Crime and punishment
BY ADAM BROWN
The old chestnut of video refereeing has once again reared its head given the furore surrounding the "Hand of Frog" incident in yesterday's World Cup qualifier between France and Ireland. It's a shame when incidents like this occur, which puts potential changes under the microscope.
First, I'm all for retrospective punishment for cheating and diving. The fact that UEFA put themselves on the line to ban Eduardo was fantastic, and long overdue - if players know that they are going to get punished for this sort of behaviour, it would be nice to think that they'll think twice before going down like they've been shot, under the slightest touch. Unfortunately, they later rescinded the ban, but at least the potential of it is now known by the players.
Video refereeing has been a bit of a hot potato within football for some time now, but I don't think the practical application of it is possible. Games would be continuously stopped and started, with referees having to "go upstairs" continually to check whether or not an infringement had occurred. Essentially, it would disrupt the entire ebb and flow of a match - which is one of the key factors that makes football the "beautiful game". Perhaps if used for stoppages then it might have a place, but certainly not in open play.
Personally, the only solution I can think of is to follow UEFA's lead and have extra goal-line referees. UEFA have trialled this in this year's Europa League, and the feedback I have seen online seems to be overwhelmingly positive. If an extra man was stationed on the goal-line yesterday morning, it would be fair to say that Henry's handball (either one of them) would well and truly have been spotted. Some purists say that part of the beauty of football is that the "human element" is still a part of it, and that decisions can often go both ways. This solution allows closer inspection of the match, while ruling out the potential for human error.
However, what these don't do is negate the consequences of the actions. No amount of punishment to either Henry or France can ever compensate Ireland for what they have potentially missed out on (let's not forget that they would not necessarily have won had the goal not been scored). The estimated $10 million payday for the French Football Association, as well as all of the other flow-on effects that go with attending a World Cup, can never be quantified by any sort of punishment - short of banning them from the tournament. The Irish have asked for a replay, but they've got about as much chance of that as Bahrain do of scoring a penalty (sorry, I couldn't resist sneaking in that link).
Thierry Henry's behaviour was scandalous and utterly condradicts the FIFA "Fair Play" charter. I have to admit, I always thought that Henry was one of football's "nice guys" and was a fair player as well as a good sport. But, I guess adversity and pressure have the ability to bring out the best and worst in people, and unfortunately for Ireland it was Henry's dark side that won through.
The adage goes that "cheaters never prosper", but in this case it appears that they actually do.
 |
 |
 |
PHOTO: Getty Images
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
This is indeed scandalous and the game MUST be replayed for the credibility of football. What's the point of having a fair play charter if FIFA don't live it? If Henry had punched someone and that not been seen by the officials, he would be charged retrospectively with bringing the game into disrepute. France, and Henry in particular, have brought the game into disrepute in my view.
I understand reluctance of FIFA to set a precedent, but this game was just too important with too much at stake and too finely balanced for them to ignore it. The incident has been rightly condemned by all involved in football and France cannot go to SA on these terms. If they win a replay, that's fine. But this was blatant cheating and has to be dealt with.
As an Englishman by birth, I am of course delighted there is now a country in Europe the rest of the world hates more than England!
How is this henrys fault? the ball bounced up and hit his hand and then he kicked it.. its not his job to tell the referees that the ball hit his hand. I play basketball and sometimes people accidently double dribble, and the ref misses it and you just keep on playing. play to the whistle as every coach tells their players. what if richie mccaw through a forward pass and it lead to a try and the all blacks winning the world cup.. wonder what everyone would be saying then..
Henry has made a his statement. FIFA's hands are tied. There is no way that they can call for a replay as it would just cause chaos to their system. The FFF have decided to cower behind FIFA. Now the real losers are the French. Now they are left with a joyless qualification. A qualification they could probably win fair and square but they have been denied a chance to win an hounrable entry into the world cup. I have nothing against the French. On the contrary, I have always admired they way that they show the power of the people. How they take to the streets when those that supposedly represent them make bad decisions. The FFF supposedly represent the French nations football. If that's the case you can lie down and let them take this stand for you and enter the world cup in a manner that holds no real victory or you can do what you are famous for and make your voices heard and demand a chance to enter the world cup in a way that you can be proud of. The ball is in your hands.
Are we really expecting an organisation as corrupt as FIFA to do the right thing and replay the game?
Listen to everyone, first of all unless he has denied a goal scoring chance the maximum penalty he can receive is a yellow card. Given that Thierry Henry was in the Irish penalty area when the incident occurred there is no way it be interpreted that way (and setting up a goal scoring chance is in no way the same as denying one) - so there is no way Henry can be banned from the World Cup.
Secondly bad decisions happen every week, if it happened to anyone else but the Irish it wouldn't be a big deal. Anyone who claims there must be a replay is merely embarrassing themselves by making ridiculous overreactions that would set precedents that would result in every football season being 3 years long.
#3: My recollection is that he hand-balled twice. The first looked accidental, but to my eyes the second didn't: he clearly moves his hand to the ball.
#6: Hmm, I disagree. Anyone who deliberately cheats can get red-carded. The question then is intent. even if it was a blood rush to the head or just fighting instinct to win, if it was intentional, then he's open to being red carded.
Replaying a match isn't realistic I think, but why not call for: video ref. at the end of match to confirm match result; if not happy, adjust score (i.e. discount the goal) and if need be call for extra time? Five minutes (say) to identify any majors immediately after the match, then call it a result or needing correction.
Grant im sorry but the suggestion is just stupid, why would anyone wanna watch a mach that afterwards a video ref goes through and see's if anything should change in the game and then play in extra 5 mins to clear things up.
Simple solution is video ref ONLY for goals scored that are controvisial, each team captain gets two chances to protest goals scored or goals disallowed. If via video it turns out the goal was scored or should of been disalowed then they they lose one of their protests, if the captain was right they keep both protests (how test cricket is now refering goals.). There is minimal disruption to the game (as really not that many goals are scored, and ones that are disalowed still have to hit the back of the net!) these sort of goals are removed from the game and everyone is happy!
On a side note, watch the replays in full motion, that hand hitting the ball was purley instinct, he couldnt of stopped that happening if he wanted to, I dont think Henry did it on purpose it just happened, and no its not up to him to tell the ref!! ( I am biast being a gunners supporter at heart but not really cause im not that much of a soccer a fan, a fairweather fan u could say.)
Scott,
Could I suggest you not read other meanings into my comment please? Perhaps consider that people generally aren't stupid first? ;-) You have said "you're wrong", then given what is very nearly exactly what I *was* saying in reply as if it were different and "opposing" me!
I didn't say a match referee would replay the whole match, that'd be dumb and I'm not that stupid. I was saying he'd follow the match as it happened and have five minutes to review anything seriously doubtful immediately after the end ;-)
What I'm suggesting has no disruption to the flow of the game at all. The game is played as usual. Essentially it just adds five minutes of "protest time", if you like, pretty much as you suggested.
"Purely instinct" can fall under "blood rush to the head" ;-)
Yes, you're very biased! ;-)
My apologies Grant, I did read your comments wrong.
Earthquake stress blamed for murder
Can Paris Hilton save her image?
Should you take your groom's name?
Gareth Morgan: I hope Norwegian sinks
Matt Giteau still simmering over Deans snub
Proteas start tour with T20 win over Wizards
Adele's ex-boyfriend deserves credit
Nats to discuss Mondayising holidays
Letter: The nakedness of skateboarders
Auckland, Wellington expensive for expats
Mojo Mathers gives maiden speech
Reconsider Crafar farms deal, Government told
Should you take your groom's name?
Should you take your groom's name?
Man fined for selling derogatory clothing
iPads make learning a delight for pupils
'Legal cocaine' may be new designer drug
Tapanui farm dog becomes Lotto dog
Can't believe Henry. That was absolutely disgraceful. I'm English, so I find it hard to decide who I would rather see at the World Cup as I dislike both Ireland and France, but that was the sort of thing that makes me sick to my stomach. Bring on the extra refs or whatever. This sort of thing has to stop.