Printable View
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...
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
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?
more swedish views...
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,195...718752,00.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by carloz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
Hows it going Mark12345.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
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.
He does consult the linesman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
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.
The linesman?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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 matchQuote:
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 replayQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carloz
And that's where the rulebook is deeply flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.
Typical 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carloz
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?
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.
Oooh - you think wrong (not surprisingly)Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmet7
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir
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.
Another dig like that from you and you are headed for ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir