First comments from Martin Hansson

[NeilMcD]

It's just the way some people carp on and on about it here you'd think that they would want to banish anyone who had the temerity to attend some club game(s) abroad. The desire some seem to have in belittling and castigating anyone with an intrest in foreign football doesnt present a very positive image.

Also can't people accept that some fans support the national team with all their heart. Many regulars on here dreamed of going to the World Cup and supporting Ireland there in South Africa. As a nation we're not like France, Germany or Brazil, we cant expect to go to almost every World Cup - it's a thrill if we just make it to one a decade. Can't people accept that some of us on here have an eternal hope of just seeing the national team playing in front of us at a World Cup, and our biggest fear is never being able see Ireland at a tournament. There are lots of people on here who will have saved up for months just be able to go to South Africa and watch the boys in green, and for it to be taken away so late in such a manner is a hammer blow. Imagine how an older fan will feel now, say someone in their 50s or 60s - they might not have been able to afford going to Italia 90, USA 94 or Japan 02, and now they might not get the chance to see Ireland at a World Cup. I'm not saying that there should be protests at embassies, or a replay or Henry should be banned for life or anything like that, but everyone must understand that there are so many disappointed people on here and to have some of these petty jibes from certain people and their apparent revelling in the failure of the national team is very hard to fathom.

I accept that not every eircom league fan has the hate-the-national team / holier-than-thou attitude. But there seem to be a certain number who revel in it... maybe in any forum polarised views tend to come to the fore more than in real life, but there is a time and a place for everything.

Dont blame it on eircom league fans at all. Trust me many of the Irish fans are also League of Ireland fans. In fact if you go on to YBIG there are many guys who support both Ireland and a League of Ireland team. The cynicism you talk about seems to be amongst a few individuals on this site and should not be taken as a reflection of the league at all.

[geysir]

Hugh Dallas was the ref adjudicator for the night and he saw the handball from the stand
But did Dallas say he saw it?

I'd have no problem with the Swedish Ref officiating at one of our future qual. games.

[NeilMcD]

I'll retract that and say the vast majority of you, maybe not all, although I will say that any of you marching on the French Embassy tomorrow are a disgrace

Anyway on to the rest. Of course people are angry, I was angry watching that game, not just at people like Henry and Anelka for cheating, I was angry at McShane, I was angry at Given, I was angry at McGeady, Duff, Keane, O'Shea, all of them that messed up at certain stages during the game. But this bile that has been spewing from most people's mouths about Henry needs to stop. I've had people who watch maybe one or two games of football a year trying to tell me I'm wrong in my opinion of the sport being full of cheats, at every level. I was actually physically threatened the other night for saying 'Henrys a cheat, so what?' after the match had ended. Those Facebook groups are full of people that no one would miss if they all forgot how to use designated walkways and marched themselves over a cliff tomorrow morning. People saying boycott Gilette and French Cuisine need to slap themselves a few times in the face. People on about marching on the French Embassy need to look around at the real problems affecting Ireland at the moment and direct their marches elsewhere. But worst of all, and this is one of the main reasons that football sickens me these days, is the hypocrisy of the football fans who actually know about the game. You all are acting like you've never been a part of the cheating process that runs through football, or your team has never cheated in any way shape or form. I'll say this to you, have you never called for a free or penalty to the ref for your team when you're not certain it was, or sometimes even know it wasn't? Do you Owlsfan shake your head in disgust when Mark Beevers tugs the jersey of the oppositions attacker when a corner comes in? Berate a constant offender like Robbie Keane when he puts his hand up for a corner after he's had the last touch?

On Wednesday night people were going on about stamping out all cheating, when they realised that they couldn't hold their ground on that when people like myself, Dodge, In Exile, passinginterest and others pointed out that very point above me they started to quantify it with levels of cheating and importance of games, which only make them sound even more idiotic and hypocritical. This isn't a new thing, I hear it in the pub every week after (say) a Man Utd player has dived against Liverpool and the Pool fans are up in arms, forgetting that their team captain throws himself to the ground at the slightest touch. Remember Celtic's disgust at Eduardo? Where were they when McGeady was rightly sent off for diving 4 days later? Hypocrites the lot of them and their attitude has soured football for me. This is just the latest chapter.



Wasn't the wars I was referring to, as I think you may know, more the type of American who started calling french fries Freedom Fries, had a completely blinkered view to the holes in their arguments and who responded to rational questions by shouting louder about the injustice of it all and accusing the questioner of being unpatriotic. Remember how much we all laughed at them in civilised Ireland, guess who's the butt of the joke now


Some good points and I agree about the hysteria etc and people who know nothing about football all of a suddent becomin the biggest victims of this. But I do not think that the fans who went to the games or who are passionate about the game are guilty of this. You are certainly guilty of bein obtuse just for the sake of it on this.

[jebus]

Some good points and I agree about the hysteria etc and people who know nothing about football all of a suddent becomin the biggest victims of this. But I do not think that the fans who went to the games or who are passionate about the game are guilty of this. You are certainly guilty of bein obtuse just for the sake of it on this.

I'd say it is you and others who are guilty of this but then that's what makes a difference of opinion and that's what makes an internet forum work

[NeilMcD]

Point out one post that I have been obtuse. In relation to your last point, maybe you see the internet forum as the be all and end all and the end of the journey. I only see it has a means to get support behind the national team. That is why I think YBIG works and that foot.ie is now just a talking shop. Maybe it is why we have moderators like we do in that the forum is the be all and end all, whereas the fans see it as just a way to organise support for the team.

[jebus]

I see an internet forum as a way to pass the time when I'm bored at home, talking about random subjects in general and occasionally about very specific points. Although I will say that I view Foot as being a LoI forum rather than a national team forum, but that's probably because I use it more for the LoI than Ireland, I know for others it is the opposite way around.

Anyway back to the obtuse example, I would consider this to be one


This thread and its poster being a mod says it all. How could someone who is openly hostile to the Irish international team be a mod on this forum. A joke.

[Billsthoughts]

I see an internet forum as a way to pass the time when I'm bored at home, talking about random subjects in general and occasionally about very specific points. Although I will say that I view Foot as being a LoI forum rather than a national team forum, but that's probably because I use it more for the LoI than Ireland, I know for others it is the opposite way around.

Anyway back to the obtuse example, I would consider this to be one

How long is this going to go on without someone putting a stop to it?

[4tothefloor]

I don't remember you kicking up a storm at the many Stevie G dives to be fair man, why was that?
I don't recall us every watching a Liverpool game together or speaking to each other on the subject of Liverpool or Gerrard or any EPL team for that matter. Nor do I post much if at all on Liverpool on this forum, so I do not see what your point is??? When and where should I be kicking up a storm in your presence? Should I be texting you randomly every time Gerrard earns a questionable free kick? Please, explain.

[Noelys Guitar]

Trap has been saying that the fourth official told Hansson about the hand ball. Hansson as we all saw then told Given and McShane that the ball hit Henry's chest or side.

From today's Indo
Ireland's manager Giovanni Trapattoni, who had said it was "impossible" that the FAI would agree to a replay, accused FIFA of "treachery" on Friday, adding that the double handball by Henry was "murder". Most contentiously, Trapattoni claimed that the fourth official had informed referee Martin Hansson of the handball.

[Réiteoir]

Trapattoni claimed that the fourth official had informed referee Martin Hansson of the handball.

Wouldn't matter anyway - as the Fourth Official has no powers to do so to get a decision changed:


THE FOURTH OFFICIAL AND THE RESERVE ASSISTANT REFEREE

He must indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off having been seen to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of the view of the referee and assistant referees.

The referee, however, retains the authority to decide on all points connected with play

[Noelys Guitar]

Wouldn't matter anyway - as the Fourth Official has no powers to do so to get a decision changed:

We don't know whether Trap is saying the fourth official told Hansson just after the incident happened or just after the referee made his decision. But here is the referee's exchange with Kevin Kilbane at half-time in extra time. From the Sunday Times
I asked the referee at half-time in extra time: “Did you see it?” and he told me: “I can 100% say it wasn’t handball.” Those were his exact words. That is what made it even more annoying. I don’t know how he can make a comment like that when he hasn’t seen it.

Hansson had the option to tell the truth and instead decided to lie.

[tetsujin1979]

Wouldn't matter anyway - as the Fourth Official has no powers to do so to get a decision changed:
Then how did the ref and linesman know about Zidane's headbutt in 2006?

[old git]

Wouldn't matter anyway - as the Fourth Official has no powers to do so to get a decision changed:

on fifa website offical rules of the game

referee decisions are final , but the referee may only change his decision on realising it is incorrect , or at his discretion, on the advice of assistant referee or fourth offical provided he has not restarted match or termiated match ... so going by fifa fourth offical has the power to intervene before match restarts :mad: wonder why then fourth offical never advised referee..

[Réiteoir]

Then how did the ref and linesman know about Zidane's headbutt in 2006?

If you'd had read the bit I quoted in that post above - it states:


He must indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off having been seen to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of the view of the referee and assistant referees.

[Emmet7]

I didn't see where Henry told the ref he handled the ball and I am not convinced he did tell him.

But if he did tell him, then surely the honest thing to do by the ref was immediately book Henry and give a freekick out. It's amazing that the player who committed the foul owned up and the ref who seems not to have seen the incident at all tells him he is the ref and it hit Henry on the hip.

This is why I have suspicions that ref was doing FIFA bidding. He was waiting for a clearcut goal for France, awarded what he thought was a clearcut goal despite not seeing the handball and then didn't have the experience or charachter to cancel his decision.

I think Trap was right in saying the ref wasn't experienced enough or a strong enough charachter. He was fair in other decisions, but the biggest decision of the match he got wrong.

I'm almost inclined to side with Henry although he is not a saint. It was up to the ref to award a free out and instead he was insistant on awarding a dodgy goal.

We cannot say he was bribed in any way, but it is like one of those dodgy refing decisions that Ireland suffered from in Eastern Europe in the 1970's.

The FIFA rule that what a ref decides is final is a really stupid rule. If a ref was later found to have been bribed, what then?

[Emmet7]

If you'd had read the bit I quoted in that post above - it states:

Does it say in the rules if the 4th official can use video evidence or not as he appeared to do in the WC final 2006?

I don't think it does. In some cases the rules can be bent, in others they cannot.

In any case, it was Henry who told the ref he handled the ball, as did all the Irish players. Henry telling him should have been enough to disallow the goal.

Hansson saying he was 100% sure the ball hit Henry on the hip makes him a blatent liar. He either saw the incident and the handball or he didn't see anything of the incident. Either way he told lies to the Irish players to justify the awarding of the goal.

In summary, Henry cheated and the ref told lies to cover it up.

[Junior]

Does it say in the rules if the 4th official can use video evidence or not as he appeared to do in the WC final 2006?

I don't think it does. In some cases the rules can be bent, in others they cannot.

In any case, it was Henry who told the ref he handled the ball, as did all the Irish players. Henry telling him should have been enough to disallow the goal.

Hansson saying he was 100% sure the ball hit Henry on the hip makes him a blatent liar. He either saw the incident and the handball or he didn't see anything of the incident. Either way he told lies to the Irish players to justify the awarding of the goal.

Has anyone got the few seconds footage when this happened? I dont believe he did tell the ref, I thought he was off sheepishly celebrating with Gallas and co. Another lie more like but Im open to being corrected............

[Emmet7]

The odds of a player blatently cheating followed by a referee blatently lying and awarding the cheated goal must be a million to one.

That's one of the reasons this goal was so unusual and why there are serious questions to be answered. You just wouldn't get this in any other match.

Take for example the Ireland V Georgia goal. The linesman or ref had a clear unimpaired view of the incident and saw a handball, rightly or wrongly, (leaving aside the offside question) it was definitely a handball.

In the Ireland v France match, the ref didn't see the incident or so he claims, yet was 100% sure it wasn't handball.

[jebus]

The odds of a player blatently cheating followed by a referee blatently lying and awarding the cheated goal must be a million to one.

Yeah, I mean how often do you see a player dive in a box for a penalty and the DEFINITELY LYING ref award it??? God damn Zionists


The odds of a player blatently cheating followed by a referee blatently lying and awarding the cheated goal must be a million to one. That's one of the reasons this goal was so unusual and why there are serious questions to be answered. You just wouldn't get this in any other match.

Unless if it was in a World Cup quarter final 23 years ago, but since then how often??? Only a few hundred times!! At least!!! God damn Illuminati


The odds of a player blatently cheating followed by a referee blatently lying and awarding the cheated goal must be a million to one. Take for example the Ireland V Georgia goal. The linesman or ref had a clear unimpaired view of the incident and saw a handball, rightly or wrongly, (leaving aside the offside question) it was definitely a handball

Rightly or wrongly I think you're definitely right. God damn Mayans


The odds of a player blatently cheating followed by a referee blatently lying and awarding the cheated goal must be a million to one. In the Ireland v France match, the ref didn't see the incident or so he claims, yet was 100% sure it wasn't handball.

Yeah, I mean like why tell a pack of Irishmen screaming at him that he felt he was right in what he just said was right a few seconds earlier? God damn Joe Duffy

[Emmet7]

Has anyone got the few seconds footage when this happened? I dont believe he did tell the ref, I thought he was off sheepishly celebrating with Gallas and co. Another lie more like but Im open to being corrected............

1. If Henry didn't tell the ref, but he is going around telling everyone he did, this makes Henry an even bigger liar and a seriously dodgy character, but we can only give him the benefit of the doubt and say he did tell the ref.

2. If he did tell the ref and the ref chose to ignore what he told him and instead insisted it was not handball, then this makes Hansson to blame for the whole incident.

I have my doubts Henry told Hansson. But if he did, then why didn't Hansson do what surely is in the FIFA rule book and give Henry a yellow card, and cancel the goal.

Yet even after Henry told him, Hansson goes around telling the Irish players it was definitely not a handball.

The 'official' version of events doesn't add up.

That's why there should be an enquiry into all of this. I am not sure FIFA are the people to conduct such an enquiry seeing as they run the game. But there definitely should be an enquiry with all sides, Henry, Hansson, etc giving their version of events.

[Emmet7]

Has anyone got the few seconds footage when this happened? I dont believe he did tell the ref, I thought he was off sheepishly celebrating with Gallas and co. Another lie more like but Im open to being corrected............

This is the best I could come up with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs8WWBXGiXg&NR=1

Lots of replays but Henry definitely said nothing to the ref for a minimum of 30 seconds after the goal. What I'd really like to see is if someone in the Stade de France had personal video footage of the aftermath, that would show if Henry went to the ref or not. It's difficult to see on the TV footage with all the replays.

I am beginning to doubt Henry told him at all. It doesn't sound right that he would say to Hansson "I handled the ball" and Hansson replies, "I'm the ref". I think any half decent ref would immediately book Henry and go talk to his linesman again and then cancel the goal.

[Metrostars]

I think Henry probably told the ref after the game which is pointless at that stage.

I do also think the ref did not actually see the handball because there were players in his way. He sees the ball bounce, then can't see the ball, next thing he sees is Henry kick it over to Gallas. It's hard to give a handball if you didn't see it. As for the Linesman, he should have seen it but never raised his flag. Maybe the angle was not adventagous for him. In any case, even if he did not see the handball he surely must have seen the offiside. One of the camera shots we see if the ref next to the linesman surrounded by Given & Co so I suppose he did check with him.

[Junior]

I think Henry probably told the ref after the game which is pointless at that stage.

I think that is about right. He certainly didn't tell him at the time so might as well not have bothered unless purely to try and ease his conscience. Id say the only person he did tell at the time (if he even needed telling) was Gallas looking at the sheepish look he had as he headed back to the halfway line.

[jbyrne]

It's hard to give a handball if you didn't see it. As for the Linesman, he should have seen it but never raised his flag. Maybe the angle was not adventagous for him. In any case, even if he did not see the handball he surely must have seen the offiside. One of the camera shots we see if the ref next to the linesman surrounded by Given & Co so I suppose he did check with him.

sky sports showed the view the linesman from the far side had at the time and there is no way he could have missed it. no one will ever convince me that none of the officials saw it. after disallowing a non penalty and an offside goal they just didnt want to make such a call to keep the bigger team out. i'm not saying that they deliberately cheated, just didnt want to make the big call.

it had been speculated at the time that fifa seeded the play off teams and made it clear they wanted the bigger teams to qualify that this attitude would put pressure on the offiials and thats exactly how it panned out

[SkStu]

sky sports showed the view the linesman from the far side had at the time and there is no way he could have missed it. no one will ever convince me that none of the officials saw it. after disallowing a non penalty and an offside goal they just didnt want to make such a call to keep the bigger team out. i'm not saying that they deliberately cheated, just didnt want to make the big call.

it had been speculated at the time that fifa seeded the play off teams and made it clear they wanted the bigger teams to qualify that this attitude would put pressure on the offiials and thats exactly how it panned out

i agree with you jb but the ironic thing to me is surely the "penalty" was a far bigger call for the refereee to have made? I mean if that had been given i think the majority would have said, fair enough-seen em given before-too bad. To have made that call and then completely bag it on Henry's handball is just weird. Doesnt make sense to me.

It still fckin hurts and everyone here (in Canada) wants to fuppin talk about it.

[Emmet7]

I just think for all his good decisions, he was too inexperienced and he has a record (Liverpool champions league) of getting things wrong and favouring bigger teams.

A more experienced ref with a stronger character and an actual sense of fair play would have immediately run to his linesman without awarding the goal and had a consultation. This would also have given the 4th official time to look at a replay and whisper in the linesman's ear. I know it's not supposed to happen but it has happened before and no-one would be the wiser.

He had a clear view of the Anelka dive for the penalty and rightly did not give it. But he had no clear view of the Henry goal and awarded it despite obviously not having a clear view.

But what's done is done. I don't blame the ref that much, his lack of experience cost us. I blame that lying cheating Henry more, who says it was accidental and then changed his story to instinct (ie on purpose) and he told the ref immediately after which it now appears he didn't.

[4tothefloor]

Jebus I love the way you can't or won't answer any of my questions or points :D

[jebus]

Jebus I love the way you can't or won't answer any of my questions or points :D

What the one about Liverpool? We have talked about Liverpool in Jackman Park alright and I'm fully sure from that that you don't consider Gerrard to be a diver. Am I wrong?

[Brenny]

Was gigging an Irish pub here in Sweden the weekend and about 30 people came up and asked me what I thought of Martin Hansson. All of them thought he was a pr1#k and were ashamed he was Swedish.
One couple even asked If they should unbook their planned trip to Ireland this weekend.:p

[Noelys Guitar]

Aaaaah. Like Henry 'wanted' to quit. But won't of course. Who is coaching these two to come out and say exactly the same thing? Whoever it is is not doing a good job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/24/referee-thierry-henry-handball-france-ireland
Some real self indulgence from this ref. "It was an unlucky situation with big consequences for Ireland. But it wasn't our referee team's fault."

[phillaldinho]

Some journalist approached his parents (73 and 75 years old) to ask what they thought ot it. :mad:

Hansson is a good ref who made a bad mistake. In the Swedish paper Aftonbladet he says that the graphic in the Times shows how he couldn't have seen the incident- the question is surely why? Surely between the three officials they should be able to see what is going on on the pitch? I was 120m away in the French section and we all saw it...

[jebus]

Journalist approaching his elderly parents
Pat Flanagan staking out his house and leaving a letter demanding Hansson apologies to the Irish
The Sun have a Playstation playoff between a fan and a guy in a frog suit
The general hysteria of the whole thing

Yep we truly have turned into West Britain

[Emmet7]

I have sympathy for Hansson. He was put in a terrible position by FIFA who for the last number of months have made it clear they want teams like France in the World Cup, whatever the cost to the integrity of soccer.

Hansson is just a patsy of FIFA who are responsible in the main for this fiasco but who now daily try to distance themselves.

The Uzbek precedent in 2005 is blatently clear.

The ref made a wrong decision, gave a free out instead of retaking the penalty.

In Paris the ref also made a wrong decision, awarded a goal, when he should have given a free out. He made a clear mistake, no different to the Uzbek example.

Yet why should they order the Uzbek game replayed, even though they state the referee's decision is final. How come it wasn't final for the Uzbeks, but it's final for Ireland? Again another example of FIFA making the rules up as they go along in their attempts to shoehorn France and the larger nations into the WC.

Hansson says he didn't see the incident, yet didn't consult his linesman and told the players he was 100% certain it wasn't handball. Had Henry told him immediately after the incident, which it now appears he has lied about also, then the ref was under an obligation to book the player and disallow the goal.

[jebus]

I have sympathy for Hansson. He was put in a terrible position by FIFA who for the last number of months have made it clear they want teams like France in the World Cup, whatever the cost to the integrity of soccer.

Hansson is just a patsy of FIFA who are responsible in the main for this fiasco but who now daily try to distance themselves.

The Uzbek precedent in 2005 is blatently clear.

The ref made a wrong decision, gave a free out instead of retaking the penalty.

In Paris the ref also made a wrong decision, awarded a goal, when he should have given a free out. He made a clear mistake, no different to the Uzbek example.

Yet why should they order the Uzbek game replayed, even though they state the referee's decision is final. How come it wasn't final for the Uzbeks, but it's final for Ireland? Again another example of FIFA making the rules up as they go along in their attempts to shoehorn France and the larger nations into the WC.

Hansson says he didn't see the incident, yet didn't consult his linesman and told the players he was 100% certain it wasn't handball. Had Henry told him immediately after the incident, which it now appears he has lied about also, then the ref was under an obligation to book the player and disallow the goal.

Are you actually insane?

[mark12345]

Wolfie, you talk about the infallability of referees. Don't know whatever gave you that impression? They are far from it. If you get a game 75% right as a ref you are lucky. I know, I am one.

The only real sense surrounding the handball incident I have heard came from Liam Brady. He said that the ref had called two near penalties in our favour just beforehand and arguably felt that he'd be not go against the French a third time. He was under pressure, according to Brady, because of the French being in it.

But the big mystery for me is why no one is focusing on the linesman. He is the obvious culprit, and with him missing two offsides and the handball, does anyone think there is a little more to it than just that. Particularly in a week when all these bribe scandals came out?

[jbyrne]

more swedish views...

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5718752,00.html

[carloz]

I have sympathy for Hansson. He was put in a terrible position by FIFA who for the last number of months have made it clear they want teams like France in the World Cup, whatever the cost to the integrity of soccer.

Hansson is just a patsy of FIFA who are responsible in the main for this fiasco but who now daily try to distance themselves.

The Uzbek precedent in 2005 is blatently clear.

The ref made a wrong decision, gave a free out instead of retaking the penalty.

In Paris the ref also made a wrong decision, awarded a goal, when he should have given a free out. He made a clear mistake, no different to the Uzbek example.

Yet why should they order the Uzbek game replayed, even though they state the referee's decision is final. How come it wasn't final for the Uzbeks, but it's final for Ireland? Again another example of FIFA making the rules up as they go along in their attempts to shoehorn France and the larger nations into the WC.

Hansson says he didn't see the incident, yet didn't consult his linesman and told the players he was 100% certain it wasn't handball. Had Henry told him immediately after the incident, which it now appears he has lied about also, then the ref was under an obligation to book the player and disallow the goal.

Unfortunatly the ref in the Uzbek match made up his own rules and gave a free out for encroachment during a penalty, when he should have had the penalty retaken. This is making up rules, rather than a case of not seeing a handball. But i do understand what you are saying. But as we all know Uzbekistan or Bahrain qualifying for a world cup playoff means little to FIFA, France qualifying for a world cup means so so much to FIFA.
Id also like to add that thew Sun newspaper is turning us into a ****ing mockery over this incident. Someone dressed up as a frog, thats borderline racism. Wish we could get that ****ing paper out of Ireland along with their readership

[bennocelt]

Unfortunatly the ref in the Uzbek match made up his own rules and gave a free out for encroachment during a penalty, when he should have had the penalty retaken. This is making up rules, rather than a case of not seeing a handball. But i do understand what you are saying. But as we all know Uzbekistan or Bahrain qualifying for a world cup playoff means little to FIFA, France qualifying for a world cup means so so much to FIFA.
Id also like to add that thew Sun newspaper is turning us into a ****ing mockery over this incident. Someone dressed up as a frog, thats borderline racism. Wish we could get that ****ing paper out of Ireland along with their readership

Was shocked to see that the Sun is Ireland's biggest daily!!! JHC:mad:

[Wolfie]

The concept of a referee's infallability in football needs to be looked at.

In a defined way and with narrow parameters - a referee should be able to call upon technology if he is genuinely unsighted or undecided.

I'm not talking about contending every throw in or offside - work would have to be carried out to fully define when the technology could be called upon.


Wolfie, you talk about the infallability of referees. Don't know whatever gave you that impression? They are far from it. If you get a game 75% right as a ref you are lucky. I know, I am one.

The only real sense surrounding the handball incident I have heard came from Liam Brady. He said that the ref had called two near penalties in our favour just beforehand and arguably felt that he'd be not go against the French a third time. He was under pressure, according to Brady, because of the French being in it.

But the big mystery for me is why no one is focusing on the linesman. He is the obvious culprit, and with him missing two offsides and the handball, does anyone think there is a little more to it than just that. Particularly in a week when all these bribe scandals came out?

Hows it going Mark12345.

To clarify, no dig at ref's there - I was making a general comment on how there is still an expectation within the game that the referee (with the aid of the linesmen) is expected to call everything absolutely right, all of time.

I was wasn't referring to the Henry incident specifically.

I think its unfair and its unrealistic that it is incumbent upon match officials to perform as effeciently as a multitude of high tech TV cameras from a variety of angles that can replay an incident as much as they like.

Other sports have removed this pressure from refs (eg, Rugby). When the ref is unsighted, its accepted that he will call upon the technology available to him. There is no losing of face so to speak.

[osarusan]

The Uzbek precedent in 2005 is blatently clear.

The ref made a wrong decision, gave a free out instead of retaking the penalty.

In Paris the ref also made a wrong decision, awarded a goal, when he should have given a free out. He made a clear mistake, no different to the Uzbek example.
Yet why should they order the Uzbek game replayed, even though they state the referee's decision is final. How come it wasn't final for the Uzbeks, but it's final for Ireland? Again another example of FIFA making the rules up as they go along in their attempts to shoehorn France and the larger nations into the WC.
As has been pointed out to you on this thread, the Uzbek example is very different and no precedent had been set which Ireland could use. The referee made a decision not in accordance with the rules of the game. Had a French defender handled on the line, and the referee given an indirect free-kick instead of a penalty, we could use the Uzbek case as precedent.

In Paris, the referee was unsighted. He made no decision on the Henry handball because he couldn't see it. They are completely different kinds of issues.

Whether this was done to "shoehorn" France into the World Cup or not is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the non-awarding of a penalty to Anelka and the off-side decision for Malouda's "goal" give me no reason to think that the referee or linesman on that side were looking for an opportunity to award a goal to France.



Hansson says he didn't see the incident, yet didn't consult his linesman and told the players he was 100% certain it wasn't handball. Had Henry told him immediately after the incident, which it now appears he has lied about also, then the ref was under an obligation to book the player and disallow the goal.
He does consult the linesman.

Henry has said he told the referee about the handball at the end of the game. I don't think it has been claimed anywhere that Henry told him at the time of the goal.

What the referee does do is gesture to the Irish players that the ball had come off Henry's midriff or upper thigh. Where he got this idea from, I have no idea.

[geysir]

What the referee does do is gesture to the Irish players that the ball had come off Henry's midriff or upper thigh. Where he got this idea from, I have no idea.
The linesman?

[carloz]

What the referee does do is gesture to the Irish players that the ball had come off Henry's midriff or upper thigh. Where he got this idea from, I have no idea.
At a guess he tried to bluff his way out of the situation. I guess his heart must have sank when he saw how blatant the handballs were after the match

[jebus]

What the referee does do is gesture to the Irish players that the ball had come off Henry's midriff or upper thigh. Where he got this idea from, I have no idea.

He probably did what all of us would do in that situation. Even if he realised that he might have missed something he HAS to go with his initial reaction when his linesman hasn't flagged as well, and that is that the ball came off Hnery's midriff or upper thigh. So when the Irish started protesting he has to stick by his initial call and tell them that he thought it came off that area and it wasn't a handball. What else could he do? Say that he has realised he's wrong but oh well lads, play on. He doesn't have any other option because Fifa haven't provided him with one, i.e. video replay

[osarusan]

I guess his heart must have sank when he saw how blatant the handballs were after the match

I guess his heart sank when Henry told him after the game was over. He must already have felt pretty worried about it (given the Irish reaction), then Henry tells him after the final whistle, and he knows he's in deep s**t even before he leaves the pitch.

[Emmet7]

I guess his heart sank when Henry told him after the game was over. He must already have felt pretty worried about it (given the Irish reaction), then Henry tells him after the final whistle, and he knows he's in deep s**t even before he leaves the pitch.

And that's where the rulebook is deeply flawed.

A player admits cheating and the ref can do nothing about it.

Would it happen in any other sport? Especially sports with the benefit of a video ref. I think not as cheats would be caught and punished immediately and the integrity of the game upheld. The soccer powers have decided to sacrifice justice and integrity for free flowing football, in the hopes of keeping it's entertainment value. They claim that every soccer match should be the same. And since when did every junior or underage soccer game have linesmen and fourth officials, with millions of pounds, euro or dollars at stake and careers and livelihoods on the line.

This whole incident has made soccer the laughing stock once more of the sporting world.

[lopez]

...Someone dressed up as a frog, thats borderline racism. Wish we could get that ****ing paper out of Ireland along with their readershipTypical Scum I'm afraid. I mean, why not have the player dressed up as a Racoon? Surely in many a Scum reading houseshold this is the first thing that comes to mind when these people see Henry. Not a Frog.

Private Eye had a spoof copy of the Scum years ago when England beat India in Cricket. 'We Beat the Pakis (or what would like to write if we could get away with it)'. Very true!

I think Hansson's a fall guy here. What's the name of the dodgy linesman? What's the odds at Paddy Power on him being at the 2014 World Cup in charge of the final?

[Greenforever]

Having watched many replays off the offside and penalty calls I would have to compliment the officials on being very fair and strong minded in their descisions and do believe that the Assistant Referee didnt see the handball.

All blame must be put on the shoulders of Henry and FIFA for their onging refusal to use technology.

I also believe the game should have been replayed not because of a wrong refereeing descision because as it wasnt seen it was not a wrong call, but because of the blatant cheating and the importance of the game.

[Réiteoir]

Would it happen in any other sport? Especially sports with the benefit of a video ref. I think not as cheats would be caught and punished immediately and the integrity of the game upheld.

Oooh - you think wrong (not surprisingly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQlJ8K7XjQc

Nothing done about it at the time - even with the TMO in the stand - Neil Back was also not punished retrospectively for his action in the scrum.

[Greenforever]

Oooh - you think wrong (not surprisingly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQlJ8K7XjQc

Nothing done about it at the time - even with the TMO in the stand - Neil Back was also not punished retrospectively for his action in the scrum.



A black day for Rugby that day, however the TMO can only intervene on try issues on the request of the ref and may only answer the question asked by the ref.

However the blood scandal last season was dealt with with extreme sanctons against all concerned and seems like a genuine attempt to erradicate cheating has started in the sport.

[Emmet7]

Oooh - you think wrong (not surprisingly)



Another dig like that from you and you are headed for ignore.