The John Delaney Thread

[DannyInvincible]

I don't see that FIFA had a legal case to answer

Nor I, although why pay us off so handsomely? Was the continued negative publicity going to do FIFA that much damage? We're pretty small fish, like; it wasn't as if the World Cup was going to miss us. I don't think anyone seriously believed there'd be any action to overturn Henry's wrondoing either (despite Delaney's fanciful requests; was the "team 33" thing not said half-jokingly though before Blatter blurted it out to the media?), because the legal infrastructure simply wasn't there, nor would it have been practically viable. I'd have expected the controversy to die down, as it did, although possibly I'm underestimating FIFA's paranoid concern over bad PR. Then again, casually throwing around money doesn't seem to be that big a deal at the top of FIFA either.

Was the case going to be lodged with CAS, I wonder?

[DeLorean]

Yeah we are pretty small fish but it was a massive global story, the controversy was far bigger than us. The fact that we are only little Ireland probably added to it in a sense, because it was the little guy getting so blatantly rode for everybody to see. If Germany or Italy had been the victims, the worldwide sympathy would probably have been far less, you win some you lose some kind of thing, but most neutrals wanted Ireland to beat France, or at least had sympathy for us losing in those circumstances. FIFA parting with loose change like €5m wouldn't knock a stir out of them.

I'm a bit confused about the 33rd team thing as well. I know Blatter made a holy show of us at the time but I thought we had some semi-logical reason for the request, while being fully aware it was logistically impossible and never a runner?

[Stuttgart88]

No, they're not.

[osarusan]

Was there any reason the FAI wouldn't have celebrated this 5 million windfall at the time? Usually the get their successes in the media.

Unless part of a gag order following a settlement (here's 5 million to shut up about the handball and Blatter's response, but say nothing).

Was the case even related to the handball or events in the aftermath? I can't think of any that would have warranted a legal case.

Quite interesting actually.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm a bit confused about the 33rd team thing as well. I know Blatter made a holy show of us at the time but I thought we had some semi-logical reason for the request, while being fully aware it was logistically impossible and never a runner?

Just checking back: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ls/8388671.stm

"When we asked for that we knew there was very little chance of that happening.

"We asked because we wanted to have them respond in a measured way, and see what they had to say.

"After all Mr Blatter was responsible for the (match) official.

"He didn't say anything about the appalling mistake the official made to miss a blatant handball."

Indeed, the request wasn't made with the expectation that it would be granted; it was made simply to force FIFA to recognise the situation by having to at least officially consider it on the basis that it was made, no matter how feasible or unfeasible it was.

[DeLorean]

Oh right, I might have been giving them too much credit by suggesting it was semi-logical so. Surely the/a request to have the match replayed would have carried the same weight, without the side effect of us looking like complete douchebags.

[KK77]

Sad stuff really mind you it got McShane off the hook. As Eamo would say you wouldn't see it up in the park on a Sunday morning.

[seanfhear]

Blatter should have gone for the team Ireland 33

He could then claim from there after that numbers just weren't his thing and kept the dosh rolling in.

[DannyInvincible]

Oh right, I might have been giving them too much credit by suggesting it was semi-logical so. Surely the/a request to have the match replayed would have carried the same weight, without the side effect of us looking like complete douchebags.

Some other comments from the time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-handball.html

On Thursday Fifa president Blatter also said there would be no financial recompense for the FAI but he did, however, offer the curious prospect of an award to try to soothe damaged Irish sensibilities.

"If you start to compensate teams that are not qualified then there are others that are coming too," the Fifa president told a news conference.

"But when it comes to this final match where all the world saw the obvious foul play, then there may be moral compensation. We will have a look at that."

Asked what he meant by moral compensation, Blatter said it could be a special award or a prize.

[TonyD]

Oh right, I might have been giving them too much credit by suggesting it was semi-logical so. Surely the/a request to have the match replayed would have carried the same weight, without the side effect of us looking like complete douchebags.

Even asking for a replay wasn't a runner (though not as cringe-makingly stupid as the "team 33" nonsense.) What sort of precedent would it have set ? After all, Ireland were not the first, and won't be the last, to have suffered from a plainly wrong refereeing decision. You can't go replaying matches every time video evidence shows the match officials got it wrong.

[DeLorean]

Yeah totally agree, just meant it would have been a more normal request. Games have been replayed over injustices and other factors in the in the past, if both teams are agreeable. That Arsenal Sheffield United FA Cup game comes to mind, albeit different circumstances.

[tetsujin1979]

We certainly wouldn't have been the first team to ask for a replay based on a refereeing error, but the way Blatter brought it into the public domain, as a joke in a speech, was uncalled for.
Unsurprisingly, the FAI didn't vote in his favour yesterday

[Gather round]

the way Blatter brought it into the public domain, as a joke in a speech, was uncalled for. Unsurprisingly, the FAI didn't vote in his favour yesterday

Blatter turned a minor PR embarrassment for FIFA into an irrestistible gag with the gormless FAI as punchline. The equivalent of Willy Gallas's goal-line tap=in, if you like.

BBC speculating yesterday that UEFA voted 40-10 against Sepp, with three abstentions.

Yesterday's glamor friendly clearly should be replayed at the Estadio Bernabeu or Camp Mou with free travel for all NI fans. After all, there was a clear throw-in in the run-up to our goal and a blatant foul leading to theirs.

[Closed Account 2]

Even asking for a replay wasn't a runner (though not as cringe-makingly stupid as the "team 33" nonsense.) What sort of precedent would it have set ? After all, Ireland were not the first, and won't be the last, to have suffered from a plainly wrong refereeing decision. You can't go replaying matches every time video evidence shows the match officials got it wrong.

To a degree a precedent had already been set. In September 2005 Uzbekistan played Bahrain in a World Cup (WC2006) qualifier. The Uzbeks went 1-0 up and were awarded a penalty. They scored from the pen to, seemingly, make it 2-0, but the ref disallowed the goal because he deemed that some of the Uzbek players had encroached (into the box) before the kick was struck. He gave a free kick to Bahrain instead, which is incorrect (the penalty should have been re-taken). The Uzbek players protested, the match ended 1-0 and at the end of the game the Uzbek Football Federation complained to FIFA. I guess the Uzbekistanis were hoping for a 3-0 forfiture or perhaps a one-off penalty kick before kick-off in the second leg. Instead FIFA ordered a replay, this replay (played a month later) was drawn 1-1, the second leg (in Bahrain) ended 0-0 so in the end the Bahrainis went through and played (and lost to) Trinidad and Tobago in the AFC-CONCACAF playoff.

So, in a sense, there was a precident for a match being replayed as a result of a refereeing error in a World Cup Play-off.

[DeLorean]

Interesting. Even more reason to pursue that route instead of the loopy 33rd team suggestion. Did the FAI even research possible precidents?

[Stuttgart88]

A recent England ladies match against Norway(?) had the last couple of minutes replayed. England took a penalty and scored I think, but a player had encroached so the ref gave a free out. duh.

The game was restarted at the same point (just before full-time) a day or two later with a re-taken penalty, which should have been the correct decision in the first place.

My guess is that an incorrect application of the rules is what justified the replay decision, rather than missing an obvious offence.

[CraftyToePoke]

Yes, that's the line in it, I think, it was referee failing to apply the rules rather than failing to spot something.

[osarusan]

Interesting. Even more reason to pursue that route instead of the loopy 33rd team suggestion. Did the FAI even research possible precidents?

According to this, yes.

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...n-appeal/?_r=0

I remember that at the time a disctinction was made between errors of omission and errors of commission.

The distinction being that there are clear technical errors (such as the incident from the Uzbekistan Bahrain match) which are not open to interpretation, and there are errors in decision-making by the referee, which may not always/often be technical errors.

In the case of Henry's handball, the referee and all the assistants somehow missing it was not a technical error in the way the other game was.

I do not know if FIFA entertained any appeal enough to dismiss it on this point though - it was just something I remember from the time.

[DannyInvincible]

Would missing a handball constitute a referee error in the same sense as outlined above by edmundo though? I have a feeling the error would have to be on an objective or statutory matter (where the ref has made a call based on his subjective perception but has applied the law incorrectly to that call), but open to correction on that. For example, it's unlikely FIFA would seriously consider an appeal to have a game replayed on the basis that a referee missed or judged less severe what was clearly-to-everyone-else a red-card-deserving foul by a later goal-scorer. An association might have better luck in an appeal, however, if a referee had awarded two yellow cards (without an accompanying red) in error to a player who later went on to score a winning goal when he obviously shouldn't even have been on the field after his second yellow. That's my thinking on it, but, as I say, open to correction.

Edit: I see a few other posts along similar lines have appeared since DeLorean's as I was typing up my own.

[CraftyToePoke]

Blatter to fall on his sword.
Let the jockeying for position in the new world order begin in earnest, John Delaney.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32982449