The Irish have been cheated (and I'm not even Irish!)

[molendijk]

As I said: CHEATED. (http://www.let.rug.nl/molendyk/hand_of_god_again.html)

[jscheuer1]

I, boat day still 'ave whiskey toe, eh?

(I can say that because I'm part Irish)

[Snookerman]

Henry has always been my absolute favorite player, but if Ireland doesn't receive a rematch, I will lose all me respect for FIFA and never watch a game again.. Maybe they now realize the necessity of technology. Had they have had the two extra linesmen like they did the the Europa league, this would not have happened. Seriously, get the extra linesmen and hawk-eye.

[Schmoopy]

It seems pretty stupid if they don't get a rematch, since Henry himself even admits handling the ball and it's just so obvious on the video...

[molendijk]

Henry himself even admits handling the ball
That's what makes him very sympathetic.
===
Arie.
===

[djr33]

That's a huge error on the part of many people involved (players, coaches, etc., at the time), and especially the refs.
However, I must say that isn't that part of the game? If the refs don't see it, it is within the rules. It's stupid, but in this case it's kinda just how it goes-- at the time they didn't figure it out.
But this should convince them to use cameras and instant replays to check, so that it never happens again. That can't really retroactively be applied within the boundaries of the original rules, though.

[jscheuer1]

Instant replay in sports is an odd convention. There was a time (for the vast majority of human existence) when this was a technological impossibility. The question then becomes, "Just because we can do instant replay now, should we, and how, and when?"

What happens in a sporting event is spontaneous. This includes the crowd/fans (present and via TV, radio, etc.) view, and all of the players, commentators, refs, etc.

In most, if not all sports with refs, umpires, whatever (mediators), whenever a questionable call or even just a given situation arises, the mediator(s) have always had final say (if even only by virtue of saying nothing). Now we also have instant replay as a possibility. When, if at all, should it be invoked? Who mediates it and/or its invocation? After all, even the replay is subject to interpretation.

It's my opinion that we can never always 'get it right', no matter what system is put in place. So where do we draw the line? Are fans, players, etc. such babies that they can't live with what happens (including questionable calls and calls that are never made because they were missed, which are all just a part of the action anyway)? Do they have to constantly or frequently replay in their minds (with or without the aid of instant replay video) the already transpired action of the game until they get the outcome they desire?

If that is the case, someone will always be disappointed. No different than with or without instant replay.

Add to this the fact that in most, again if not all sports using refs of one kind or another, if the refs feel they have gotten it wrong, but it is too late to do anything about it immediately, they will almost invariably try to correct this with another call later. This is influenced of course by protests (correct or otherwise by coaches, or any allowed to protest, or any who do so even when not allowed). None of this is perfect, but that's no different than if replay is used.

[Snookerman]

Look at tennis, if you think a call is wrong you have a chance to challenge it and get hawk-eye's help. If your challenge is wrong, you lose it, and you have a limited number of challenges which prevents players from challenging every decision that isn't in their favor.

This could easily be implemented in football, if the players think something is wrong (and usually they have a better chance in spotting mistakes since they have 11 viewing angles, on the field at least), they could talk to the team captain, who is the only one would be able to submit a challenge.

All FIFA and UEFA games are (I'm pretty sure) televised which means the fourth referee or even an eventual fifth one with a screen in front of them, could take a much better look and improve the decision. This does of course not mean that all decisions will be correct but such huge flaws as the one discussed above can be avoided.

Other, additional solutions are, like I mentioned before, two extra linesmen. This was tested in the Europa League and we've haven't heard much from it again. This solution covers the two areas on the field with the worst visibility from the three current officials, coincidentally (perhaps not so much due to the bad visibility) the are where the handball occurred.

Like I said, Henry is much all time favorite player and I am happy that France got through, but I would have certainly preferred it without such scandals and controversies. I believe this is the absolute last required proof that there is a great need of reform in football (and probably other sports).

[djr33]

Yes, this is a great example for using new technologies to improve the regulations.
But those can't realistically be implemented retroactively, so even more reason to fix it now-- before it happens again and again they can't do anything about it.

On the other hand, sports are about the natural elements that occur. Technology is a bad part in many ways (better shoes = faster runners, delays for tv commercials, steroids), and it detracts from the main point. If referees could be replaced by computers (not that impossible, at least within a few years), should they be? Or, rather, if a computer/camera is backing up the referees, are they actually DOING anything, or just wearing a silly outfit and talking for the computer. At that point a computer might as well just calculate who will win by stats and go from there.

[jscheuer1]

That's what I was saying. It can be such a slippery slope. What's next then? Once we replace all the refs with machines, how about the players?

The only sport I really follow, and not all that well, though better than the casual observer, is baseball. They've instituted replay for certain calls, but I believe the umpires (refs in that sport) must first agree that it is warranted, and only at a manger's (head coach) request, and only for certain types of calls. I really don't feel it has done anything to improve the game. Sure, some calls that should have gone one way and didn't at first are corrected, but others are not. I feel that if the umpires miss a call, it just means that the play was too close for the human eye and probably shouln't have counted anyway. It (not having replay) presents a challenge to the players to be good sports about things while still letting their views be known. If they have a valid point, 9 times in 10 the umpires will rectify the situation with a later call. If the players can't keep their heads, perhaps they don't (in the spirit of the game) deserve further consideration from the umpires. Also, expert gamesmanship and/or reputation can influence a call in one's favor. These are all just elements of the sport. Replay doesn't really change any of that in any material way. So I say, "Why bother?"

[Snookerman]

On the other hand, sports are about the natural elements that occur. [...] At that point a computer might as well just calculate who will win by stats and go from there.
I don't really see how you reach that conclusion. Just because we would have two extra referees, or even some sort of technology further on, in order to make sure the rules are being followed, does not mean the natural elements would not occur. The point of rules is just that, to remove all factors, except for the skills and tactics of the players and the natural elements. That is why players are not allowed to bring ak47s and shoot the opponents or to pick up the ball in their hands and score.


The only sport I really follow, and not all that well, though better than the casual observer, is baseball. [...] I feel that if the umpires miss a call, it just means that the play was too close for the human eye and probably shouln't have counted anyway. [...] If they have a valid point, 9 times in 10 the umpires will rectify the situation with a later call. [...] So I say, "Why bother?"
Baseball is not football, in football there are no later calls. I don't think anyone would agree with you that Henry's handballs should not have counted because it was "too close for the human eye". Why bother? Because all the time, effort and money that a country puts into a team and all the hopes and dreams of all the fans are just destroyed with one referee being on the wrong side of a handball.

[jscheuer1]

That's life.

[djr33]

I stand by what I said: the officials are part of the game. Certainly officials who are unreliable should be fired, but in this case they just didn't see it. I'm not saying I don't think a little more regulation would hurt, but the game is about playing and people, not about absolute rules or facts. Perhaps, like timeouts, coaches should get one or two "video replays" per game, for this specific sort of thing, but having in general something that replaces the referees is just not the same game.

[Snookerman]

That's life.
What? Anarchy?


having in general something that replaces the referees is just not the same game.
Two extra linesmen don't replace the referee, they assist him.



P.S. This thread needs more cowbell.

[jscheuer1]

You obviously are upset with the outcome. You want to change things so that you can get the outcome that you want. Be careful what you wish for. Adding in computers and/or extra referees may have different results than you imagine.

By "That's life" I do mean a bit of anarchy. Life is chaotic. Life is unfair. There is always an element of chance. We may do legal and illegal, moral and immoral, prudent and imprudent, sublime and ridiculous, etc. things to try to eliminate that chaos, that chance. But we can never eliminate it altogether, and to the extent that we do succeed, we are less alive. In the world of sports, this element of chance adds to the excitement. The more things you do to remove it, the duller your game becomes.

When I said bad calls are often compensated for by later calls, I believe I also mentioned that sometimes they are not. Even in baseball (just like in other sports) there's a chance that a game may hinge on a bad call. This chance increases late in a close game. That's life.

[djr33]

Two extra linesmen would still allow for plenty of error.

[Snookerman]

No offense, but is that your argument?

[djr33]

My argument is that it's just a game. Perfection is not part of a real life game, and trying to artificially impose it afterwords seems, well, artificial.
I like the idea of allowing teams one or two video replay challenges per game, just to keep things sane, but anything beyond that seems too much, to me.

Why not add a linesman at every line? They can have lawn chairs and their whole job is to watch that line, so that there are never any more errors. And when one makes a bad call, should the video replay still overrule them? Why not just write a program that will take the place of them, or at least use a single guy with a computer as the judge-- that would be easy.

Honestly, I don't care that much. I just don't see the huge problem with having bad calls once in a while. It's part of the game. Of course really bad calls (like this one) are more than should be tolerated, but how would you attempt to determine when "better" means of checking should be used? Should the fans vote?

On the other hand, since the player himself said he messed up, that is plenty of evidence for the call to be reversed, BUT the catch there is that not everyone is so honest, so the honest players would get decisions changed and dishonest players would keep their goals, etc.

This is something like the steroids debate. They're bad and should be disallowed. But how can you check? Should they do blood tests every time a player walks onto the field? Perhaps implant blood level monitoring devices in their arms?

[Snookerman]

Not everything has to be so drastic, the two extra linesmen have already been tested in Europa League games with good results. The need for linesmen on those positions (right of the goals) has been discussed for a long time, since none of the three referees have a good view over those areas. I don't know much about baseball and "football" and how the referees are over there, but over here, I think about half of all the games you see end in discussions about the referee making bad calls.

What I'm trying to suggest is not turning everyone into robots or whatever, I'm just saying that the outcome of a game should be decided by the players, not by the referee.

Regarding steroids, I read an article a couple of months ago arguing that "some" steroids should be allowed (I think it only talked about the world of athletics). The arguments were that the athletes would not have to go to such great lengths to dope themselves and not getting caught and that it would make the competition more fair, since not all people are built the same. They pointed out that only African and South-American people make it into the 100 meter finals. I don't have any knowledge or opinion about this, I just thought I'd mention it.

[djr33]

The arguments about right or wrong calls are typically biased-- rarely do people complain "that official was so wrong today giving our team such good calls".
It's that bias (and its nature as a part of sports) that makes things how they are. Really wrong calls like the one discussed in this thread are exceptions, but officials typically give their own sense of the game to those they monitor-- for example, in hockey, officials are very free to decide whether or not to call certain things depending on the current moment in the game. Different styles will lead to different games.

Officials are very similar to police. Having a police state is no fun for anyone. Everyone breaks the law a little, and having it fully monitored makes life worse for everyone.

Two more linesmen may be a good idea. But at the same time, it might just give a different feeling to the game, one in which there are still ways that it may be unfair to one team or the other, and that's just because the situation has changed, but the randomness of the game has not.

[Snookerman]

At the moment, things are at their worst ever for France, I guess the Irish have gotten their revenge.

In case you don't know what's happened, France drew against Uruguay, then lost against Mexico 2-0. Because he was taken out at half time, Anelka shouted some profanities to Domenech, the French coach. The federation asked for an apology, and when he refused, he was sent home. In protest, all players refused to train and there were fears they would not play the last game against South Africa. By this time, most French supporters were sick of the team. The only chance to advance was for them to win--big--against South Africa, and for the other game between Mexico and Uruguay, that is being played at the same time, not to end in a draw. So while I'm writing this, France has received a red card early in the match and is down by 2-0. In other words, it's bad!

Even though Thiery is my favorite player, I'm now rooting for South Africa.

[molendijk]

Hello soccer lovers,
Some time ago, I started this thread with this video (http://www.let.rug.nl/molendyk/hand_of_god_again.html), and I'm happy to announce that the hand of God corrected things that were not correct until now: France is out!
I will continue to support Holland, since I'm Dutch (though Slavonic by nature). (And I don't hate the French: my oldest daughter is married to a Frenchman).
===
Arie.