h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As things stand, sport looses. France are through after a goal scored by a player who acknowledged that he had cheated. His manager, team mates, nation, FIFA and football fans throughout the world know this. In view of Henry's frank admission, there is no room for discussion about this being a fair goal.

So FIFA and the French FA agree that on the basis of sporting integrity France do not take up their place at the finals. A wild card entry is offered to Ireland.

Sporting integrity is restored. At a huge cost of course. But it isn't all about money. If it was FIFA could just sell final places to the highest bidder every 4 years.

I am not pro Irish or anti French. I am pro sport though.

PP

it all supports the arguement to have a 4th official with video replay / Hawkeye etc. It can only be agood thing for the sport

http://www.lefigaro.fr/equipe-de-france-de-football/2009/11/18/02016-20091118ARTSPO00688-live-france-irlande.php

This is a link (in French) to Le Figaro newspaper. The headline, La France sans gloire, means France without glory. The article is critical of the French team. In the comments (many of which are entitled 'honte' (shame)), one fan claims that refereeing was poor throughout the match. According to him France should have had a penalty earlier *that* might have become a goal, he would have preferred this 'chance' of a goal rather than to have been awarded the non-goal. Many call for video refereeing.

PS Just to keep the record straight, Gallas put the ball in the net after a pass from Henry (who had handled the ball)

Look at Rugby Union. The ref has to explain at the time, all decisions, and in case of any doubt, and indeed, in vitrually every case of a try, the video is looked at. In some matches, there are several tries so several times when the video is looked at. It doesn't detract from the match, in fact, the spectators want to watch it so there's no doubt. The decision is still the ref's but there can be no argument and all the players and spectators can see the video the ref sees.

It doesn't diminish the authority of the ref, it enhances it, and resolves doubtful situations.

We have the technology, let's use it in Soccer.

And, whilst we're at it, what's this arbitrary injury time rule? Why don't they stop the clock as in rugby?

I wonder how this will pan out. My boyfriend was on the Fifa website this morning and they hadn't mentioned anything...

My belief is that FIFA will do nothing. They have got the result that they wanted.

The seeding of the play off draw was designed to minimise the "danger" of teams lower down the FIFA rankings - such as Ireland - making it to the finals.

FIFA's objectives:-

* to improve the game of football constantly and promote it globally (Ok)
* to organise its own international competitions (Job done)
* to draw up regulations and provisions and ensure their enforcement (i.e obstruct the use of video as used in Rugby, Cricket, Gridiron)
* to control every type of association football
* to safeguard the integrity of matches and competitions and prevent abuse (Ah! Now what?)

PP

So, what is the argument *against* video reffing?

1. Time taken to make a decision. Apparently it is better to have a swift incorrect decision than a (slightly) slower correct one.

2. It undermines the authority of the referee. Everybody respects the authority of a referee who gives a goal where there has clearly been an offside and two handballs.

I think that's right.

PP

But if what I thinik I heard on R4 today is truem even the French football team and the French FA admit Henry handled the ball. But I presume they aren't pushing the matter - well, would you?

Were there any Irish at Agincourt?

Most teams have been on the wrong side of a poor referee decision at some point.
I suppose the French team is just taking the smooth with the rough. Fans are giving them a slagging *anyway* because it was, apparently, a lousy game.

***
Sarkozy and Brian Cowen talked about it at EU meeting in Brussels. Sarkozy told reporters, in a nutshell, that he was sorry for Ireland and that there are (football) officials to deal with the matter, admitting that it suited him to be able to say that.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/

Henry said himself (paraphrasing) 'the referee didn't call it and I've been told that the ref's decision is final too many times to argue...'



He's got a point.

>>>He's got a point <<<

I agree - this sort of mess is in the hands of the officials and FIFA - and, of course, that involves admission that they sometimes get things wrong..........

Methinks the Irish doth protest too much. I did not see any of them protesting when they were awarded an incorrect penalty against Georgia.

Or accepting the fact that if they'd actually scored the two sitters they missed then the handball goal wouldn't have mattered anyway...

>> and I've been told that the ref's decision is final <<

If the referee's decision is final, why do all the players crowd round him and try to change it?

RF

natural sense of cometitive spirit/justice/defending one's right to dive...