France v Ireland Handball Overreaction?
Ste...@mailinator.com
overreacted to this whole incident by asking for the match to be
replayed. Because the incident happened in the box and led to a goal.
There are countless outfield incidents that happen in a match which
could have similar consequences but they people don't shout & scream
for replays about them.
Part of the excitement of the game is the element of human error. You
accept that when you go into it.
Schrodinger
<Ste...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:fe764330-5fd0-49c7...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I think it's their job to try to push for a replay on any grounds - Henri
cheated and knew he did. That isn't what football should be about, but
"football" has become quite divorced from the game itself - from players
rolling around in agony for 5 minutes (never see that in Rugby) to a "cheat
if you can get away with it" mentality.
Halmyre
wrote:
Yes; for example, Maradona's "Hand of God" incident.
--
Halmyre
Ste...@mailinator.com
> <Step...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
No, in rugby they just stamped on each others heads, try to shove
their fingers up each others bums and chew on fake blood capsules to
try and get a competitive edge. But that's ok 'cause they always share
a few bears in the bar after the game.
tomScotland
But that's ok 'cause they always share
> a few bears in the bar after the game.
I'm not even sure if thats a typo.
--
'91 MkII Golf GTi 8v
'05 Polo FSi
www.facebook.com/tomscotland
yaffle53
> Yes; for example, Maradona's "Hand of God" incident.
I think we should replay that game with the same players. Maradona is
so fat now that I doubt he could jump that high again, even against a
60 year old Peter Shilton.
Cheers
Jeff
pete
Actually you do see that in rugby. However, play goes on (a sure incentive
for players who were only faking to get up and start contributing again?)
and the treatment takes place without interrupting the game. In serious
cases play is stopped though.
The problem with soccer is that since there are so few scores that a lot of
games are decided by a single goal - which is often the result of pure, dumb
luck. That makes any margin: fair or foul worth taking and you can't blame
the players for the game's lack of regulation. What it really needs is a TMO
and this latest case just underlines that. Until then, it's pretty close to
a lottery, rather than a game where skill plays a deciding part.
JohnB
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:40:11 -0000, Schrodinger wrote:
>
The number of games that *are* decided by luck or foul play are
probably quite few in reality. Some fouls are accidental but the
deliberate ones will generally occur because a player thinks he can
get away with it (or at least that the punishment will be less than
the advantage gained). The fact that often referees *do* get it right
shows how good our referees are. However, they are only human, have a
split second to decide in many instances, and can often be unsighted
or simply not at the best angle to view. However, the continuous flow
of football means that video replays are not really feasible.
The trouble is if we introduce more officials, where do we get
sufficient of good enough quality?
And I've still no idea what a TMO is.
yaffle53
> And I've still no idea what a TMO is.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Mountain_Observatory
Obviously he wants to use huge telescopes to examine all football
games that are played around the world
that carry out scientific analysis of them in order to determine
whether any foul play is involved. It seems
a rather extreme solution though. Why not just use video replays at
the ground?
Cheers
Jeff
JohnB
>
The number of games that *are* decided by luck or foul play are
probably quite few in reality. Some fouls are accidental but the
deliberate ones will generally occur because a player thinks he can
get away with it (or at least that the punishment will be less than
the advantage gained). The fact that often referees *do* get it right
shows how good our referees are. However, they are only human, have a
split second to decide in many instances, and can often be unsighted
or simply not at the best angle to view. However, the continuous flow
of football means that video replays are not really feasible.
The trouble is if we introduce more officials, where do we get
sufficient of good enough quality?
yaffle53
> If video replay post match was allowed, goals like the this one could be
> disallowed
How can you disallow a goal after the game has finished? What then? Do
you re-start the game from the point of the disallowed goal?
Cheers
Jeff
JohnB
>
> If video replay post match was allowed, goals like the this one could be
> number of games.
> --
>
> Martin
You can't disallow a goal after a game is finished because the way the
game is played is affected. A team may play for a draw at 0-0 but will
have to try to play more attacking football if losing 1-0.
I'm quite happy with restrospective punishments for foul play but in
some cases that already happens. I can't think of any reason why this
can't be extended beyond the current remit (only judging on events the
referee has missed).
Jeff Lawrence
> >How can you disallow a goal after the game has finished? What then? Do
> >you re-start the game from the point of the disallowed goal?
>
> No you just disallow the goal.
Yes, so what about if the French "goal" from Wednesday was disallowed?
That would have meant that Ireland would have won 1-0 and it would
therefore have finished 1-1 on aggregate. So, who qualifies?
Cheers
Jeff
Norman Wells
> The number of games that *are* decided by luck or foul play are
> probably quite few in reality. Some fouls are accidental but the
> deliberate ones will generally occur because a player thinks he can
> get away with it (or at least that the punishment will be less than
> the advantage gained). The fact that often referees *do* get it right
> shows how good our referees are. However, they are only human, have a
> split second to decide in many instances, and can often be unsighted
> or simply not at the best angle to view. However, the continuous flow
> of football means that video replays are not really feasible.
I think that's nonsense. In the case in question, the ball was put in the
back of the net within a second or so and there was a natural hiatus in
which the handball incident could have been replayed and examined by a
further official, just as in international rugby when a try has been scored.
In other cases of doubt, play could be continued until something significant
happens or nothing significant results.
I see no reason why all available means should not be used to settle
significant matters, and I don't see why that should necessarily disrupt
play too much. If TV cameras are there, why not use them? The
consequences, after all, run into millions of pounds.
> The trouble is if we introduce more officials, where do we get
> sufficient of good enough quality?
There is already a fourth official at international matches whose only
function it seems to me is to work the board with numbers on it. Surely he
could be in charge of the VCR as well?
Jeff Lawrence
> I think that's nonsense. In the case in question, the ball was put in the
> back of the net within a second or so and there was a natural hiatus in
> which the handball incident could have been replayed and examined by a
> further official, just as in international rugby when a try has been scored.
Apparently there was about 90 seconds between the goal being scored
and the re-start due to all the protests by the Irish players. Plenty
of time to have a look at the video.
Cheers
Jeff
JohnB
Yes, but if we introduce video evidence for this sort of occurrence,
it has to be used for others too. For instance, say the question was
over whether the ball had crossed the line before being cleared? If
the ball is still in play, then the game has to continue. The next
suitable "hiatus" could be several minutes later, or even when a goal
is scored at the other end.
You can't have video evidence to check after a goal is scored without
having video evidence to check events that prevented a goal being
scored.
Jeff Lawrence
I'm not saying I agree with using video evidence (I don't actually).
Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
any disruption to the game.
Cheers
Jeff
Jeff Lawrence
> I think a replay would benefit all concerned: The Irish for being given
> another crack after being cheated, the French for being given a chance to win
> fairly, the referee for an opportunity to save a bit of face, Thierry Henri
> for getting the chance to rescue his reputation and regain respect, and
> everyone else for finally being able to shut the feck up about it.
Unless another controversial incident happens in the replay of course.
Then they'd have to play a replay of the replay. Anyway it's not going
to happen despite Henry himself saying that it should. But what does
he know about being fair? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/8370764.stm
Cheers
Jeff
allanbonnetracy
> I'm not saying I agree with using video evidence (I don't actually).
> Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
> any disruption to the game.
>
Except once video evidence is available then players and managers will
be constantly calling for it to be replayed.
Nowadays, hardly a single referring decision is not questioned no
matter how unlikely.
Are we really going to refer to the video every time there’s a dodgy
tackle or an offside decision?
I can see it now Man Utd winning 1-0 away at Chelsea with three added
minutes to go and Ferguson suddenly wants to replay a free kick
decision, then another and while we’re at it we’ll make a
substitution.
Teams have only themselves to blame by constantly playing the referee
and the system, appealing every referee’s decision in an attempt to
undermine their confidence all whilst simultaneously constantly trying
to hoodwink them.
Every so often it backfires, like this week, but instead of telling
the Irish tough tities if you play with fire (etc) we’ve come all over
sympathetic but their players are no angles Robbie Keen, for one,
certainly knows how to dive.
There are no innocent parties in this just loosing ones.
allanbonnetracy
> I think a replay would benefit all concerned: The Irish for being given
> another crack after being cheated, the French for being given a chance to win
> fairly, the referee for an opportunity to save a bit of face, Thierry Henri
> for getting the chance to rescue his reputation and regain respect, and
> everyone else for finally being able to shut the feck up about it.
>
There is actually a precedent for this that involved Arsenal when
Henri was still playing for them.
An FA Cup tie was replayed after Arsen Venger immediately requested
this at the end of the game, accepting some Arsenal un-gentlemanly
conduct had won them the game.
In that case, no rules had actually been broken but the FA still
agreed to a replay.
Fred X
<tom...@spamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Ste...@mailinator.com wrote:
>
> But that's ok 'cause they always share
>> a few bears in the bar after the game.
>
> I'm not even sure if thats a typo.
>
No, I believe that's gay slang for a large hairy man, like
you tend to find in rugby teams. :)
Fred X
Norman Wells
>> I'm not saying I agree with using video evidence (I don't actually).
>> Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
>> any disruption to the game.
>
> Except once video evidence is available then players and managers will
> be constantly calling for it to be replayed.
>
> Nowadays, hardly a single referring decision is not questioned no
> matter how unlikely.
>
> tackle or an offside decision?
It would be up to the referee, just as it is in rugby. If he feels there is
something he would like looked at again, and the ability to do so is there,
why not? There was presumably a huge roar of handball from the crowd in the
Ireland game, and I think the referee could and should have taken notice of
that and been able to have the incident reviewed, even if, as is obvious, he
didn't see it himself.
> I can see it now Man Utd winning 1-0 away at Chelsea with three added
> minutes to go and Ferguson suddenly wants to replay a free kick
> decision, then another and while we�re at it we�ll make a
> substitution.
It wouldn't be up to him, but up to the referee acting in conjunction with
his assistants.
> Teams have only themselves to blame by constantly playing the referee
> and the system, appealing every referee�s decision in an attempt to
> undermine their confidence all whilst simultaneously constantly trying
> to hoodwink them.
And that should be bookable and enforced if it isn't at present.
Schrodinger
"allanbonnetracy" <allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:bf7fe351-725f-47e1...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I'm not saying I agree with using video evidence (I don't actually).
>> Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
>> any disruption to the game.
>>
>
> Except once video evidence is available then players and managers will
> be constantly calling for it to be replayed.
>
> Nowadays, hardly a single referring decision is not questioned no
> matter how unlikely.
>
> Are we really going to refer to the video every time there�s a dodgy
> tackle or an offside decision?
>
> I can see it now Man Utd winning 1-0 away at Chelsea with three added
> minutes to go and Ferguson suddenly wants to replay a free kick
> decision, then another and while we�re at it we�ll make a
> substitution.
>
> Teams have only themselves to blame by constantly playing the referee
> and the system, appealing every referee�s decision in an attempt to
> undermine their confidence all whilst simultaneously constantly trying
> to hoodwink them.
>
> Every so often it backfires, like this week, but instead of telling
> the Irish tough tities if you play with fire (etc) we�ve come all over
> sympathetic but their players are no angles Robbie Keen, for one,
> certainly knows how to dive.
>
> There are no innocent parties in this just loosing ones.
>
It works in rugby, I don't see why it shouldn't in football. Whilst I'm at
it, they should have a sin bin in football too.
GordonD
news:8c676b6a-c282-4d92...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
And the 1966 World Cup Final while we're at it.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Col
"Halmyre" <flashgord...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67aa8d06-bcfd-40d2...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 20 Nov, 08:32, "Step...@mailinator.com" <Step...@mailinator.com>
> wrote:
>> No doubt it's a terrible way to lose but I think the Irish FA have
>> overreacted to this whole incident by asking for the match to be
>> replayed. Because the incident happened in the box and led to a goal.
>> There are countless outfield incidents that happen in a match which
>> could have similar consequences but they people don't shout & scream
>> for replays about them.
>>
>> Part of the excitement of the game is the element of human error. You
>> accept that when you go into it.
>
And whilst we called him a cheat and went through all
the 'we woz robbed' routine, nobody ever suggested the
game should be replayed.
We had our moan, then accepted it as part of the game.
Col
Jeff Lawrence
> And whilst we called him a cheat and went through all
> the 'we woz robbed' routine, nobody ever suggested the
> game should be replayed.
Well I did. But I was only 14 at the time and no-one listened.
Cheers
Jeff
Col
"allanbonnetracy" <allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:bf7fe351-725f-47e1...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
> any disruption to the game.
>
>Are we really going to refer to the video every time there�s a dodgy
>tackle or an offside decision?
You would need a sytem like in tennis where each player
has at his/her disposal a certain number per set of challenges
to line calls.
If introduced in football, and you had used up all your
challenges and something like the Henri incident ocurred,
then tough.
Col
Calum
>> I'm not saying I agree with using video evidence (I don't actually).
>> Just that in this case it would have been possible to use it without
>> any disruption to the game.
>>
>
> Except once video evidence is available then players and managers will
> be constantly calling for it to be replayed.
Then only allow each time a certain number of challenges per game, as
per American Football, with a review request only allowed while the ball
is out of play.
Alternatively, leave it up to the referee, but then you still end up
with players shouting and screaming at refs to review something, and
controversy if he refuses to review a certain incident, then turns out
to have been wrong.
Calum
> In that case, no rules had actually been broken but the FA still
> agreed to a replay.
And therein lies the problem. The rules are quite clear that the
referee's decision is final "on points of fact", which covers what
happened on Wednesday.
It's not the first time a world cup qualifier has been replayed after a
referee's mistake either, but in that case, it was a "technical error"--
the referee saw the incident, but mis-applied the rules. Again, not
what happened in the Ireland game.
Fr J. Hackett
wrote:
> No doubt it's a terrible way to lose but I think the Irish FA have
> overreacted to this whole incident by asking for the match to be
> replayed. Because the incident happened in the box and led to a goal.
> There are countless outfield incidents that happen in a match which
> could have similar consequences but they people don't shout & scream
> for replays about them.
>
> Part of the excitement of the game is the element of human error. You
> accept that when you go into it.
The Irish economy, which is already one of the worst recession hit
economies in Europe, stands to miss out on an awful lot money that
would
have been generated in television sales, alcohol sales etc etc due to
three
appalling decisions - offside, handball and handball.
Yes Ireland did miss chances to make it 2:0 prior to that and yes,
Ireland may not have won a penalty shoot out but the possible
subsequent
financial windfall had RoI qualified I think does merit their
government
getting at least mildly pissed off. It was pure and simple cheating
which FIFA's
website match report, at no point, mentioned when I read it after the
match.
Maybe it suits them that France made it through?
People still mention "Hand of God" twenty three years later so I think
the Irish are entitled to whinge about what happened last Wednesday.
fr.
Halmyre
says...
> "yaffle53" <jeff53....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8c676b6a-c282-4d92...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20 nov, 08:51, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes; for example, Maradona's "Hand of God" incident.
> >
> > I think we should replay that game with the same players. Maradona is
> > so fat now that I doubt he could jump that high again, even against a
> > 60 year old Peter Shilton.
>
>
> And the 1966 World Cup Final while we're at it.
>
Oh, yes, forgot all about that. Those poor Germans...
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
m...@nildram.co.uk
<{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So if American football and tennis can do it - and Formula One also has
>stewards enquiries after a race with penalties being applied, TV
>footage/telemetry being scrutinised and drivers interviewed - then
>football should do it too. Looks as if it'll have to be dragged kicking
>and screaming into the 21st century though as it doesn't seem to be
>adopting technology willingly enough.
Most of the sports that have adopted tv review naturally have stop -
start play. American football takes about 4 hours for 60 minutes
play, tennis has the ball in play for less than half the time.
Football does take into account tv footage in disciplinary hearings
afterwards. Formula One has descended into farce where you don't know
who won until 3 days later.
Sofa - Spud
Take up Running! first one over the line wins everytime!
pete
Until the results of the drug tests are released, or you move outside
your lane.
Jeff Lawrence
> >Formula One has descended into farce where you don't know
> >who won until 3 days later.
>
> Untrue.
Well, I didn't know who had won the last GP until a week later. Mind
you, I'm not a big motor racing fan.
Cheers
Jeff
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
MMA! No arguing with a submission or a knockout.
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
m...@nildram.co.uk
<{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <8bjeg5hpq6q43bqhh...@4ax.com>, m...@nildram.co.uk wrote:
>>Most of the sports that have adopted tv review naturally have stop -
>>start play. American football takes about 4 hours for 60 minutes
>>play, tennis has the ball in play for less than half the time.
>>Football does take into account tv footage in disciplinary hearings
>>afterwards.
>So why aren't they replaying this game then?
Because it's totally impractical, if they do it for this game every
time there was a bad decision they would have have a review of the
footage and a replay. All the players have clubs to play for (the
people who pay their wages) and there would be fixture congestion
across europe. It would be even worse if it happened in the finals,
if there is no time for playoffs in the groups there is no time for
replays.
>>Formula One has descended into farce where you don't know
>>who won until 3 days later.
>Untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7627941.stm
and many other cases.
Marlon
> "yaffle53" <jeff53....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8c676b6a-c282-4d92...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On 20 nov, 08:51, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes; for example, Maradona's "Hand of God" incident.
>>
>>
>> I think we should replay that game with the same players. Maradona is
>> so fat now that I doubt he could jump that high again, even against a
>> 60 year old Peter Shilton.
>
>
> And the 1966 World Cup Final while we're at it.
Seen that - happened in 1986 at Elland Road (20th Anniversary y'see),
with as many of the original players as were still able - England won
that one as well, and not a Russian linesman in sight :)
Marlon
yaffle53
> Seen that - happened in 1986 at Elland Road (20th Anniversary y'see),
> with as many of the original players as were still able - England won
> that one as well, and not a Russian linesman in sight :)
Not quite, you were 1 year out!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/sports_talk/ask_albert/2865527.stm
Cheers
Jeff
Marlon
Dang - that's ageing memory for you (that was half my life ago).
I'd even forgotten why it was held - I lived in Leeds for 2 years, and
of course was there at the time of the Bradford fire - local TV
interrupted broadcasting to show live coverage of people on fire -
images that have stuck with me for obvious reasons.
But anyway, my recollection of Ingerland sticking it to the Germans
again was that it was a very enjoyable game :)
Marlon