FAI’s lodged a complaint, asking for a replay. Fifa’s saying they havn’t lodged a complaint.
I presume you’re just being a WUM but Keane was calledc for a number of handballs which is common for a striker with his back to the goal. Further, several of the calls were marginal and none of the incidents were anywhere close to what Henry did.
Bixente Lizarazu is quoted as saying that he will not be celebtrating. It was a cheap, petty way for a supposedly superior team to go through. The better team lost.
For the play to be a violation of the Law, Henry has to have “deliberately handle[d]” the ball. Unintentionally touching the ball with your hand/arm is not a foul. This is often shortened to “ball to arm”.
When a hand has touched a ball, since the hand is such a small target, and the first thing we instinctively use to control objects, the obvious first approximation conclusion is to assume that the player deliberately caused his hand to touch the ball. In the absence of really clear indications that the ball simply smacked into the hand without the player having attempted to make that happen, the referee will generally conclude that a hand touching a ball was done deliberately, and award the foul.
When a ball strikes an arm, the arm being a much larger target than just the hand, and given that the average person doesn’t try to control objects with his arm, there is generally less willingness to leap to the conclusion that the contact was deliberate. In the absence of some evidence that the arm either moved out to get in the way of the ball, or that the player was able to manipulate the ball into a good location with the arm, the contact will often be attributed to the luck of the situation.
Here, Henry touches the ball not once, but TWICE with his hand. Even if we were to assume that the first was the result of the ball simply coming through to where he was by surprise and hitting his hand, the second touching is clearly done to control the position of the ball for the cross to Gallas. There wasn’t anything “ball-to-hand” about it.
THAT is what people are complaining about. :smack:
I thought the French believed that maintaining one’s honor was more important than winning?
Cite: BBC NEWS | World | Europe | French forgive as Zidane explains
Edit: Actually that is a bad cite. But I distinctly remember some in France saying that they supported Zidane for defending his honor even if it meant losing.
So two offsides and two hand balls in 10 seconds and none of them are called? Ouch.
Well, in fairness, both of the offside players were on the same kick, and they were marginally offside at best. That sort of thing happens all the time; it’s relatively irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Deliberately handling the ball inside the goal area to allow a nice easy pass to an open teammate for a winning header: much more rare, thankfully.
Do you people who call this cheating consider intentional fouls in basketball cheating?
Intentional fouls in basketball are penalized. The goal is not to gain a surreptitious advantage against the rules, but to strategically accept a penalty in order to stop the clock.
It’s only cheating if you’re trying to get away with it.
It’s fundamentally different to a intentional foul in basketball. The whole point of the intentional foul is to get caught. That is breaking the rules, and taking the penalty. This, however, is breaking the rules in a very different way.
It’s cheating, but as I said, I blame the refs more. I’ve been caught handling the ball multiple times, deliberately and more instinctively. I’ve committed ‘professional’ fouls, and sometimes been booked, occasionally sent off. But incompetence by referees ruins the game much more.
Handballs are also penalized, and both are intentionally breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage.
The point of a handball is to get away with it. The point of a deliberate foul in basketball is to get caught. That makes them fundamentally different.
Yes, but Henry wasn’t doing it with the intention of accepting the penalty. He was trying to get away with it. It isn’t cheating if you’re willing to take your medicine.
Has “Der Kaiser” weighed in on this yet?
Thanks
Q
ETA: From what I just heard on NPR, there won’t be a replay, since it was a judgemental error, not one of the rules (errors).
The equivalent in soccer of the “intentional foul” would be the “professional foul,” fouling to stop an attack likely to succeed. This sort of foul is not cheating, and isn’t even considered a “bad” thing by most people, as long as it isn’t done with the intent to injure the player in the process. The defensive player knows he’ll be cautioned, or maybe even sent off, but accomplishes the goal of not allowing a goal.
Here, Henry did not blatantly handle the ball in an attempt to get whistled for the violation of Law 12. He attempted to subtly handle the ball in the hope that it would go unnoticed, allowing him to obtain exactly what he got: a perfect pass to his unmarked teammate in front of the goal. The fact that he would have been willing to be whistled for the foul if seen is irrelevant.
Okay. Does anyone call a basketball player who gets away with an UNINTENTIONAL foul a cheater? You’d have to call pretty much anyone who has ever played basketball a cheater. Nobody calls every hockey player who gets away with a bit of a hook a cheater. Nobody says an offensive lineman who gets a little hold here and there without drawing a flag is a cheater. It’s assumed to be the responsibility of the officials to call it.
The officials deserve 100% of the criticism here. Unfortunately, Ireland’s fucked.
I’ve got to disagree with that.
But Henry’s foul was intentional. It just isn’t the same as a basketball intentional foul. Henry, on purpose and in full knowledge of what he was doing, broke the rules so as to gain an advantage, an advantage that set up a goal that was pretty much unmissable and ended up knocking Ireland out of the World Cup qualifiers. That is cheating.
For what it is worth, an intentional handball is considered to be an automatic booking offence.
It is like tampering the ball in cricket or baseball. Or, I dunno I am not an expert in the sport, intentionally playing the ball with your foot in basketball so the oppositional loses control.
FIFA or UEFA cant really, by the rules, force a replay.
However, France can do the sporting thing and offer a replay. There is precedent here, at least in England. An FA Cup game between Arsenal and Sheffield United was replayed after Arsenal won due to a goal scored when Arsenal kicked the ball back to Sheffield United after United had kicked it out due to an injury. The Arsenal player Kanu took the ball that was intended to be left for a Sheffield United player and set up a goal.
The thing is, by the law Arsenal did nothing wrong. Returning the ball to the team that kicked it out is a convention born out of sportsmanship, but it is not written in law. By the rules of the game Arsenal won, but they still offered Sheffield United a replay as the manner in which they won went against the spirit of the game.
Interestingly, one of France’s players from yesterday was in that Arsenal team on that day (although he didn’t play, he stayed on the bench): Anelka.
You can read a little bit about that game here:
100%? Honestly? I disagree with that view point. The officials just can’t see everything - and this is obviously a case of them not seeing it, not of them misinterpreting what they saw. This could happen (and has happened) to the best of referees. The players are subject to the rules and if they are in violation of them *they *should be criticized even if it may be understandable that they are willing to break the rules (and maybe even suffer the consequences in certain circumstances) to achieve something. It’s their violation, and its the violation of the rules that counts, not whether it is seen and punished by authority.
Either way, as you say, the Irish are fucked - but then again, it’s not as though they were winning. They would still have had to either score a goal of their own or beat the French in penalty kicks. It’s harsh, but if they’d scored a second goal in regular time, they wouldn’t be in this position in the first place.
What are you disagreeing with? With DSYoungEsq’s assessment of public opinion re: ‘necessary fouls’ (in which case: cite?) or with the people saying that those necessary fouls are OK as long as no one gets hurt?