L'Affaire Henry: Plan For the Worst
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 4:09 PM EST
41 comments
I've got two friends. We'll call them Kevin and Dan. They both write about soccer and, as coincidence would have it (given Wednesday's big news), were on opposing sides before France and Ireland kicked off Saturday at Croke Park.
It was only a few hours ago that I was able to convince myself they were not going to get into a fight (verbal, not physical).
These are two men who, both near forty-years-old, cover soccer daily. Who knows how many handballs (intentional or otherwise) they've seen in their lives, yet Thierry Henry's left-hand has them at loggerheads. Kevin thinks Henry should repay the Football Association of Ireland the money they lost in missing the World Cup (not his only suggestion). Dan thinks this is not as big a deal as the English-speaking media is making it out to be.
I don't know about you, but I don't see a lot of middle ground there.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, France advanced to next June's World Cup in South Africa be virtue of what's quickly becoming the most disputed goal in soccer history. I say that with no lack of memory of "Hand of God." In extra time at the Stade-de-France in Saint-Denis, Thierry Henry used the palm of his left hand to trap a cross, put on his left foot, play the ball across the six to teammate William Gallas, who headed home the winning goal.
Some say Henry's hand ball was intentional. Some say Gallas (and others) were offside. Other disagree, but one thing upon which both sides agree: This goal was good for The Game. You've heard the trumpets of instant replay and fifth official.
I've intentionally stayed out of Kevin and Dan's debate. Both are so consumed with the issue that they haven't sought my opinion (for which I'm thankful). I'm sure on the daily podcast we do together, Kevin and I will eventually talk about it. Of course, I conveniently skipped last night's session. Perhaps I'm avoiding the issue?
With the launch of this new blog and the commitment I've made to you, my hosts at SBNation, I've decided to jump off the fence. After all, we're amongst friends.
Right?
Having seen Kevin and Dan about to knock heads, I want to make sure before I continue. Here's my view on L'Affaire Henry:
Whenever a team takes the pitch, it accepts a certain range of possible outcomes. That range goes beyond the mere rules - what's "legal or "allowed." That is why there are penalties assigned for infractions. Those are implicit acknowledgements of that range of outcomes, even if they are outcomes the rules seek to avoid. That range includes all the little, legal things (passes, shots, throw-ins), the small infractions (clumsy tackles, incidental hand-balls) and the big stuff (dangerous plays and, to a absurd extent, how many players you are allowed to start).
Just as a head coach must plan for rare occurrences (like a player being sent-off), a coach must also recognize that if your strategy entails playing a close match, you leave yourself susceptible. When a match is too close, unexpected events - externalities, if you will - can be decisive.
For example, in Moscow on Saturday - at the end of leg one of Russia and Slovenia's playoff - Slovenia scored an 87th minute, seemingly innocuous goal. It made the score 2-1 Russia after the hosts had dominated the match from the twentieth minute on.
On Wednesday, that away goal went from footnote to decisive when Slovenia won 1-0 in Maribor, knocking the heavily favored Russians out of the World Cup. Guus Hiddink (Russia's head coach) cut it too close. Of course, since the decisive event (the away goal) happened at the 87-minute-mark of a 180-minute match, it fails to garner the headlines.
And that's what distinguishes L'Affaire Henry: timing.
It's the timing of Thierry Henry's hand ball that has people aghast. If that goal was scored ninety minutes earlier, people would be upset but not appalled. "Ireland had a chance to make amends," would be the refrain. Amidst the uproar of the last day, people have overlooked that Ireland had over 180 minutes to preclude randomness from being decisive.
I'm not happy that a critical match ended with an illegal goal, and I don't want to minimize how unjust I feel the outcome was. The referee shouldn't be allowed to work another World Cup Qualifier, particularly if (as has been claimed) Henry told the official that he used his hands. But no replay. No reversal. This was an outcome Ireland coach Giovanni Trappatoni knew possible before the kickoff at Croke.
It is unfair - disproportionately so - but it's also part of The Game. Let's ask how to avoid it happening again. Still, it happen, and we need to move on.
My heart goes out to the diehard Ireland fans who will not be making the trip to South Africa, but the next time a manager wants to adopt an approach that might keep the game a little too close, November 18, 2009 should be remembered.
But for Kevin and Dan, I hope November 18 is quickly forgotten.
Are you a Kevin? Or are you a Dan? Let's talk this out, shall we? I look forward to hearing your comments.
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
of what’s quickly becoming the most disputed goal in soccer history. I say that with no lack of memory of “Hand of God.”
Hyperbole much? This isn’t eve close to the dispute about the 1966 Wembley goal (which by the way was no goal).
by monkeyhead on Nov 19, 2009 4:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One other thing ...
… when I wrote that sentence, I was conscious of how many people are talking about this. No doubt, more people are talking about this goal than when the Hurst goal.
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good example ...
… but didn’t that match end 4-2?
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 4:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts
I agree that you can’t really replay the game. Obviously, as both an Ireland fan and someone who hates seeing refs determine the outcome of the game, the outcome sucks and I wish the goal could somehow be overturned, but you can’t expect to replay the whole game. Ireland even had a few good chances after the goal to take back the lead (and win on agg given the away goals), but you just hate to see a match of that magnitude decided by that.
All that said, this cannot happen again. I totally agree that we should now direct the conversation towards how we prevent something like this from happening again. If it takes a 5th referee, instant replay or anything else, then that is what it takes, but FIFA cannot allow a team’s chances at going to the WC hang on a goal that was both offsides and a handball.
"It was almost like if Harry didn't call it, it wasn't real." - Jayson Stark
by Chris Haines on Nov 19, 2009 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea of a referee staying or right next to the goals. It honestly can’t be that hard. I’ve witnessed instant replays kill the game of rugby league in Australia. Don’t want it in football.
by skipkirk on Nov 22, 2009 7:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's too bad, because ...
… based on how the playoffs unfolded, would we mind if Ireland were given Greece’s place?
Well, no need to make the Greece fans pay for referee mistakes, either.
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
For those who haven't seen
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 19, 2009 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nice!
Thanks for posting that, 3k!
In the NBA, that’s carrying.
Sorry, in the NBA, that’s dribbling.
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NP
and BTW, it’s L’Affaire. How dare you mangle the language! I’ve been coming to this blog since day 1!
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 19, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
That even looks a lot better. Changing it now. Clearly, I know no French.
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHA
I really didn’t expect you to change it, but you’re welcome. I think SBN will excuse your French grammar fail.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 19, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, no ...
… if anybody ever sees anything wrong, I will try to fix it. Us self-editing bloggers are pretty bad, sometimes. In the preview I wrote for Russian Football Now on Tuesday, I was talking about Igor Dzagoev.
Problem?
His name is Alan.
Embarrassing (and a little but culturally insensitive, when you think about it).
by Richard Farley on Nov 19, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
but Igor is Russian for Alan, so no problem.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 19, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have watched it numerous times now
and to me it looks like the balls plays the hand. So I am not gonna say Henry did it on purpose. The part that bugs me though is how he " sells " it celebrating like he got that cross off using some sort of sublime skill.
by ccrun1800 on Nov 19, 2009 6:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I thought it was intentional. I say that as an Arsenal fan and a France fan, so I’m not sure how you can say the ball plays the hand. Look at the picture I posted above. He’s looking his hand in to the ball to keep it from going over the touch line. I love Henry, but IMO it was 100% intentional.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 19, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The blame here falls directly on FIFA
One referee plus two linesmen trying to call an entire pitch with 22 players running around and getting in their way. This has been a problem for as long as the game has been played and FIFA has acknowledged as much by taking a look at an endline referee, second referee or replay. It’s clear that FIFA is aligned with the rest of the world in acknowledging that it’s a near impossible game to officiate as is, yet what changes have been enacted? None. In classic FIFA form, nothing has been done and that is why things like this are allowed to happen. With an endline referee, this is called a handball. Replay would show the same, but what do we have? The same thing that we know is inadequate.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 19, 2009 9:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great points
The question seems to be whether we accept the inherent variability in the game as intrinsic, or do we pursue some of the solutions you describe. Both paths work. The latter, however, implies a pursuit for perfection which may never end.
by Richard Farley on Nov 20, 2009 4:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no issues with things being missed
As long as humans are out there, nothing will be perfect, but when something can be done so easily and without much, if any, downside, then why hasn’t it been? People will make mistakes and that is fine, but things shouldn’t be decided because those people have been given an impossible task without any effort to help them out. Henry’s handball was likely unseen by the referee because of the mass of bodies in his way so what is he to do? There is nothing, but there should have been an endline referee or replay to help him (I prefer endline referee).
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 20, 2009 4:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks Like We're Both Up Late
And you’re still making great point. The end-line referee coupled with a recognition that perfection is not attainable seems like a logical course.
So how do we make this happen? I’m new to SBNation. How much pull do we have here?
by Richard Farley on Nov 20, 2009 5:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The SBN reach goes pretty far
As a frontpager at a couple other sites, I can attest to this. I mean, at a minimum we can yell at people…or is that the most we can do? Hmmmm…well if we can get ourselves a spot within FIFA, then bribe the FA into a friendly, asking for the money to be paid directly to our bank accounts we can do a little more. Jack Warner already wrote the script, now we just have to follow it.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 20, 2009 5:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
… we would have to buy the script from Warner. Not only would the price be high (SBNation’s got that kind of loot, I’m told), but given how the Warner family “received” the gifts the English FA handed them, it’s unclear whether they would even keep it.
(Note: I’m told SBNation does not, in fact, have “loot.”)
by Richard Farley on Nov 20, 2009 5:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then we do the next best thing in global soccer
Pray that we come upon some Arab oil.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 20, 2009 5:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How'd that work for Portsmouth?
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Nov 20, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They got new chimes?
Those are important on the south coast.
by Richard Farley on Nov 20, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But then ...
… I believe we would be contractually bound to purchase an English Premier League-side, and I don’t know about you, but living in Stoke isn’t my cup of Earl.
by Richard Farley on Nov 20, 2009 5:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The plain and simple fact of it all is this:
The context of the situation. This isn’t the first time a player has cheated and it certainly isn’t the first time a player has used his hand to control the ball in the box. But that it happened in extra time for a chance to go to the World Cup is what has everyone up in arms.
Yes, it’s cheating. But before Henry critics continue to rail on him, they need to remember the reactions they had when Paul Scholes punched the ball in against Zenit. Or when Robbie Keane was guilty of a pathetic handball and subsequent penalty against Georgia earlier this year.
The only difference with those situations, the ONLY difference, is the context of the situation. This selective anger by all is hypocracy at its finest. And if this doesn’t bring about video replay, then FIFA is lost for good.
by Twin Cities Hawk on Nov 20, 2009 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
This is why my anger isn’t directed at Henry. He was right after the match when he commented, “ask the referee.” It’s not his job to make the calls. Then, you ask the referee and he would have said, “I couldn’t see the play.” At which point you realize that he had no chance to see the play with everyone in his way, posing the question, if this has happened before (as you mentioned, just not for a World Cup spot) then why hasn’t FIFA done a thing about it?
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 20, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
I am very curious to see how FIFA and UEFA react to this situation.
Michel Platini makes me scratch my head enough (outrage at EPL clubs, specificially Man City, for their “over-spending”, then points out Chelsea and Roman Abramovich as those who spend within their means) to know that he won’t always make the most rational or logical deicions when it comes to implementing video evidence or additional referees in UCL, Europa and the Euro Championship.
by Twin Cities Hawk on Nov 20, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There was no incident.....
…..in the qualifier between France and Ireland to which either FIFA or UEFA should react.
Their position on the use of video evidence is in my opinion correct. When the game is over, it’s over, no go backs, no do-overs.
by Marvin, The Paranoid Android on Nov 22, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to bring up the Keane incident
Ironic just a bit. Check it out for yourself.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
by 3k on Nov 20, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great site so far!
I find myself torn. There is precedence for replay isn’t there? Didn’t Aresnal replay a game recently? Granted it was on the club level and not an international qualifier. It seems like Henry is trying to backpedal, he owns the actions and says there should be a replay, but it feels like it’s coming far too late. Reality is what it is, and the unexpected, controversial and exceptional are why we watch sports. It is Ireland’s fault, as mentioned, that the series was that close but you never anticipate deliberate cheating. When you play hard and fairly, especially as a professional, you have a reasonable expectation that those you are competing against will abide by the same ethos. When they don’t, those who play ‘fair’ usually end up on the poor side of the wall. But that is life as they say. I would have loved to see the Isle back into the Cup, memories of Keane’s last minute goal against Germany at 2am are still quasi-fresh. Oh well, go U-S-A!
by Shooter McGavin on Nov 20, 2009 9:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn't Henry come out in favor of a replay?
He knows that there has been no precedence set by FIFA to have a replay on the account of the referee missing a game-changing call like what we saw this week. That would completely undermine the game as we know if if FIFA cut its refs down by having a replay. Therefore, Henry looks the good citizen and says he wants a replay knowing there’s a better chance of a pack of wild boars beating Brazil to lift the World Cup in 2010. It’s not backpedaling, it’s suave PR on his part.
Also, no replay of an Arsenal game.
by Twin Cities Hawk on Nov 21, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
If there was any possibility of a replay, he’d have kept his mouth shut. As it is, he was just rehabbing is public image.
by Marvin, The Paranoid Android on Nov 22, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arsenal played a replay? I haven’t heard of such thing.
by skipkirk on Nov 22, 2009 7:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arsenal agreed to replay...
….FIFA correctly nixed it.
by Marvin, The Paranoid Android on Nov 22, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks! And ...
… there is a FIFA precedence for a replay, as well as an English FA one. I will bring them up in my Monday article. Thanks for the question.
by Richard Farley on Nov 23, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If this can be replayed
Can we go back and replay the US-Germany 2002 World Cup Quarterfinal? If yes, then I suddenly favor a replay in this case.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 21, 2009 1:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i have no idea why people are so upset at henry.
can we really expect players to just play “honest?” call their own fouls? call their own handballs? absolutely not, that’s why we have referees. frankly, i don’t care whether henry did purposefully handle the ball or not. i mean technically it’s “unsportsmanlike,” but i can’t expect him not to try to do everything in his power to win. that’s why there’s a referee on the field! to make sure that when he does something illegal (handle the ball) he is penalized! i can’t count the number of times i have seen players do something illegal, in any sport, and try to play it off quickly as if they didn’t do anything at all. it’s part of the game. if the referee doesn’t have the ability to call plays correctly, then it’s fifa’s fault.
capital letters suck.
by soccerfreak on Nov 21, 2009 12:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not that it mattered
I mean, it was the one in a 9-1 score line, but a Wigan man got away with another clear hand ball from about 10 yards out that allowed him to control the ball and score a goal. Yet another hand ball that would have been seen by an end line official. Time to get things moving FIFA. The end line referee needs to be here and it better be here by the World Cup.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 22, 2009 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Are you referring to WC 2022 or WC 2026
This is FIFA you’re talking about.
by Marvin, The Paranoid Android on Nov 23, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe I read that FIFA will discuss the issue in March
with the aim being the endline referees on the field for South Africa.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 23, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
