...and what is it with supposed 'superstars' disgracing themselves with blatant cheating?
- Maradona...Hand of God
- Rivaldo...false assassination
- Zidane...Headbutt
- Henry...handballs
- Cristiano Ronaldo...every time he takes to the pitch
Leave Zidane out of it. :v ) His headbutt wasn't *cheating, plus IMO it was perfectly appropiate considering the circumstances. (If anything, Materazzi who milked it for all it was worth, was the one who cheated.)
*Even if one hated what he did, I don't think that one could classify it as cheating. Did he break the rules? Yes, but it wasn't deceptive conduct desingned to falsely engineer an advantage. He just lost his temper.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I'd quite like to see France v Algeria. That could be very interesting.
Are you speaking solely of the obvious historical links between the two nations, or do you think that Algeria would be likely to come to Ireland's aid and get revenge against France?
The history between these two would turn this game into a powderkeg. It would be must-see TV.
The history between these two would turn this game into a powderkeg. It would be must-see TV.
Absolutely. However after what they did to Ireland, I just want someone, anyone, to get revenge against them.
FIFA has announced that it won't be granting a replay. They've done it before, but whatever; the least they could do however is to ban Henry for the entire tournament. He deserves nothing less. X-(
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Leave Zidane out of it. :v ) His headbutt wasn't *cheating, plus IMO it was perfectly appropiate considering the circumstances. (If anything, Materazzi who milked it for all it was worth, was the one who cheated.) *Even if one hated what he did, I don't think that one could classify it as cheating. Did he break the rules? Yes, but it wasn't deceptive conduct desingned to falsely engineer an advantage. He just lost his temper.
Fair enough, I concede that I should not have said 'cheating'....perhaps 'falling from grace' or 'acting inappropriately'. I know Zidane had a great career, but if I was French (or if he was English), I would never be able to forgive him for an act of selfish petulance that arguably cost them the World Cup. Beckham was provoked by Simeone in 1998 and rightfully red carded - even though Simeone made as much of a meal of it as Materazzi did with Zidane - yet few English ever condoned Beckham's selfish petulance in that match even though it sent us out of the tournament. He has made amends for it since then, but there's no question that his lack of self-discipline was hugely costly to England. Yet the French seem to shrug when Zidane's headbutt is mentioned.
That said, full credit to the French this time who seem genuinely embarrassed or at least uncomfortable with the way they qualified. The villains here are Henry for a deliberate handball (and don't give me the 'it was an involuntary reaction' as that would only be true if he'd handled it once...not twice); the linesman for inexplicably not seeing it; the referee for not even consulting his linesman even though the Irish were clearly and unanimously irate about something; and FIFA who as always when it comes to matters that involve large sums of money, do not do the right thing.
the least they could do however is to ban Henry for the entire tournament. He deserves nothing less. X-(
A tad strong don't you think ?
Why not clap him in stocks outside Croke Park and invite the whole of Ireland to throw rotting veg at him ?
Or better still, simply amputate his left hand.
To ban him from the entire tournament is ludicrous - you would then have to ban EVERY player whom did something that wasn't legal. I wanted to say 'cheated' but you don't appear level that charge against him.
What Henry did was 'instinctive' - absolutely against the rules, but an 'instinctive' action none-the-less. The referee and linesmen, plus the 4th official, didn't spot it - so you can blame them too.
I'd LOVE to hear what Michel Platini has to say on this matter - has he made a comment on this anywhere ?
the least they could do however is to ban Henry for the entire tournament. He deserves nothing less. X-(
A tad strong don't you think ?
Why not clap him in stocks outside Croke Park and invite the whole of Ireland to throw rotting veg at him ?
Or better still, simply amputate his left hand.
Can we do that? :v )(I like the idea of throwing rotten veg at him. )
In all seriousness I was probably being overly harsh. I don't much like the French team, and also Henry has form. In the 2006 World Cup, he elevated diving to an art form. In this incident he violated the fundamental law of the sport (don't use your hands) and in the process denied Ireland a World Cup spot. It also disappoints me when sportsmen cheat (such as Agassi tanking at the 1996 Australian Open, which whilst not cheating was IMO completely unforgivable), especially when it involves a prize such as World Cup selection. But, yes, when I said he should be banned for the entire tournament, I was probably being more extreme than the situation called for. Although if he were to be suspended for the group stage, it could very well be France's entire tournament.
To ban him from the entire tournament is ludicrous - you would then have to ban EVERY player whom did something that wasn't legal.
I do think that he should be suspended, but probably not for the entire tournament. Maybe two matches, but ideally three; I do think that what he did does deserve some kind of penalty, and the penalty should involve him missing at least part of the World Cup.
I want to add as well that IMO what he did was worse than many other forms of illegal behaviour. The reason being, that using hands goes against the fundamental nature of the the sport. Diving, on the other hand, is utilised in numerous other sports (in Australian football it's called staging for a free kick), and arguably doesn't violate the fundamental nature of the sport in the same way as using hands. Assaulting a fellow player and using performance enhancing drugs are the two things which would disappoint me as much (or more than) a player using his hands. However, both are relatively rare in soccer.
What Henry did was 'instinctive' - absolutely against the rules, but an 'instinctive' action none-the-less.
The problem is that he did it twice. If he had done it once, then yes, I would agree that it was instictive. But not if he did it twice. Plus, the second time he did it, he handled it with a cupped hand. I would therefore argue that it was deliberate.
The referee and linesmen, plus the 4th official, didn't spot it - so you can blame them too.
Actually, I think that if anyone should take responsibility, it's FIFA who refuses to utilise video replays, and who refuses to punish Henry.
That said, why does it matter whether or not the referee and linesmen saw the handballs? It doesn't change what Henry did. Henry's cheating shouldn't be lessened because the officials didn't see it or do anything about it, especially since ny not penalising him, FIFA is essentially saying that you can cheat as much as you want to, and as long as you don't get caught, nothing will happen to you.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
I want to add as well that IMO what he did was worse than many other forms of illegal behaviour. The reason being, that using hands goes against the fundamental nature of the the sport. Diving, on the other hand, is utilised in numerous other sports (in Australian football it's called staging for a free kick), and arguably doesn't violate the fundamental nature of the sport in the same way as using hands.
What if a player dives and not only gets a penalty kick but also gets the defender sent off ? I'd argue that that is even worse.
The problem is that he did it twice. If he had done it once, then yes, I would agree that it was instictive. But not if he did it twice. Plus, the second time he did it, he handled it with a cupped hand. I would therefore argue that it was deliberate.
I still would argue that what Henry does is instinctive - it appears to be all one motion, as far as I can see anyway.
That said, why does it matter whether or not the referee and linesmen saw the handballs? It doesn't change what Henry did. Henry's cheating shouldn't be lessened because the officials didn't see it or do anything about it, especially since ny not penalising him, FIFA is essentially saying that you can cheat as much as you want to, and as long as you don't get caught, nothing will happen to you.
Of course it matters whether the match officials see the handball - if they had then the goal would have been ruled out, and this ridiculous 'knee-jerk' reaction by many people (ie. ban him from the World Cup) would be being talked about.
Has any player been penalised for an offence like this ? If they have, then Henry should be no different - if they haven't, then why make Henry a special case ?
Ngog dived for Liverpool last week to earn his team a penalty - I haven't heard anything about banning him ?
This game should ONLY be replayed if France STRONGLY appeal to FIFA to do so - and that won't happen, too much money is involved. There has NEVER been a game replayed because of a 'hand-ball' goal - and there is NO precedent for this. The match some people refer to was replayed because the referee made an incorrect decision - he gave a freekick when he should have had a penalty re-taken.
FIFA will look rather silly when Henry leads out the French team, as captain, and in front of him 4 people will carry a flag that bears the FIFA 'fair play' logo.
I want to add as well that IMO what he did was worse than many other forms of illegal behaviour. The reason being, that using hands goes against the fundamental nature of the the sport. Diving, on the other hand, is utilised in numerous other sports (in Australian football it's called staging for a free kick), and arguably doesn't violate the fundamental nature of the sport in the same way as using hands.
What if a player dives and not only gets a penalty kick but also gets the defender sent off ? I'd argue that that is even worse.
I certainly agree that would be terrible, and if it occured in a World Cup playoff, I would be extremely upset, but that's only a hypothetical. What Henry did in this situation was as bad IMO as what any other sportsman has done in years.
Of course it matters whether the match officials see the handball - if they had then the goal would have been ruled out, and this ridiculous 'knee-jerk' reaction by many people (ie. ban him from the World Cup) would be being talked about.
Has any player been penalised for an offence like this ? If they have, then Henry should be no different - if they haven't, then why make Henry a special case ?
Ngog dived for Liverpool last week to earn his team a penalty - I haven't heard anything about banning him ?
This game should ONLY be replayed if France STRONGLY appeal to FIFA to do so - and that won't happen, too much money is involved. There has NEVER been a game replayed because of a 'hand-ball' goal - and there is NO precedent for this. The match some people refer to was replayed because the referee made an incorrect decision - he gave a freekick when he should have had a penalty re-taken.
FIFA will look rather silly when Henry leads out the French team, as captain, and in front of him 4 people will carry a flag that bears the FIFA 'fair play' logo.
I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction to demand that he be banned for at least part of the World Cup, if only to send a message that what he did was completely unacceptable. There may not be a precedent, but FIFA should create one; afterall, they are the only ones really who can make precedent.
That said, I do agree that Henry's walking out with the 'fair play' logo in front of him will be extremely embarassing for all involved. :v )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
I want to add as well that IMO what he did was worse than many other forms of illegal behaviour. The reason being, that using hands goes against the fundamental nature of the the sport. Diving, on the other hand, is utilised in numerous other sports (in Australian football it's called staging for a free kick), and arguably doesn't violate the fundamental nature of the sport in the same way as using hands.
I certainly agree that would be terrible, and if it occured in a World Cup playoff, I would be extremely upset, but that's only a hypothetical. What Henry did in this situation was as bad IMO as what any other sportsman has done in years.
It's all about opinions Dan - so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
Again, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. ?:) I know it's not important, but could you elaborate on this statement?
Of course.
In your original post you didn't call Henry a 'cheat' so I didn't want to use that word when I replied to your post. I didn't want to be accused of 'putting words into your mouth'
It's all about opinions Dan - so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
No of course not. Nothing is as bad as violence. However I do think it is as bad as when Greg Chappell ordered Trevor Chappell to bowl an under-armed ball against New Zealand in a one-day cricket international in the early 1980's. It's probably the only situation where I feel sympathy for New Zealand.
Of course.
In your original post you didn't call Henry a 'cheat' so I didn't want to use that word when I replied to your post. I didn't want to be accused of 'putting words into your mouth'
Well, it's perfectly fine if you do so in this instance.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
Okay Dan, I'm glad that's all cleared up
Cricket ? Don't care - and I don't think bowling under-arm is illegal, is it ? It would be much better to put a time-bomb in the cricket ball, it may liven the game up a tad
I honestly don't think what Henry did was a deliberate act of cheating - against the rules certainly, but not a deliberate act. Another debate is "should he have come clean to the referee ?"
so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
Much worse. The Cantona kung-fu kick was quite funny. Henry's handball was just cheap. The only other player I can think of who has committed a double handball in a match is a certain Mr Vinnie Jones.
Cricket ? Don't care - and I don't think bowling under-arm is illegal, is it ?
Well, what happened was that he rolled it down the pitch. It wasn't simply that he bowled it underarm, but that he took away any chance that the batsman might have to meet the ball. As a result of what happened, it was since ruled illegal. (Incidentally the NZ PM condemned what happened. I completely agree with him on this. It was shameful. ;%)
I honestly don't think what Henry did was a deliberate act of cheating - against the rules certainly, but not a deliberate act. Another debate is "should he have come clean to the referee ?"
It's hard to say. I do think that he cheated; but if he had not done so, even if he had done something illegal, I think that only him can determine whether or not to tell the referee. The way I see it, cheating is different to other forms of immoral/unethical/illegal behaviour. If someone cheats, I don't have much sympathy for them. But if they engage in immoral/unethical/illegal behaviour but do not cheat (for example, refusing to walk when one is clearly out in cricket, even though the umpire did not see it, may be unethical but IMO is not cheating), then IMO only they can decide what to do about it. As I said, I do think that Henry cheated, but if it wasn't cheating, then it's up to him to determine what to do about it.
so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
Much worse. The Cantona kung-fu kick was quite funny. Henry's handball was just cheap. The only other player I can think of who has committed a double handball in a match is a certain Mr Vinnie Jones.
Sorry, that's one hand and double balls.
) )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
But that was the only way to stop Gascoigne back then...fast forward a few years, and Vinnie would have been better off waving a pint under his nose instead.
As for Henry, I'm more with Sir Miles on this. Henry's act was shabby, but more instinctive than anything else. I blame him less for the handball(s) itself than for celebrating Gallas's goal immediately afterward, all the while knowing what had happened. His contrition after the fact seems a bit manufactured in hindsight. At the end of the day, the officials simply cannot miss something like this, and if they do, there ought to be some role for instant replay.
Hilly...you old devil!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
Much worse. The Cantona kung-fu kick was quite funny.
Try telling that to the woman he smashed in the face with his studs - yes, VERY funny !
And a good point there Dan - not cheating but unethical. Sir Hilly is right too - Henry's contrition did seem manufactured.
I still don't think that Ireland should be given a replay - the match officials just didn't see what happened, they did not make an incorrect decision based upon the rules of that game - they just didn't see it.
NOW !
Liverpool had EVERY right to ask for a replay of their game against Sunderland where Darren Bent's shot was deflected in via a beachball. The match officials DID make an incorrect decision based upon the rules of the game - ie. they allowed the goal to stand when the rules state the 'goal' should have been disallowed. Liverpool didn't make any request to replay the game whatsoever.
Try telling that to the woman he smashed in the face with his studs - yes, VERY funny !
I'm pretty sure Cantona lamped a fat guy who was giving him abuse.
Nah - he tried and missed.
It was a woman he hit in the face with his studs. Although why it makes any difference how fat the guy was I don't know And it's still not funny.
Which takes me on to another pet-peeve of mine and football crowds - why is it ok for the crowd to hurl verbal abuse at a player and the second he gives it back (or kisses his badge in front of them or celebrates a goal in front of them) they complain to the Police ??? These morons need to grow up ! X-(
Try telling that to the woman he smashed in the face with his studs - yes, VERY funny !
I'm pretty sure Cantona lamped a fat guy who was giving him abuse.
Nah - he tried and missed.
It was a woman he hit in the face with his studs. Although why it makes any difference how fat the guy was I don't know And it's still not funny.
I didn't mean to imply the guy deserved it because he was fat. Just pointing it out it was a man Cantona made contact with. Here's the video. If that is a woman he hits I am never going on a date wherever Crystal Palace is.
Cantona clearly gets him in the stomach and follows up with a punch. There's a woman standing next to the tube but if she gets more than a bit of mud in her curly hair then I am Gary Neville's favourite jockstrap.
And Cantona's kick is nowhere near as funny as Peter Schmeichel's jersey in that clip. It is horrendous. I wonder if he wore it just to distract the opposition.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
I didn't mean to imply the guy deserved it because he was fat. Just pointing it out it was a man Cantona made contact with.
Cantona clearly gets him in the stomach and follows up with a punch. There's a woman standing next to the tube but if she gets more than a bit of mud in her curly hair then I am Gary Neville's favourite jockstrap.
I'm pretty sure the woman filed some complaint for ABH against Cantona and he was found guilty.
Heh-ho - still not funny anyway.
Gary Neville doesn't live too far away from me (my father knows his father), next time I see him I'll let him know where his favourite jockstrap is )
What a great draw for the US! {[] I have no illusions that we'll finish ahead of England, but I would much rather be grouped with Algeria and Slovenia than most of the other options.
Some other thoughts:
[list=*]
[*]If there's a Group of Death, for me it's Group G -- Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, North Korea. North Korea are going nowhere (except back to Pyongyang) but a very good side from among the other three will be going home early. Ivory Coast had the worst luck of anyone today.[/*]
[*]Most wide-open group for me is Group D -- Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana. I'm not sold at all on the Germans. The Serbs are my surprise package this year. Ghana, while lacking strike power, will always be tough. And the Socceroos may look like underdogs on paper, but they escaped group play four years ago and were unlucky not to advance to the final 8.[/*]
[*]In contrast to the Ivory Coast, the sun shone on Italy today. What a crap group, perfect for a bunch of old men to get rested up for the knockout rounds. I'm not sure New Zealand will score a single goal, although I will certainly be hoping they surprise everyone.[/*]
[*]France gets drawn with South Africa -- cue further Irish rage and conspiracy theorists.[/*]
[/list]
Can't wait until June!
What a great draw for the US! {[] I have no illusions that we'll finish ahead of England, but I would much rather be grouped with Algeria and Slovenia than most of the other options.
I'm glad you're happy, :v I can't say I'm too enthused with Australia's draw.
1)Brazil are certainties to make the second round; they've failed to make it past the Group Stage just twice, they're Brazil, they boast some of the best players in the world including Kaka and Ronaldinho, I can't imagine Portugal or Ivory Coast being a fatal threat to their title hopes and they're Brazil. I can't really pick between Portugal and Ivory Coast, however Portugal has historically performed alot better at the World Cup, and they've got probably the world's best player in Ronaldo.
2)Group D is indeed pretty open. I'm not sure why you aren't convinced about Germany; they have never been eliminated in the Group Stage in 16 World Cups, they came third in 2006, and they were runners-up at Euro 2008. I would expect them to finish first in the group. Hopefully Australia can finish second, but Serbia has beaten France and Ghana are pretty good.
3)I would love for New Zealand to make the second stage (*as long as Australia does :v), but I fear that you will be right.
*If there's one thing I can not accept, apart from France, England and the US (sorry Sir Hillary :v) winning the tournament, is New Zealand out-performing Australia! It simply will not do.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
If there's one thing I can not accept, apart from France, England and the US (sorry Sir Hillary :v) winning the tournament, is New Zealand out-performing Australia! It simply will not do.
Dan, saying you cannot accept the possibility of the US winning the World Cup is like saying you cannot accept the possibility of Macauley Culkin succeeding Daniel Craig as Bond. Not exactly putting yourself on the line there, are you?
If there's one thing I can not accept, apart from France, England and the US (sorry Sir Hillary :v) winning the tournament, is New Zealand out-performing Australia! It simply will not do.
Dan, saying you cannot accept the possibility of the US winning the World Cup is like saying you cannot accept the possibility of Macauley Culkin succeeding Daniel Craig as Bond. Not exactly putting yourself on the line there, are you?
(OK, with France and England, you are.)
True. But weirder things have been known to happen. )
In all seriousness, I just want France to lose in the Group Stage. If they can get humiliated, like in 2002, I will be delighted.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I'll be supporting Germany and Australia, although typically they are in the same group so one will probably knock the other out. I met a guy from the USA last night who confused the hell out of me by saying "congratulations on your forthcoming victory." Then he mentioned the World Cup draw and it turns out he assumed the England team represented the whole of Great Britain. I'm not sure he realised Scotland is actually a country, despite the fact he was actually in it.
And given that football is a tribal sport with yin and yang loyalties, ie support one team and their will be a dark other you must enjoy seeing lose, may I say how much I would like to see the USA win by a score as large as Jay Leno's chin.
As I understand it, England meet France in the quarters or Brazil in the semis so their exit will be business as usual methinks, whatever their initial group stages.
Comments
*Even if one hated what he did, I don't think that one could classify it as cheating. Did he break the rules? Yes, but it wasn't deceptive conduct desingned to falsely engineer an advantage. He just lost his temper.
I guess I'll be supporting the Australians and my old favourites the Germans this time around.
The history between these two would turn this game into a powderkeg. It would be must-see TV.
FIFA has announced that it won't be granting a replay. They've done it before, but whatever; the least they could do however is to ban Henry for the entire tournament. He deserves nothing less. X-(
Fair enough, I concede that I should not have said 'cheating'....perhaps 'falling from grace' or 'acting inappropriately'. I know Zidane had a great career, but if I was French (or if he was English), I would never be able to forgive him for an act of selfish petulance that arguably cost them the World Cup. Beckham was provoked by Simeone in 1998 and rightfully red carded - even though Simeone made as much of a meal of it as Materazzi did with Zidane - yet few English ever condoned Beckham's selfish petulance in that match even though it sent us out of the tournament. He has made amends for it since then, but there's no question that his lack of self-discipline was hugely costly to England. Yet the French seem to shrug when Zidane's headbutt is mentioned.
That said, full credit to the French this time who seem genuinely embarrassed or at least uncomfortable with the way they qualified. The villains here are Henry for a deliberate handball (and don't give me the 'it was an involuntary reaction' as that would only be true if he'd handled it once...not twice); the linesman for inexplicably not seeing it; the referee for not even consulting his linesman even though the Irish were clearly and unanimously irate about something; and FIFA who as always when it comes to matters that involve large sums of money, do not do the right thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/nov/20/thierry-henry-handball-france-ireland
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A tad strong don't you think ?
Why not clap him in stocks outside Croke Park and invite the whole of Ireland to throw rotting veg at him ?
Or better still, simply amputate his left hand.
To ban him from the entire tournament is ludicrous - you would then have to ban EVERY player whom did something that wasn't legal. I wanted to say 'cheated' but you don't appear level that charge against him.
What Henry did was 'instinctive' - absolutely against the rules, but an 'instinctive' action none-the-less. The referee and linesmen, plus the 4th official, didn't spot it - so you can blame them too.
I'd LOVE to hear what Michel Platini has to say on this matter - has he made a comment on this anywhere ?
In all seriousness I was probably being overly harsh. I don't much like the French team, and also Henry has form. In the 2006 World Cup, he elevated diving to an art form. In this incident he violated the fundamental law of the sport (don't use your hands) and in the process denied Ireland a World Cup spot. It also disappoints me when sportsmen cheat (such as Agassi tanking at the 1996 Australian Open, which whilst not cheating was IMO completely unforgivable), especially when it involves a prize such as World Cup selection. But, yes, when I said he should be banned for the entire tournament, I was probably being more extreme than the situation called for. Although if he were to be suspended for the group stage, it could very well be France's entire tournament.
I do think that he should be suspended, but probably not for the entire tournament. Maybe two matches, but ideally three; I do think that what he did does deserve some kind of penalty, and the penalty should involve him missing at least part of the World Cup.
I want to add as well that IMO what he did was worse than many other forms of illegal behaviour. The reason being, that using hands goes against the fundamental nature of the the sport. Diving, on the other hand, is utilised in numerous other sports (in Australian football it's called staging for a free kick), and arguably doesn't violate the fundamental nature of the sport in the same way as using hands. Assaulting a fellow player and using performance enhancing drugs are the two things which would disappoint me as much (or more than) a player using his hands. However, both are relatively rare in soccer.
I'm sorry, are you referring to Zidane? ?:)
The problem is that he did it twice. If he had done it once, then yes, I would agree that it was instictive. But not if he did it twice. Plus, the second time he did it, he handled it with a cupped hand. I would therefore argue that it was deliberate.
Actually, I think that if anyone should take responsibility, it's FIFA who refuses to utilise video replays, and who refuses to punish Henry.
That said, why does it matter whether or not the referee and linesmen saw the handballs? It doesn't change what Henry did. Henry's cheating shouldn't be lessened because the officials didn't see it or do anything about it, especially since ny not penalising him, FIFA is essentially saying that you can cheat as much as you want to, and as long as you don't get caught, nothing will happen to you.
What if a player dives and not only gets a penalty kick but also gets the defender sent off ? I'd argue that that is even worse.
No, Henry.
I still would argue that what Henry does is instinctive - it appears to be all one motion, as far as I can see anyway.
Of course it matters whether the match officials see the handball - if they had then the goal would have been ruled out, and this ridiculous 'knee-jerk' reaction by many people (ie. ban him from the World Cup) would be being talked about.
Has any player been penalised for an offence like this ? If they have, then Henry should be no different - if they haven't, then why make Henry a special case ?
Ngog dived for Liverpool last week to earn his team a penalty - I haven't heard anything about banning him ?
This game should ONLY be replayed if France STRONGLY appeal to FIFA to do so - and that won't happen, too much money is involved. There has NEVER been a game replayed because of a 'hand-ball' goal - and there is NO precedent for this. The match some people refer to was replayed because the referee made an incorrect decision - he gave a freekick when he should have had a penalty re-taken.
FIFA will look rather silly when Henry leads out the French team, as captain, and in front of him 4 people will carry a flag that bears the FIFA 'fair play' logo.
Again, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. ?:) I know it's not important, but could you elaborate on this statement?
I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction to demand that he be banned for at least part of the World Cup, if only to send a message that what he did was completely unacceptable. There may not be a precedent, but FIFA should create one; afterall, they are the only ones really who can make precedent.
That said, I do agree that Henry's walking out with the 'fair play' logo in front of him will be extremely embarassing for all involved. :v
It's all about opinions Dan - so you think what Henry did is as bad as what Cantona did ?
Of course.
In your original post you didn't call Henry a 'cheat' so I didn't want to use that word when I replied to your post. I didn't want to be accused of 'putting words into your mouth'
Cricket ? Don't care - and I don't think bowling under-arm is illegal, is it ? It would be much better to put a time-bomb in the cricket ball, it may liven the game up a tad
I honestly don't think what Henry did was a deliberate act of cheating - against the rules certainly, but not a deliberate act. Another debate is "should he have come clean to the referee ?"
Much worse. The Cantona kung-fu kick was quite funny. Henry's handball was just cheap. The only other player I can think of who has committed a double handball in a match is a certain Mr Vinnie Jones.
Sorry, that's one hand and double balls.
I suppose you prefer baseball? :v
It's hard to say. I do think that he cheated; but if he had not done so, even if he had done something illegal, I think that only him can determine whether or not to tell the referee. The way I see it, cheating is different to other forms of immoral/unethical/illegal behaviour. If someone cheats, I don't have much sympathy for them. But if they engage in immoral/unethical/illegal behaviour but do not cheat (for example, refusing to walk when one is clearly out in cricket, even though the umpire did not see it, may be unethical but IMO is not cheating), then IMO only they can decide what to do about it. As I said, I do think that Henry cheated, but if it wasn't cheating, then it's up to him to determine what to do about it.
Ah...no wonder Ritchie cast Vinnie in Snatch.
But that was the only way to stop Gascoigne back then...fast forward a few years, and Vinnie would have been better off waving a pint under his nose instead.
As for Henry, I'm more with Sir Miles on this. Henry's act was shabby, but more instinctive than anything else. I blame him less for the handball(s) itself than for celebrating Gallas's goal immediately afterward, all the while knowing what had happened. His contrition after the fact seems a bit manufactured in hindsight. At the end of the day, the officials simply cannot miss something like this, and if they do, there ought to be some role for instant replay.
Try telling that to the woman he smashed in the face with his studs - yes, VERY funny !
And a good point there Dan - not cheating but unethical.
Sir Hilly is right too - Henry's contrition did seem manufactured.
I still don't think that Ireland should be given a replay - the match officials just didn't see what happened, they did not make an incorrect decision based upon the rules of that game - they just didn't see it.
NOW !
Liverpool had EVERY right to ask for a replay of their game against Sunderland where Darren Bent's shot was deflected in via a beachball. The match officials DID make an incorrect decision based upon the rules of the game - ie. they allowed the goal to stand when the rules state the 'goal' should have been disallowed. Liverpool didn't make any request to replay the game whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure Cantona lamped a fat guy who was giving him abuse.
Nah - he tried and missed.
It was a woman he hit in the face with his studs. Although why it makes any difference how fat the guy was I don't know
Which takes me on to another pet-peeve of mine and football crowds - why is it ok for the crowd to hurl verbal abuse at a player and the second he gives it back (or kisses his badge in front of them or celebrates a goal in front of them) they complain to the Police ??? These morons need to grow up ! X-(
I didn't mean to imply the guy deserved it because he was fat. Just pointing it out it was a man Cantona made contact with. Here's the video. If that is a woman he hits I am never going on a date wherever Crystal Palace is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-WmfTIRUWY
Cantona clearly gets him in the stomach and follows up with a punch. There's a woman standing next to the tube but if she gets more than a bit of mud in her curly hair then I am Gary Neville's favourite jockstrap.
I'm pretty sure the woman filed some complaint for ABH against Cantona and he was found guilty.
Heh-ho - still not funny anyway.
Gary Neville doesn't live too far away from me (my father knows his father), next time I see him I'll let him know where his favourite jockstrap is
If Gary Neville turns up at my door and tries to put me on I will be most unimpressed.
Yea - he's not exactly a 'looker' is he
Some other thoughts:
[list=*]
[*]If there's a Group of Death, for me it's Group G -- Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, North Korea. North Korea are going nowhere (except back to Pyongyang) but a very good side from among the other three will be going home early. Ivory Coast had the worst luck of anyone today.[/*]
[*]Most wide-open group for me is Group D -- Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana. I'm not sold at all on the Germans. The Serbs are my surprise package this year. Ghana, while lacking strike power, will always be tough. And the Socceroos may look like underdogs on paper, but they escaped group play four years ago and were unlucky not to advance to the final 8.[/*]
[*]In contrast to the Ivory Coast, the sun shone on Italy today. What a crap group, perfect for a bunch of old men to get rested up for the knockout rounds. I'm not sure New Zealand will score a single goal, although I will certainly be hoping they surprise everyone.[/*]
[*]France gets drawn with South Africa -- cue further Irish rage and conspiracy theorists.[/*]
[/list]
Can't wait until June!
1)Brazil are certainties to make the second round; they've failed to make it past the Group Stage just twice, they're Brazil, they boast some of the best players in the world including Kaka and Ronaldinho, I can't imagine Portugal or Ivory Coast being a fatal threat to their title hopes and they're Brazil.
2)Group D is indeed pretty open. I'm not sure why you aren't convinced about Germany; they have never been eliminated in the Group Stage in 16 World Cups, they came third in 2006, and they were runners-up at Euro 2008. I would expect them to finish first in the group. Hopefully Australia can finish second, but Serbia has beaten France and Ghana are pretty good.
3)I would love for New Zealand to make the second stage (*as long as Australia does :v), but I fear that you will be right.
4)Go South Africa!!!!!
Me too.
*If there's one thing I can not accept, apart from France, England and the US (sorry Sir Hillary :v) winning the tournament, is New Zealand out-performing Australia! It simply will not do.
(OK, with France and England, you are.)
In all seriousness, I just want France to lose in the Group Stage. If they can get humiliated, like in 2002, I will be delighted.
And given that football is a tribal sport with yin and yang loyalties, ie support one team and their will be a dark other you must enjoy seeing lose, may I say how much I would like to see the USA win by a score as large as Jay Leno's chin.
As I understand it, England meet France in the quarters or Brazil in the semis so their exit will be business as usual methinks, whatever their initial group stages.
Roger Moore 1927-2017