Henry Handball

[Mossfinn]

On Wednesday the world knew almost instantly that a terrible mistake had been made by an otherwise exemplary Swedish referee. How is it that the official could not be guided away from something that will presumably haunt him as much as the Irish team and their fans – and which could so easily have been avoided by the intervention of a fourth official acting on evidence which was so irrefutable and available in every house and sports bar across Europe? It is because of a dumb refusal to accept the reality that the greatest scourge of modern football, a culture of cheating which sometimes seems to know no bounds, can only be seriously tackled by the laser eye of the television camera.

Roy Keane gave us more rancid evidence of his inability to bury a grudge, even against the land of his birth. He said that the Irish team were responsible for their own downfall, that paltry defence was the cause of defeat not the chicanery of Henry. This is from a man who once used to lead invasions of referees at a mere hint of grievance.

James Lawton IoS

[Mossfinn]

"It [Henry's handball to set up William Gallas's decisive goal] was instinct for Henry. Would I call him a cheat? No I wouldn't think so. Did he bend the rule a little? Maybe. You see cheating going on all the time. Nobody wants a cheat. I wouldn't agree that Henry is a cheat. He is a top, top player who took advantage of the situation.

"I don't feel the game has been damaged one bit. Ireland had the chances. They never took the chance in the first game. They never performed. I heard an interview after the first game when the manager said none of the players got booked – maybe that was the problem, maybe the players should have got booked because they stood off France. In the second game we had opportunities and didn't take them."

Link

So it is not cheating, but bending the rules, all would have been OK if the chances had been taken.

A case of bile upsetting the eye sight I would suggest.

I don't agree with a replay, I do understand the need to cheat, I just don't accept it, bring in a Camera referee and negate the problem.

[callum06]

The fact that Henry admitted it. That doesn't make him a cheat in my opinion.

He had to admit it, was he going to say it wasn't a handball?? he had no choice..... In my opinion he is a cheat BUT so are most of the players today..

[suiging]

Said before but will say again. Rugby has citing panels so that blatant acts of cheating missed by match day officials can be brought to task. Works fine in Rugby and if you ever played the game twenty or thirty years ago, you will know from your lack of teeth that it was needed and has stopped a great deal of the unsavoury side of the game.

[MSingh]

The fact that Henry admitted it. That doesn't make him a cheat in my opinion.

He had to admit it, was he going to say it wasn't a handball?? he had no choice..... In my opinion he is a cheat BUT so are most of the players today..

All..

[EastSaxCol]

The fact that Henry admitted it. That doesn't make him a cheat in my opinion.

He had to admit it, was he going to say it wasn't a handball?? he had no choice..... In my opinion he is a cheat BUT so are most of the players today..

All..

Remember Di Canio's gentlemanly/sportsmanlike at conduct at Everton ? Not all, but most.

[kalasin]

I cannot remember a match have ever been replayed due to a foul made by a player not noticed by the referee.

This is an example of a player making a foul - but the referee did not see it.

I am sure, that if the game is analyzed, you will find examples of Irish players making fouls not noticed by the referee.

Eat a biscuit and get on.

Edited November 22, 2009 by kalasin

[EastSaxCol]

I am sure, that if the game is analyzed, you will find examples of Irish players making fouls not noticed by the referee.

I think that most on here can think of one Irishman who made a career of committing fouls, and in fact made **great score (no pun) of it -- well, to sell his ghost written autobiography anyway.

Although Roy Keane's misdemeanors weren't witnessed by 3 billion others to my knowledge. And there's the rub.

**"great store", is what I meant to say.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Happy Hammer

[MSingh]

The fact that Henry admitted it. That doesn't make him a cheat in my opinion.

He had to admit it, was he going to say it wasn't a handball?? he had no choice..... In my opinion he is a cheat BUT so are most of the players today..

All..

Remember Di Canio's gentlemanly/sportsmanlike at conduct at Everton ? Not all, but most.

He doesn't play today though does he ??

[EastSaxCol]

Remember Di Canio's gentlemanly/sportsmanlike at conduct at Everton ? Not all, but most.

He doesn't play today though does he ??

And if he did ? Professional football players, not unlike other humans (some are in fact) are not all automatons , there still are a few mavericks who will break the cynical mindset. Di Canio was one such player, and I'd like to think that there are others, who in similar circumstances ...

[spongeman]

The FFF and Henry both issued their statements after FIFA.

They are cheats, liars, and thieves. Evey one.

[StevieH]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

it is precisely because football is not a sport which should put money first that technology should not be used in the game.

[MSingh]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

it is precisely because football is not a sport which should put money first that technology should not be used in the game.

Bang on Stevie...

[eddiemonster]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

it is precisely because football is not a sport which should put money first that technology should not be used in the game.

Bang on Stevie...

He might be bang on but that ship sailed a long time ago.....

Its money first, second and last

[EastSaxCol]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

it is precisely because football is not a sport which should put money first that technology should not be used in the game.

Bang on Stevie...

He might be bang on but that ship sailed a long time ago.....

Its money first, second and last

Yes indeed, and disportionately so. Not out of love for the game or in the interest of grass roots football was the Premiership created. No-one need scratch too much into the social history of the game to knows that it's long been the case that money rules football. In fact that the game was played in the financial interests of the rich, via "petit-bourgeois directors who care nothing for the game" , was noted as far back as Eamon Dunphy's 1980's book 'Only a Game?: Diary of a Professional Footballer' to see that football has long been the plaything of the rich. It's just more a noticeable international franchise nowadays.

It's only that in the past few decades it's players in the top echelons are the main beneficiaries of the game that will ultimately eat itself, alongside the likes of Sky television.

[kalasin]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

Even when you see slowmotion pictures people disagree about foul or not - and in the end it will be just another referee sitting in front of tv make decisions - these will then be the topic of an argue.

No way technology is the answer - it must be decide on the pitch in the actual situation.

I have heard of another suggestion, which put one or two more referees on the pitch. That would be more interesting.

[MSingh]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

Even when you see slowmotion pictures people disagree about foul or not - and in the end it will be just another referee sitting in front of tv make decisions - these will then be the topic of an argue.

No way technology is the answer - it must be decide on the pitch in the actual situation.

I have heard of another suggestion, which put one or two more referees on the pitch. That would be more interesting.

But what if they disagreed on something ??

[MSingh]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

it is precisely because football is not a sport which should put money first that technology should not be used in the game.

Bang on Stevie...

He might be bang on but that ship sailed a long time ago.....

Its money first, second and last

Yep completely aware of that & you're right sadly, but he is still bang on..

[EastSaxCol]

I have heard of another suggestion, which put one or two more referees on the pitch. That would be more interesting.

Ironically , isn't it in Gaelic Football that they have two umpires at each end to judge the scoring ? If that was applied to Association Football, then it'd be all but impossible that they'd have missed Henry's cheating, and other travesties that happen in and around the penalty area.

However, it would still be impossible to adjudge whether the ball has actually crossed the line -- as infamously happened in 1966. For that the only solution would be the same sort of technology as applied in tennis that informs whether a ball was out or not.

[kalasin]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

Even when you see slowmotion pictures people disagree about foul or not - and in the end it will be just another referee sitting in front of tv make decisions - these will then be the topic of an argue.

No way technology is the answer - it must be decide on the pitch in the actual situation.

I have heard of another suggestion, which put one or two more referees on the pitch. That would be more interesting.

But what if they disagreed on something ??

Just like today where the referee can overrule the linesmen.

So one set-up could be: two linesmen, one referee on each half of the pitch and the head-referee like today. Could be interesting to test that set-up. I am sure that would catch a lot of mistakes made today - be still not all. And still there will be situations where some will say foul and others not - no matter how documented the situation is.

[eddiemonster]

When is FIFA finally going to arrive in the 21st Century and all video playback? It is a joke that a sport that has considerable amounts of money riding on it still does not use the technologies available

Even when you see slowmotion pictures people disagree about foul or not - and in the end it will be just another referee sitting in front of tv make decisions - these will then be the topic of an argue.

No way technology is the answer - it must be decide on the pitch in the actual situation.

I have heard of another suggestion, which put one or two more referees on the pitch. That would be more interesting.

But what if they disagreed on something ??

Just like today where the referee can overrule the linesmen.

So one set-up could be: two linesmen, one referee on each half of the pitch and the head-referee like today. Could be interesting to test that set-up. I am sure that would catch a lot of mistakes made today - be still not all. And still there will be situations where some will say foul and others not - no matter how documented the situation is.

In hockey there are two umpires and each has control of one half of the pitch so there is no conflict. Unless there is an incident on the half way line I suppose....

Add 'Hawkeye' and a video ref and most things could be covered.

[spongeman]

The Football Association of Ireland has asked for a place in the World Cup.

I think this is only right.

We are going to the World Cup, where we will win it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mossfinn]

the game was over, we have to get over it. No politician was ever going to change it, the power brokers wanted France there, a replay, more chance of finding out what happened to Major Tom.

What the incident had done has more clearly brought the situation to the table, lets hope they see sense this time.

.

Which school did you go to?

Edited November 30, 2009 by bonobo
Removed quotes of a post since deleted as against ThaiVisa posting rules..

[personchester]

The Irish Government has even called for a replay !!!!!

Understandable but obviously quite ridiculous. These sorts of incidences of injustice are happening all the time in football. Nothing can be done about those in the past, it's the games in the future that consideration should be given. Football needs to take a look at the way video technology has been used in tennis and rugby, and start making some decisions. Help is out there for referees, they just need to be given it. When, oh when?!!!

P.S. If Ireland get to replay that game for the handball, any chance England can have a chance to right the travesity that befell us against Argentina i wonder?

Well maybe, but then Germany will make a similar move against England for the 1966 world cup final at Wembley, to cancel England's 3rd goal when the ball did not cross the goal line, this was all clear at the time, but the referee had to relay on the linesman, but the Russian linesman (probably from Stalingrad) would have none of it, thus the goal was allowed, this changed the German game plan into a 100 % total attack, leaving their defense open, as a result Jeff Hurst the English forward, who had picked the ball out of England's penalty area was running forward with the ball in the last minutes of the game with the intention (as he stated many times) to shoot it powerfully into the stands behind the goal in order to waste some time, but instead it went at a perfect angle high into the German goal making the result a impressive 4-2 victory for England to win the world cup in 1966.

The above 3rd goal was discussed for decades in pubs both in England and in Germany, then many years afterward a university in the UK did some technology tests, the pictures were shown in the press, and live on TV, the result was obvious and unquestionable the ball had only half crossed the goal line and the goal should not have been allowed.

Ireland's misfortune against France (Henrie's hand ball) was a final qualification game for taking part in the competition, very sad for Ireland, particularly for it being a small nation.

The England v. Argentine game (the hand of god) was a quarter final game, to have this happening was very painful indeed.

The England v.Germany game in 1966 however was the world cup final, there are no higher stakes in football, it must have been very painful indeed for the Germans, but they had to live with it.

Yes, FIFA must follow Tennis and Rugby and have technology installed in order to control the game efficiently, because those mistakes are hard to take and rather awful for both the team, the management, and the supporters.

[Mossfinn]

but the Russian linesman (probably from Stalingrad)

[rixalex]

P.S. If Ireland get to replay that game for the handball, any chance England can have a chance to right the travesity that befell us against Argentina i wonder?

Well maybe, but then Germany will make a similar move against England for the 1966 world cup final at Wembley,

For myself, the sense of injustice and the need to act against it is multiplied when it results from blatant and intentional cheating by a player. That wasn't the case in the England Germany final. It was simply a case of the referee having to make a critical decision in a split second as to what side of the line a ball was. And you can hardly blame the guy as it wasn't until weeks after that anyone could prove otherwise. All very well having weeks to sit analyising photos, the ref didn't have that luxury.

There have been a multitude of games in which England has played and had bad refering decisions cost them dearly (take the disallowed goal against Portugal to think of one recent example), but when it's simply down to the officiating it hurts but you accept it - you move on. When a player cheats on the other hand, and it costs you the game, that's something that stays with you forever. The Irish i'm sure will never forget or forgive Henry, just as us English will never forget or forgive that "hand of god" twunt.

[spongeman]

Not only should Ireland be the 33rd team, but they should be given a bye to the final as well.

[moe666]

I say replay the Georgia vs. Ireland game first since there was a cock up in that one as well. Lets hear it for the replay.

[salty]

Oh come on moe, even Curly and Larry would not be that silly.

[PhilHarries]

Sorry but I don't get it. The referee, and I assume the linesman, missed the handball so who would call for the video evidence?

The Irish team?

The Irish manager?

Cos sure as eggs are oval the Froggies ain't going to call for it.

If that was the set up the average game of football would take about five hours while they re-analysed every contested decision or dodgy move.

Or do you rely on the fourth, or it would be fifth, official watching the game on the telly. Then we have an important match and he gets distracted and misses a crucial incident. Back to square one.

They did try a set up a while back for a European game with extra linesmen at each end of the pitch. For me that would be the better approach except there'd still be the argument over who has the final say.

For sure something has to be done but it has to be made sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.