salkster2102 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 It's close, i'm watching sky sports score centre! come on, green army! Watch it on this. The french commentators are going barmy apparently http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8364463.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacemaker7 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 That was, I thought, the beauty of using the Wallis and Futuna Islands, though the OFC champions league (O-league) is in the game (I have no idea how the hell you'd get to it without the editor though)I've fiddled around, and moved the top-20 european clubs into a European D1, and got the game to load with them in. No Europeans cups, just the O-League mentioned above. I'm not sure what that will do...I don't think the W&F Islands actually compete in it, but I don't know. It might take my NZ teams, which would be a bit annoying but I could live with that....as long as it doesn't swipe Barcelona and Man Utd to play a tournament against the finest Fiji and Vanuatu have to offer... If you've left their nationalities intact, then it should be fine. Mind you, I made my European league in Europe with European teams so I'm not quite sure how the game will handle teams from different continents in the same league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Thierry Henry is a cheating bastard. Such deliberate handball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salkster2102 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Uh-oh :o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Thierry Henry....one of those footballers I always liked despite being French, and Arsenal....always got the impression he was one of the good guys...not now. Diabolical cheating Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HD Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 So glad that didn't happen to Scotland, I'd be apoplectic. Probably try to get on the pitch and thump someone! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperk1 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Disgusting bit of cheating. Irish fans in the stadium yelling "Cheat! Cheat! Cheat!" - and totally justified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viperk1 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Ireland. Were. Robbed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxie_Ash Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Pathetic. Really pathetic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Perfect-Fm'er! Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Henry. Needs. To. D..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Unfortunately, that is the kind of incident that leads to people calling for referees to be banned. Absolutely blatant handball. I feel awful for Ireland, FIFA changed the rules on them in the middle of the game as far as qualification for the World Cup and then they have to suffer this to get knocked out. It gives the game a bad name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxie_Ash Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Can't wait to hear Platini's reaction.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deisler26 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Can't wait to hear Platini's reaction.... "Henry was conditioned to cheat by the money in the English game" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Soccernet poster had a good name for it: "The Hand Of Fraud". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welwyn Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I was apoplectic...& I'm WELSH! & about all the Scottish talk, as much as I was delighted on Saturday, watching that game made me really worried about the state of your national side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deisler26 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Soccernet poster had a good name for it: "The Hand Of Fraud". Hand Of Frog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swagat sinha Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Everyone's said it, so I'll say it as well France qualify for the Handball World Cup courtesy Thierry Henry :| Seriously, after a great match, it ends with this farcical incident. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottleeSV Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's bad enough they employed a seedings system, but this just takes the cake. What an absolute disgrace. It's all about getting the big teams as far as possible in major international tournaments and it always has been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazars Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Thierry Henry....one of those footballers I always liked despite being French, and Arsenal....always got the impression he was one of the good guys...not now. Diabolical cheating Henry, like most footballers, always had that 'gamemanship' edge to him, particularly given he has such a competitive personality out on the pitch. However, after Barca got away with a lot against Arsenal in the 2006 CL Final, there was a notable increase in Henry's willingness to cheat during matches, in particular witnessed during the following World Cup against Spain. It was almost as if he said "sod it" and decided to become an underhand player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherm Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'll tell you what, France had some damn cheek to celebrate that last night. It was deliberate and a disgrace. However, I do have several views, both on the cheating and other issues A) It was cheating yes, and as much as I think Michel Platini is a ******, and Robbie Keane was right in what he said, there are other issues to consider... B) Going back to the Liverpool penalty against Birmingham. N'Gog dived, of that there is no doubt - however, all the press would not have been so quick to dive on it had it been an Englishman in the World Cup Final would they? It happens and it always will happen in the game, unfortunately C) I will openly and honestly admit that if my team cheated to win a game, a trophy or gain an advantage, I wouldn't complain. Ever. D) It interests me how my friends, majority of them Man United fans, were quick to condemn N'Gog, and always have a go at Drogba for cheating - unless I'm mistaken, you hve just sold the biggest cheating bastard on the planet have you not? And also, Rooney cheats - that lad gets away with murder. Yes Drogba does cheat (a 6'4, 17 stone Ivorian going down that easy? No chance) and he isn't the only one... and finally... E) I have a theory why Technology is not used in football. It would not always favour the top teams, in both domestic and international football. Platini proved this, he changed the rules for the likes of France and Portugal halfway through qualifying. If technology was in place for that France goal last night, and it didn't count, Ireland would have the advantage - and FIFA can't have that, god forbid... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenArsenal Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 For the most part, Henry did admit it was a handball. So it's better than cheats who don't admit they cheat. Probably not a good defence, but at least he's honest. What else could he do if the ref doesn't do anything about it? Reverse the scoreline himself? I guess the best solution would be to replay the tie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Henry a disgrace? Injury time in a decisive game and you're given a chance to make sure of a place in the World Cup finals, the last you'll play in, and you wouldn't take it? You've just made sure of a finals place for your country and you would hold your hands up and admit you cheated. Seriously? I can count on one hand the number of footballers who would think better of it and do the right thing. He cheated, how many footballers haven't cheated at some point? Or does the fact that it was more important than most make it worse? Hardly disgusting, unless you're already on the bandwagon. If players didn't cheat and referees didn't make mistakes, we wouldn't have all that much to talk about other than transfers and goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Henry a disgrace? Injury time in a decisive game and you're given a chance to make sure of a place in the World Cup finals, the last you'll play in, and you wouldn't take it? You've just made sure of a finals place for your country and you would hold your hands up and admit you cheated. Seriously?I can count on one hand the number of footballers who would think better of it and do the right thing. He cheated, how many footballers haven't cheated at some point? Or does the fact that it was more important than most make it worse? Hardly disgusting, unless you're already on the bandwagon. From Henry's point of view, of course I can understand it and you're right, if it was the other way round, I'm absolutely certain that Robbie Keane would have done exactly the same thing. But that doesn't mean I can condone it. Ever. Unlike others I wouldn't say that I 'lost respect' for Henry because, as you say, name me a footballer who wouldn't have done it (though his insistence that it wasn't deliberate it starting to grate) but if I was an Irishman I'd sure I'd want to slap the cheeky bastard on his baldy head right now. If players didn't cheat and referees didn't make mistakes, we wouldn't have all that much to talk about other than transfers and goals. That argument always ****es me off. We should keep controversy in the game just because it gives us something to discuss? Bugger off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That argument always ****es me off. We should keep controversy in the game just because it gives us something to discuss? Bugger off. That's not exactly what I was saying. Imo it makes sense to make do with what we have, live with it and enjoy the discussion that comes from it. There's no way of stopping controversy, even video refs and technology won't make that big a difference, people will always see dives and fouls a different way depending on their support. It's part and parcel of football, if you want a football with no grey and just black and white, then you're welcome to it because it would be incredibly boring imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 That's not exactly what I was saying. Imo it makes sense to make do with what we have, live with it and enjoy the discussion that comes from it. There's no way of stopping controversy, even video refs and technology won't make that big a difference, people will always see dives and fouls a different way depending on their support. It's part and parcel of football, if you want a football with no grey and just black and white, then you're welcome to it because it would be incredibly boring imo. I agree that you're never going to remove controversy from sport entirely, there always has been and always will be grey areas in the game because (rightly) we ask the referees to use their judgement in the heat of the situation and that will often be different to the views of others watching it endlessly on replay. However, my point (and I'm not saying this is what you were saying, what you said just reminded me of the many who do feel this way) is that I feel there is a responsibility in matters of fact (ball crossing the line, etc) to ensure that these decisions are right as often as possible. To deny the use of something like goal line technology because 'we'd have nothing to talk about' is pretty ridiculous. There will always be judgement calls, I have no problem with that (there is still a massive amount down to the referee's interpretation in rugby) but in matters of fact I don't see any reason not to use the technology that is available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I'm not sold on goal line technology, I think it should be introduced, but it's as much fact as an offside or a handball, so I think it's difficult to justify extra policing for one and not the other. I kinda agree with you, but how awful would it be if one team's shot hit the bar and bounced out, but was given because of goal line technology, but the other team went downt the other end and their striker slapped it into the back of the net, but wasn't caught because there's no technology for that? It makes sense, but it would probably cause as many arguments as there are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I do see your point, but I would class saying that 'if we can't do them all then we won't do any' as coming very close to cutting your nose off to spite your face. I think one think they could do for offside would be to stop ****ing about with it and get rid of the ridiculous 'he's not active' interpretation. Handball, etc, the only place where these cause truly massive controversy are when they happen in the penalty area, meaning that they're usually in the act of scoring or preventing a goal. Obviously, as primarily a rugby fan, I'm a big supporter of video technology, and I don't think it's massively unreasonable to suggest that, for matters occurring in the penalty area, a referee should be able to turn to the help of a TMO (Television Match Official for those not familiar with the term). Clearly football is a faster game than rugby and the decision would need to be made faster than sometimes it is in rugby, but within thirty seconds of Henry's handball last night, everyone watching on TV knew it should have been disallowed. In the game last night you would have had possibly two decisions referred to the TMO (the Anelka/Given challenge being the other), would football fans seriously object to another minute being added to the game to make sure that those decisions were the correct ones? I know I wouldn't. You would inevitably, like it happened in rugby, get referees relying too much on it in the early stages of its use, but it would quickly settle down as everyone got used to it and it would massively benefit the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HD Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 In a low scoring game like football technology should be more important, since one mistake can (indeed often will) determine a result, unlike games like rugby and american football where teams score 20+ points, generally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Again, I kinda agree, but football is so quick that a handball on halfway can result in a goal seconds later (a midfielder controls with his hand and plays a throughball to the striekr, if he hadn't handled it the opposition would never have been in that position) and when that happens you'll have people questioning why penalty area decisions are referred, but other areas of the pitch, that can influence a goal, aren't. You're precisely right, it is cutting your nose off to spite your face, in a sense, but the current system is no more unjust than telling team a they can have a penalty because of a hanball that someone else noticed on tv and telling team b that they can't pull back play, after a goal, because the infringement happened outside the penalty area even though the TMO knows it was a foul/handball. In fact, it's more unfair to tell a team no because of rules regards fourth officials, than tell a team no because of human error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
salkster2102 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Ok its the latest uproar in the world of football, footballers honesty and decency is being called into question again and the luck of the Irish is well, no more. Ok here are the facts. It was handball and it put Ireland out of the World Cup. Henry himself has admitted it was handball but insists it wasn't deliberate. He's probobly the only one to think that but it isn't going to be proven as fact unless he admits it despite our own opinions. On other forums I go on there are interesting opinions on what should be done so what does everyone else think? 1) Was it deliberate handball? 2) What should be done about it? Replay the match? Give Henry a ban? 3) Should video technology be brought in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrithral Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 1) It was deliberate. 2) Nothing can be done without opening a can of worms and setting a very dangerous precedent. 3) See above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 It's the same in rugby to an extent. The TMO can only be used to judge matters 'in the act of scoring a try', so if there is a forward pass earlier in the move that the referee misses, the TMO can't say, 'well he got the ball down over the line but you can't give it because there was a forward pass thirty metres from the line'. It's far from perfect but I much prefer it, helping referees at the point of scoring, over what we used to have. You're never going to be able to have every decision spot on correct in every part of the field. But those that are most often most critical can (and should, in my opinion) be helped by technology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazars Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 1) Was it deliberate handball? 2) What should be done about it? Replay the match? Give Henry a ban? 3) Should video technology be brought in? 1) Having only seen blurry Youtube footage of the incident, it's hard to say. However, given the way the ball came at him and his movements, it looks pretty darned deliberate to me. 2) Certainly no replays, that would destroy the fixture schedule and create all kinds of chaos. However, as I said when the whole Eduardo diving furour was going on, if the authorities really want to stamp out this kind of at-least-semi-deliberate-cheating, then there should be retrospective bans. The scenario here: okay, so Henry's handball got France into the World Cup, fair enough, but too bad Henry, you pay the price and are suspended for the first 3 games (group phase) of the tournament. There you go, your team may have benefited, but you'll pay a heavy personal cost (football-wise). 3) Yes. Football needs to stop waffing around. I agree with Terk, anything in-match should be used only 'at the point of scoring'. This means only goal-line technology to assist determining when the ball has crossed the line. However, as I talked about previously, a body should be set up with the authority to review matches and hand out retrospective punishments (cards, fines etc) for incidents that were missed or 'incorrectly assessed' by the referee, so that individual players still have to bear some cost for their actions. These decisions would take statements from the referees involved and also allow the option for appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offspring8 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Goal line and vieo technology should be brought it, I've always said that and the sooner it's in, the better for everyone. Goals would be goals, penalties would be penalties and it would make the game that little bit fairer. But, as has been said by Sherm, it wouldn't 100% help the big teams so it's going to hard to get it brought in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wegason Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Henry said that the next thing he knew the ball was hitting his hand, from watching replays you can see his hand move to control the ball just before he hits it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peacemaker7 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 If it had been Robbie Keane and the Irish had won in similar fashion, everyone would be saying well done Robbie. Hypocrisy is so cool isn't it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 in matters of fact I don't see any reason not to use the technology that is available. We of course have replay in the NFL and it's used every week. The National Hockey League has overhead cameras in all its arenas for goal line decisions and Major League Baseball is considering a replay system but given the hide-bound nature of baseball people I don't see it happening any time soon. That's too bad because from my point of view baseball umpiring is far and away the worst of any major sport. The problem with replay, though, is that the element of human error is now transferred from one person (the referee) to another (the replay official). If I had a dollar for every time I've seen NFL replay officials look at a super slow-motion replay of an incident from multiple angles and STILL miss the call, I could take you to lunch with some to spare for my flight home. The reasons for these problems are two: the league's politics, and the league's need to protect its officials. The NFL uses a 'conclusive evidence' video standard to overturn decisions, but really that's just a smoke screen. In the end, the NFL's favored teams (especially Pittsburgh, New England and Green Bay) get all the calls they need. I honestly do believe that. The 'conclusive evidence' standard allows them to protect their men in striped shirts. Replay does not fix that and it never will. However, fans sometimes look at replay as a cure-all. It is not. In the end, a human being is always going to have to make the final decision and since humans are fallible, you won't solve this problem simply through replay. The sole exception to this I can think of is tennis, where the lines system they have devised seems pretty well fool-proof to me. Back to the issue at hand. If Thierry Henry had a shred of sporting decency in him he would refuse a callup to the French team for the World Cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottleeSV Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 On the subject of tennis, I've been saying it for years (well, ever since the tennis law changed anyway) - let both sides in a football match have three 'challenges' per match whereby they can request a video replay. That wouldn't slow the game down anymore than the normal injury timeouts do. I really can't see any excuse for not doing something like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HD Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Patriots get calls that haven't even been invented yet, they're so favoured. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The reasons for these problems are two: the league's politics, and the league's need to protect its officials. The NFL uses a 'conclusive evidence' video standard to overturn decisions, but really that's just a smoke screen. In the end, the NFL's favored teams (especially Pittsburgh, New England and Green Bay) get all the calls they need. I honestly do believe that. The 'conclusive evidence' standard allows them to protect their men in striped shirts. Replay does not fix that and it never will. Of course you're never going to get 100% accuracy if you're using human judgement to make the final decision, but (if used correctly and not like in the NFL which, I agree, is laughable at times) it will drastically cut down the number of wrong calls. The way the rugby system differs (and is better than) the NFL one is that it depends on what the referee on the field asks. He has two options, he can ask the TMO, 'try or no try' or he can ask 'is there any reason why I can't award the try'. In the first, it's all down to the TMO, he needs to see conclusive proof that a try has been scored, in the latter, the referee is usually pretty certain that a try has been scored, but wants clarification. If there is no conclusive proof either way then the try is awarded. In terms of 'did the ball cross the line' decisions, I think it would be better to use technology such as the hawkeye system or a chip in the ball which gives a definitive and unequivocal answer rather than a video ref. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Of course you're never going to get 100% accuracy if you're using human judgement to make the final decision, but (if used correctly and not like in the NFL which, I agree, is laughable at times) it will drastically cut down the number of wrong calls. The way the rugby system differs (and is better than) the NFL one is that it depends on what the referee on the field asks. He has two options, he can ask the TMO, 'try or no try' or he can ask 'is there any reason why I can't award the try'. In the first, it's all down to the TMO, he needs to see conclusive proof that a try has been scored, in the latter, the referee is usually pretty certain that a try has been scored, but wants clarification. If there is no conclusive proof either way then the try is awarded.In terms of 'did the ball cross the line' decisions, I think it would be better to use technology such as the hawkeye system or a chip in the ball which gives a definitive and unequivocal answer rather than a video ref. I've seen some rugby where replay is used and I agree it's better. The problem is that once you start replay you always have people clamoring about what's reviewable and what's not. Rugby seems to have a good system but there are certain calls in the NFL that are not reviewable by replay (such as 'down by contact', for example and virtually any penalty call). I think if those types of calls were reviewable, we'd see how many calls the referees really do miss, and that would be bad for the league. It's understandable, of course, because people are human, but the league is trying to strike a middle ground between protecting its officials and decrying the notion that everything's fixed. If you saw the Pittsburgh/Seattle Super Bowl a few years ago, you understand what I mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deisler26 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I like the NHL method. It's the ref's call until it's something that the ref isn't sure about, then he gets on the phone to a video judge who gives him a verdict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terk Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The worst shirt in the history of sport? It's what Edinburgh Rugby will wear for their games against Glasgow in the Magners League over the Christmas/New Year period. I've got a season ticket for those ****ers, I have to support a team wearing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Yikes. FAI have formally asked for a replay of the France match ... and there seems to be precedent from FIFA. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=700719&sec=worldcup2010&campaign=rss&source=soccernet&cc=5901 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swagat sinha Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The worst shirt in the history of sport?It's what Edinburgh Rugby will wear for their games against Glasgow in the Magners League over the Christmas/New Year period. I've got a season ticket for those ****ers, I have to support a team wearing that. So you'll be wearing that? And when did you start liking pictures? 10-3, I don't think they'll get a replay. As someone else said, it'll muck up the fixture list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 I don't like Trappatoni criticising the referee's appointment. Prior to the handball (after the Anelka dive), he was being applauded by the commentators that he was having a particularly good game, a view I would agree with. Very diappointing from Trappatoni. He was just unsighted for the goal...not incorrectly placed. The linesman on the other hand cannot have failed to see it. No hope of a replay. The Uzbekistan game was a referee mis-applying the rules, not just missing an incident. TV and technology to help officials fall into two cetagories for me: 1) Line decisions. Hawkeye, or some other similar technology along the goal-line, to check whether the ball has gone over the line (and possibly if its gone out of play in the leadup to a goal). How this hasn't been implemented yet is a total travesty. The technology exists and it works, and the fact its not used should be an eternal shame to Messrs Blatter and Platini. It works in cricket, it works in tennis, and with a TV system works in rugby. 2) Judgment decisions. This is the debate for me, and where last night comes in. Either the captain gets 2 unsuccesful appeals a game (+ 1 in extra time), or the referee makes the call. Tennis, again, uses the former, to great success. Rugby uses the latter, again with success. It has to be remembered not all decisions are as clear-cut as last night. Also, where do we draw the line? Will we end up with teams chancing their luck debating throw-ins in injury time just because they have appeals left? Or if the referee decides when to refer a decision, does harrassing the officials become even more of an art form, thereby guaranteeing teams managed by a Mr Ferguson of Govan an even greater advantage? Also, a word of caution to anyone who thinks TV officials will cut out controversy (and a word of encouragement to those who think it gives us something to talk about), don't think that its going to get the correct decisions. For those who didn't watch the cricket in the West Indies, the TV Official seemed incapable of using the technology, took an absolute age to make a decision, and then made decisions that defied primary school physics. There was also a massive misunderstanding on the term "reasonable doubt" or "conclusive proof" that these systems run on. Also, on the replay, there just isnt any time to play the game. There isnt an international break before the world cup draw, and France are seeded whereas Ireland aren't, and there isnt a hope in hell of them delaying the draw. Its over for the Irish, which is a sad state of affairs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenthreeleader Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 No hope of a replay. The Uzbekistan game was a referee mis-applying the rules, not just missing an incident. Understand where you're coming from, but if failure to award a free kick for obvious and blatant handball isn't 'mis-applying the rules', I don't know what is. I do think FIFA has an opportunity to really come down on the side of fair play here. Unfortunately, with fixture lists being what they are, I don't see a replay either but to preserve the sporting integrity of the world's most popular sporting event, FIFA needs to knock some heads and make time for a replay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Understand where you're coming from, but if failure to award a free kick for obvious and blatant handball isn't 'mis-applying the rules', I don't know what is.I do think FIFA has an opportunity to really come down on the side of fair play here. Unfortunately, with fixture lists being what they are, I don't see a replay either but to preserve the sporting integrity of the world's most popular sporting event, FIFA needs to knock some heads and make time for a replay. The simple fact is the referee didnt see it, and he cant give it if he doesnt see it. In terms of the rules of the game, its no different to missing a dive for a penalty or a foul on the half-way line in the lead-up to a goal. With the Uzbek/Bahrain game, the ref saw the offence in question but applied the wrong course of action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardiovascular Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 What is this "Uzbekistan game" you speak of? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian W Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 What is this "Uzbekistan game" you speak of? From the article 10-3 linked to: FIFA ordered Uzbekistan to replay Bahrain in a play-off for the 2006 World Cup in Germany after the referee made a mistake when a penalty had been awarded."The Football Association of Ireland is hoping that FIFA and its disciplinary committee will, on behalf of football fans worldwide, act in a similar fashion so that the standards of fair play and integrity can be protected," the FAI added. However, in the aforementioned instance, the referee was guilty of wrongly applying the rules rather than missing an offence. An indirect free-kick was awarded against Uzbekistan when one of their players encroached on the Bahrain penalty area as the Uzbeks successfully converted a penalty. The correct interpretation would have been to order the penalty to be retaken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.