

So yes, I suppose he could reconsider on the basis of video evidence provided the challenge came before a restart of play. That still leaves a problem with incidents that don't result in a stoppage of play, though.

There are perhaps also problems with establishing the principle that managers or players can legitimately challenge the ref's decision - this could make dissent an even harder problem to police. But there's a reasonable counterargument that providing a legal channel for dissent might act as a 'safety valve'.

[Jon AS]

That still leaves a problem with incidents that don't result in a stoppage of play, though.

That's true. Maybe we will have to settle for use of replays in these kinds of situations in order to not have the game stopped every other minute for complaints.

[Fireball07]

I'll be supporting England if they play France in the WC. I think that says it all.

To get away from the Henry issue, because I can't talk about that without feeling physically sick, I would like to say that Hugo Lloris was absolutely fantastic throughout the two legs, and add his Lyon performances to that, and I would say that he will be the next great goalkeeper.

[Renasko]

I'll be supporting England if they play France in the WC. I think that says it all.

Now, now, let's not be going mad. :lol:

[Paddy]

Sorry, I wasn't condescending. If It appared so, I appologize fro it.

Too bad for Ireland. Next time score enough goal and it won't happen again.

You say you're sorry for being condescending and then go and do it again in the very same post. In fact, you say the EXACT same condescending thing.

Score enough and it wont happen again? I'll have to leave off what I want to say in response to that so I don't get banned.

Instead, I'll ask why the fuck are you saying that? Your team only managed to score enough through cheating. And we only managed to not score enough through a bit of bad luck (and, in my opinion, slack refereeing by not having Lassana Diarra booked by half time so he would have to stop fouling our players to break down our attacks).

Can you imagine what response you'd get if you said that to an Irish player who'd worked his ass off for 120 minutes against a French team that showed no heart and couldn't string 3 passes together and then seen all his effort go to nothing with a goal that was created by cheating?

Yes the Irish were playing better, but being better than such a crap French team doesn't mean they were playing good.

You have no idea what you are talking about. And you know that, and yet you still keep denigrating the Irish team.

Ireland did play well. The played better than they've played since World Cup 2002. In my opinion they played better than they did at any game at that tournament.

I think they haven't played that well since 2001 when they knocked out of the World Cup qualifying a Netherlands team that contained players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Patrick Kluivert, Phillip Cocu, and Jaap Stam.

The way so many people are vilifiying Henry in this thread is beyond understanding.

Vilifying? I am calling him a cheat and a coward. He is. He cheated and he refused to own up to his cheating when it might have made a difference after seeing his team put in an utterly weak performance.

I think Thierry Henry is a great, skillful and talented Football player, one of the best we've ever seen and I do not hate him despite what he did, though I am greatly disappointed in him.

I still have respect for him, but that respect used to be immense and now it's been greatly reduced.

To get away from the Henry issue, because I can't talk about that without feeling physically sick, I would like to say that Hugo Lloris was absolutely fantastic throughout the two legs, and add his Lyon performances to that, and I would say that he will be the next great goalkeeper.

I agree. He looked superb, a real find there. If these young German keepers that Jon mentions are even better, I'll have to look out for them.

[lessthanluke]

Am I the only person who saw Keane deliberately handle in the same game?

[Fireball07]

Am I the only person who saw Keane deliberately handle in the same game?

No, but Keane was caught which is kind of the point.

And Paddy: Adler and Neuer are class, but I think Mandanda (the Marseille keeper) is better. He started for France in most games during the qualifiers, if I'm not mistaken, and I did think he was better than Lloris. But maybe not.

[Paddy]

Am I the only person who saw Keane deliberately handle in the same game?

I remember Keane being penalised for handling several times. I don't remember any of them seeming deliberate rather than the ball hitting his arm while he was jostling for position with the defender. And I don't remember any of them leading to a favourable outcome for the Irish or where Keane had any need to go and own up to the referee that he'd given the wrong call.

I've never had to repeat myself this many times in one thread before, but people are either not reading the posts or are not understanding the point.

So once more, my problem with Henry is not that he handled the ball - people can argue about it being instinctive or too fast to think about or it being a deliberate conscious movement - but that when France put the ball in the goal from that, that he did not go to the referee and admit that he was only able to control the ball because he used his hand to do so.

Separately, I blame the linesman for not spotting it or the offside in the build-up and I blame Paul McShane for a shoddy piece of defending that allowed the ball to reach Henry.

None of that changes that Henry did the wrong thing. Had Keane done the same would he have been a cheat to do it and a coward to not own up to it.

Would I be so vociferous about it? No, because as John Lydon once said, "Anger is an energy," and the French fans would be the ones who'd be calling Keane a cheat, and I'd be the one who'd be ashamed at my fellow countryman's behaviour.

See how it works?

[lessthanluke]

I'm sorry but wether or not the handballs lead to a goal is irrelevant. Keane is just as big of a cheat as Henry but yeh I know what you are saying.

On the subject of tv replays I don't really see how it would work. More officials is the way forward I think.

[Renasko]

Keane is just as big of a cheat as Henry but yeh I know what you are saying.

Can we all nominate the above post for 'worst post of the year', thanks in large part to that fantastic sentence. You're a real student of the game, Less. Keep watchin'. :lol:

[Altherion]

So once more, my problem with Henry is not that he handled the ball - people can argue about it being instinctive or too fast to think about or it being a deliberate conscious movement - but that when France put the ball in the goal from that, that he did not go to the referee and admit that he was only able to control the ball because he used his hand to do so.

That would have been the noble thing to do -- but it is extremely rare. There are a few instances of similar behavior (e.g. Klose declining a penalty kick by saying that he was not fouled), but compare them to the number of players who dive in the box at the slightest contact (or anything that they think resembles contact from the referee's perspective). These people are professional sportsmen, not paragons of virtue.

[ljkeane]

You have no idea what you are talking about. And you know that, and yet you still keep denigrating the Irish team.

Ireland did play well. The played better than they've played since World Cup 2002. In my opinion they played better than they did at any game at that tournament.

I think they haven't played that well since 2001 when they knocked out of the World Cup qualifying a Netherlands team that contained players like Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Patrick Kluivert, Phillip Cocu, and Jaap Stam.

Not to excuse what Henry did but to be honest Ireland did have enough good chances that they really should have scored another goal. Of course going out due to cheating is massively disappointing but Ireland really should have taken one of those chances because even if Henry hadn't cheated they still would have been going to penalties, which is a pretty disappointing result from the relative performances of the two teams.