Sad day for football - Henry the biggest ever cheat
Diabolik
The ref had time to consult with the linesman, and also ask Henry.
How could Henry live with himself??? He's would have to be the biggest cheat
in football history.
It's really sickening.
JohnB
Sickening, yes, but Henry the biggest ever cheat for this? Hardly.
There are hundreds if not thousands of players who would have done the
same in that situation. I saw it on tv: in real time the whole
incident (ball to hand and pass on to Gallas) took maybe a second. Did
Henry deny what he'd done? Did he gloat over it? It was cheating, yes,
but the scale of it has been magnified due to the importance of the
result. There are plenty of examples of cheating in football that are
worse than that, the most obvious high-profile one being Maradonna's
"Hand of God" goal.
Paul C
<johnsong...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>There are plenty of examples of cheating in football that are
>worse than that, the most obvious high-profile one being Maradonna's
>"Hand of God" goal.
How as it worse than Henry's blatant cheating?
JohnB
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:13:29 -0800 (PST), JohnB
>
> >There are plenty of examples of cheating in football that are
> >worse than that, the most obvious high-profile one being Maradonna's
> >"Hand of God" goal.
>
The intent (pre-meditated), the gloating. At least Henry sounded "un
petit" sorry.
And how would the French have treated him if he had owned up to the
referee at the time and the goal been chalked off, especially if
France had subsequently lost the penalty shoot out?
Ok, it was still cheating. But I still say it's the effect (deciding
who qualifies for the WCF) rather than the incident that is bringing
the wrath on Henry.
Clément
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:13:29 -0800 (PST), JohnB wrote:
> >There are plenty of examples of cheating in football that are
> >worse than that, the most obvious high-profile one being Maradonna's
> >"Hand of God" goal.
>
> How as it worse than Henry's blatant cheating?
It's not. But at least he was straightforward about it (according to a
few RSS posts, I didn't see it yet), and did not blame "La Main de
Dieu" or something like that.
None of this make what Henry did right. Not the fact that others have
done the same before, nor the fact that he admitted it. And yeah, I do
appreciate him less today than I did yesterday.
It doesn't make him Satan, however, and doesn't make it the sole
culprit for all football problems.
Refereeing mistakes are a huge problem, which should be seriously
tackled by the powers that be. Mistakes will always exist, but as it
is there are too many IMO.
Until effective measures are taken, every once in a while some time
will be screwed. Sometimes it will happen in a high profile match like
yesterday's, which is an embarrassment to the sport.
Ultimately, such embarrassment is not Henry's fault. He is guilty of
deliberately handling the ball in that specific match, but he is not
guilty that the goal stood and nothing will be done about it.
Some might call for a disciplinary suspension to Henry. I would be all
for it, as long as such punishments are consistently applied to every
player that gets away with cheating on the field.
I don't believe it's going to happen because: 1) the powers that be
are not particularly inclined to admit there's a problem, and 2) the
powers that be don't seem to be particularly inclined to properly
enforce such things.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
>
> Until effective measures are taken, every once in a while some time
> will be screwed.
I meant "every once in a while some TEAM will be screwed".
My apologies.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Abubakr
Agreed. They need to have more referee's assistants at the game. Two
on each side of either goal at a minimum.
Lord of War
It's very simple. FIFA wanted France in at any cost. Unfortunately,
Ireland was the team playing France yesterday. FIFA has cheated. As
for Henry..... well form Zidane to Henry..... we now see what kind of
people the french are. No wonder the Nazis easily ran france over in
the war. They are a weak dishonest people.
Enzo
Sickening is a strong word. I will reserve it for more
serious things. Like Qaddafi being hosted by Berlusconi.
Doing whatever you can to win in sports is the modern
way of life. Not just in sports, but in everything.
metaperl.com
> How could Henry live with himself??? He's would have to be the biggest cheat
> in football history.
Add to that his marital cheating - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article351224.ece
Bob
"Diabolik" <Diab...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:CE9Nm.55920$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
just as sickening as Materazzi in WC06, yet you won't admit to it.
how can you live with yourself, troll?
Abubakr
> Quoting Abubakr in rec.sport.soccer:
>
> >Agreed. They need to have more referee's assistants at the game. Two
> >on each side of either goal at a minimum.
>
>
> |-----HeadRe1--------------------|
> | |
> | | AssRe1
> | Ball |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | HeadRe2 |
> | |
> | |
> |--------------------------------|
> AssRe2 | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> |--------------------------------|
>
> AssReX: Same responsibilities as now.
>
> HeadReY: In the above scenario HeadRe1 has special responsibility to look
> for cheap shots in the box, and for if the ball is over the goal line.
> HeadRe2 basically has the same responsibilities as now.
>
> Of course, when the ball is on the other side they switch roles
> symmetrically.
>
> --
> MANCHESTER UNITED FC
> CHAMPIONS
> ENGLAND & THE WORLD
There needs to be another one on the other side too. To make good
decisions refs need to be in the right place in timely fashion, no
good having extra officials if they are chasing the play.
SHUSSBAR
+1- Thanks
SHUSSBAR
> On Nov 19, 6:06 am, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
> > This would have to be one of the most sadest days in football history.
>
> > The ref had time to consult with the linesman, and also ask Henry.
>
> > How could Henry live with himself??? He's would have to be the biggest cheat
> > in football history.
>
> > It's really sickening.
>
> the war.
They did not have have that problem with Italy for sure
ken.o...@gmail.com
>
> There needs to be another one on the other side too. To make good
> decisions refs need to be in the right place in timely fashion, no
> good having extra officials if they are chasing the play.
They just need a frigging video review already.
ixion martin - GdBx
> On Nov 19, 8:42ï¿œam, Lord of War <penc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 6:06ï¿œam, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This would have to be one of the most sadest days in
>>> football history. The ref had time to consult with the
>>> linesman, and also ask Henry. How could Henry live with
>>> himself??? He's would have to be the biggest cheat in
>>> football history.
>>
>>> It's really sickening.
>> No wonder the Nazis easily ran france over in
>> the war.
>
> They did not have have that problem with Italy for sure
Italians were not able to cross the Alps while French were in
panic in 1940 lol.
--
Ixion
Contre une ï¿œquipe ï¿œtrangï¿œre, quand on dit diplomatiquement que
l'arbitre n'est pas dans un bon soir, c'est toujours le club
franï¿œais
qui morfle.
En sï¿œlection, c'est parfois l'inverse.
Diabolik
"Bob" <B...@Bob.com> wrote in message
news:7mlrlnF...@mid.individual.net...
lol. How did Materazzi cheat?
He unfairly got sentoff against Australia.
Hwe got head butted by Zidane...lol/
Alkamista
wrote:
<begin sarcasm>
Gasp! How undemocratic and non-traditional of you! Football is perfect
the way it is, we dont need to change anything.
<end sarcasm>
Abubakr
wrote:
Why video when enough eyes in the right places can do the job and
more? Human referees can also say "PLAY ON", that very important idea
in football which videos cannot do.
In fact, the referee behind the corner lines on the far side from the
assistant ref is in a perfect position to rule on decisions such as
this and a myriad of other in-the-box scenarios.
The pitch is simply too large for just three officials, need at least
5. If with those 5 or more there are still major problems then video
can be brought in and the end of football in a couple of years in its
wake.
There's no friggin video ref in basketball. Why? Because there are
enough of them for the size of the court.
Abubakr
> down the field together, just like in handball (and basketball). HeadRe1
> would have caught Henry with a red. And if it happened on the other side,
> AssRe1 would (should!) have seen it (if not HeadRe1).
>
> --
> MANCHESTER UNITED FC
> CHAMPIONS
> ENGLAND & THE WORLD
It's too far for them to travel and be there at the right time. The
ball simply moves too quickly. How is he going judge whether the ball
crosses the goal line if he ain't on the line himself? Badly, that's
how.
p.s. what's this bullshit about red cards for Henry? He handled the
ball, it ain't a red card offence unless it was to prevent a certain
goal, simple as that.
Abubakr
No I don't. Can you guarantee that one of these refs will be on the
corner line when a ball across-the-line incident happens?
> >p.s. what's this bullshit about red cards for Henry? He handled the
> >ball, it ain't a red card offence unless it was to prevent a certain
> >goal, simple as that.
>
> The second handling => red card. "serious foul play".
It's not serious foul play at all. It's simply a handball. Free kick
and nothing more. If the handball stops the opposition from a play at
goal then cards should come into play, not otherwise.
Abubakr
> Quoting Abubakr in rec.sport.soccer:
>
> >No I don't. Can you guarantee that one of these refs will be on the
> >corner line when a ball across-the-line incident happens?
>
>
> --
> MANCHESTER UNITED FC
> CHAMPIONS
> ENGLAND & THE WORLD
Yes. The scheme with two officials permanently on the corner line
guarantees an official will be on the line. What you propose one does
not and is therefor flawed.
Abubakr
> situation.
No but it's still a bit of a half measure.
> Your suggestion adds twice the cost that mine do, while it adds very little
> benefit in the end, I'm sure.
>
> --
> MANCHESTER UNITED FC
> CHAMPIONS
> ENGLAND & THE WORLD
Funny you should say that when the two most obviously bad decisions in
the UEFA play-offs would almost certainly have been rectified by an
official positioned behind the boundaries at the ends of the pitch,
namely the Henry handball and the lousy sending off of the Russian
forward, when your suggestion cannot guarantee that one of the
official would have been in the right spot.
Again, the flaw in your scheme is that it allows for both head
referees to still be behind the play when what is needed is really
someone already ahead of the play to look at an incident from
different angle and proximity.
As to costs, I'm sure all the major competitions can accommodate
them.
Clément
> On 20 Nov, 10:52, "ken.over...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > They just need a frigging video review already.
>
> Why video when enough eyes in the right places can do the job and
> more? Human referees can also say "PLAY ON", that very important idea
> in football which videos cannot do.
The existence of video reviews does not preclude the referee's
prerogative of letting play continue.
In fact, stopping play all the time to check a video would be a very
poor implementation of video replay help in football. It doesn't mean,
however, that it shouldn't be done, or that it isn't useful.
You may be right in that a couple of additional refs in the right
spots might be a superior solution. That's open for debate.
The important thing to realize is: neither solution is a panacea, nor
will end all refereeing controversy. And every proposed solution
should be carefully specified and thoroughly tested.
What I would like to see, at first, is something being done to bring
to a minimum errors that should be fairly simple to avoid.
For example: did the ball cross the line? Was <player X> offside? Such
are calls that are based on objective criteria, meaning that's very
little or no excuse to get them wrong. Worse, there's little or no
excuse to have matches decided because of wrong calls in such clean-
cut situations.
Plus, many of these calls already involve some sort of play stoppage
anyway, so it shouldn't be hard to have someone communicate to the
referee he should overturn his call (the field call stands by default,
unless there's definitive evidence to the contrary). Video or no
video.
Then, there are the judgment, interpretative calls. These are more
difficult to deal with, and maybe can't be improved at all in some
cases.
But to have objective, clear-cut calls validated by further help would
be already a huge improvement to the sport. Or at least to its
integrity.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Abubakr
Video evidence is useful when a goal has been scored and made to stand
there's now a natural stoppage where a review of the footage can
determine the lack of any funny business like offsides or some other
blatant infringement, etc.
The problem with video evidence for ball crossing the line is that the
ref might have waved play on and then when do you stop to check? When
the other team goes over the other end and scores? Or the coach
demands a replay only to then find out that the ball had not crossed
the line and the ref was right but you've now stopped play.
Plus what happens to the masses of offsides that don't get called but
don't result directly in a goal either?
And not every game is televised to the same standard. Some camera work
is pretty bad.
More referees is the place to start from, IMO. I'm sure a lot of bad
decisions or non decisions that happen now can be eliminated with more
referees on the pitch so long as the guidelines are well thought out
and implemented.
Clément
>
> The problem with video evidence for ball crossing the line is that the
> ref might have waved play on and then when do you stop to check? When
> the other team goes over the other end and scores? Or the coach
> demands a replay only to then find out that the ball had not crossed
> the line and the ref was right but you've now stopped play.
>
> Plus what happens to the masses of offsides that don't get called but
> don't result directly in a goal either?
Just to clarify, I don't claim to have all this stuff figured out. I
just wanted to say that:
1) I'm a 100% in favor of some kind of help for referees, because they
can't compete with a billion cameras and because the amount of errors
as we have today hurt the integrity of the game;
2) No solution (i.e. video reviews vs. additional refs) solves all
problems or is superior to the other in every situation;
3) Regardless of the solution, it must be well specified and tested
(this is obvious, but it doesn't hurt to remember that dodgy and/or
convoluted new regulations could create more problems than they solve
in the first place);
4) I would begin with those calls that are (or should be) clear-cut,
due to their objective nature.
> And not every game is televised to the same standard. Some camera work
> is pretty bad.
I have no issue with using video help just for competitions where
appropriate camera infrastructure is economically viable.
Granted, this is not ideal, in the sense that we would like to have
all professional/official matches played by the same rules.
However, I believe that having video help (assuming video help is a
good solution in the first place) only in higher-stake competitions
would be better than not having it at all.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Abubakr
> overpowering yours, and you try to convince yourself my suggestion won't
> work.
I think you're too hung up with your suggestions and can't see its
obvious flaws let alone take in someone pointing it out to you. It's
not without merit but a number of very common occurrences in football
will highlight its failings. E.g. the tear away break. One ref is on
the end line and one loitering just outside the box when the defending
team intercepts the ball and quickly play it out to their forwards at
the halfway line and now both referees are behind the play (one
hopelessly so) and we're back to square one.
> Henry WOULD have been caught,
Yes if he were to be behind the line in front of the incident at the
time.
that Russian I can't tell since I haven't
> seen the sit.
Happened in almost the same position as Henry's handball except that
it was from open play and I doubt very much if in your scheme the
extra ref would have been in a better position than the normal ref was
there.
MH
Abubakr wrote:
> On 20 Nov, 18:22, anders t <anthu_001@no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quoting Abubakr in rec.sport.soccer:
>>
>>
>>>It's too far for them to travel and be there at the right time. The
>>>ball simply moves too quickly. How is he going judge whether the ball
>>>crosses the goal line if he ain't on the line himself? Badly, that's
>>>how.
>>
>>You just don't understand.
>
>
> No I don't. Can you guarantee that one of these refs will be on the
> corner line when a ball across-the-line incident happens?
>
>
>>>p.s. what's this bullshit about red cards for Henry? He handled the
>>>ball, it ain't a red card offence unless it was to prevent a certain
>>>goal, simple as that.
>>
>>The second handling => red card. "serious foul play".
>
>
> It's not serious foul play at all. It's simply a handball. Free kick
> and nothing more.
It is invariably a yellow card in a situation like that. Unsportsmanlike
behaviour is a yellow. See Berti WC 1990 for a similar example.
Abubakr
The reason why it's a yellow card worthy offence now is precisely
because he might get away with it, like a dive, i.e. as a deterrent.
Inherently, a handball by an attacking player is not a severe breach
worthy of cautions or sending offs.
When there are more officials on the ground the chances of getting
away with a handball such as that will be greatly reduced, hence no
need to brandish yellows. Dives might still be deserving of cards as
they are more difficult to judge, IMO.
higgs
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apart from disagreeing with most of your reasoning anyway,
as a defender, I fail to see why forwards should get away scott-free
over incidences of blatant cheating, when defenders run a very real
risk of a send off..
It's not just enough to say 'oh, if we catch you, we'll disallow the
goal'.
What is there to dissuade them from attempting to cheat if they know
that there are no sanctions for doing it?
They have nothing to lose.
It's unsportsmanlike behavoiur; yellow card.
And yes, I'm a ref too.
HASM
> They should add one more head ref.
> |-----HeadRe1--------------------|
> | | AssRe1
> | Ball |
> | HeadRe2 |
> |--------------------------------|
> AssRe2 | |
> |--------------------------------|
Some high school soccer games in the USA are run that way, albeit without
the AssRe1/2. It gets very interesting when HeadRe1/2 disagree and when
they don't call something they saw because the other HeadRe didn't call it
and was closer.
-- HASM