I haven't written a serious piece in a while now and thought this would be worthy of investigation. Two nights ago France and Ireland were playing in the second leg of a qualifier to determine which team went to the World Cup in June. Whoever won was going to take the 31st of 32 places in the World Cup, the last place being taken by Uruguay a few hours later. Ireland lost the first leg 1-0 and were winning 1-0 in France so the game went to extra time there, and Gallas scored a goal where several breaches were committed in the run-up. These were:
1. Henry was offside.
2. He handled the ball when it first came to him.
3. He handles it again to knock it onto his foot so he can cross it into the 6 yard box where Gallas heads it into the goal.
There's a video of it here.
Some have argued that the first handling of the ball was accidental, that the ball came to him so fast that it hit him without him realising it. But everybody, I think, believes that the second touch was deliberate. He moves his hand to the ball and directs the ball toward his foot. The most charitable thing you can say (and what Henry does argue) is that the first touch was accidental and the second instinctive. If a touch is instinctive then it is not accidental. It is the result of a pre-determined strategy of how to play the game. Not all players would make instinctive moves that breach the rules of the game, and some would. We should still discourage and penalise these supposedly instinctive breaches, but they should be treated slightly more leniently than a breach deemed fully deliberate or pre-meditatively deliberate. This game is done and dusted, and France are currently registered as being in the World Cup finals. It's also quite notable that FIFA took 2 full days to make any statement concerning the game (this happened within the last hour). According to some, the report of the match on their website failed to include any indication that there was even any controversy about the goal. Furthermore, no replies of the goal were shown in the Stade de France after the goal, presumably because there was no video of the event that did not clearly show the handballs.
What should be done? I want to consider only what should happen about the result of this match. There are further consequences that can be discussed, but I will not concern myself with them. These are: what sort of penalty should Henry receive for his actions, if any? What sort of penalty should the referee and other officials receive for their actions, if any? And should we now bring video replay evidence into the game?
As regards the result of the match, I believe that there are four discernible outcomes:
1. Let the result stand. Let France continue to the World Cup with the same status and opportunities as any other team.
2. Let the result stand. Let France continue to the World Cup but let it be universally acknowledged that controversy surrounded their qualification to the World Cup, and that any progress they make and the progress of any other teams which they impede by taking part will also be subject to the same controversy.
3. Let the French Football Federation have the choice to offer an official replay. If the Irish Football Association accept the offer (which they have already indicated they would), then FIFA honour the agreement and allow an official replay.
4. FIFA step in and order an official replay, without the consent of the FFF.
It seems that 1 is overwhelmingly likely. Option 2 will not happen in practice. It might be the case that in the eyes of every football fan it will be true anyway, but there will not be any official support for Option 2. I actually don't think it would be fair anyway since France have not as yet been given the opportunity to put the wrong right. For the same reason I can't agree with Option 4 either, as it is unfair on France. France have done everything right at the moment. Only one player on the team is actually guilty of anything, and that guilt should not affect the rest of the team. When two teams play a match under FIFA's rules, they agree beforehand that the referee's decision is absolutely final. By agreeing to this they both consent to the possibility (hopefully very small) that some wildly unfair injustices will occur. Luck is a massive part of football, and many sports, and is one of the reasons why it is so enjoyable to play and watch.
I'm therefore left with either Options 1 or 3. The main argument against Option 3 is that the possibility of replays of matches opens up the floodgates to lots of claims that matches should be replayed. But there is already a FIFA precedent for replaying games. In a qualifier for the 2006 World Cup Bahrain and Uzbekistan were ordered to replay when the referee ordered a free kick within the goal area to be awarded to Bahrain because during the successful scoring of a penalty one of the other Uzbek players entered the penalty area. The correct rule was that the penalty should be re-taken. FIFA's Law 5 of the laws of the game states that a replay may only occur when the referee makes a mistake of football law, which is what happened in that game. If he makes a mistake of fact then his original decision is final as soon as play continues. (i.e. he can undo a decision as long as it is done very quickly and does not interrupt the continuity of the game) In the France v Ireland game the referee and his assistants made a mistake of fact only, somehow failing to see an offside and two blatant handballs.
So on the current rules of the game it seems that Option 1 will prevail. However, as I am arguing for what should happen, I think that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant the application of Option 3. I do not think that the floodgates would open to future claims for replays because the circumstances in this particular case are so extreme that they deserve to be treated with a change to the rules. These are the relevant circumstances:
1. The action that led to the goal was seriously outside the spirit of the game.
2. It occurred long enough before the goal (a few seconds) to distract all the Irish players from preventing the goal since they all immediately appealed for the handball.
3. It was a seriously bad refereeing error.
4. It occurred close to the end of the game. It wasn't decisive, but not too far off. (Compare with the beachball incident recently where Liverpool had almost the entire match to get back into it after conceding a bizarre and unjust goal)
5. Ireland were massive underdogs in every respect.
6. They played better anyway. I'm sure most people would grant this.
7. They'd already been subjected to FIFA's arbitrary seeding decision, which looks a lot like FIFA had made a decision to favour France and the other big teams.
8. Until that point, if you count the two legs as one long tie, they were undefeated in the whole campaign, including twice to the world champions.
9. They had to play the second leg away which is a disadvantage anyway.
10. There's plenty of time to replay this match. There is no schedule to keep to or any tournament that would be disrupted by doing so. There's still 7 months to go until the World Cup and both teams will play pointless friendlies in that time.
11. There seems to be widespread public support for it to happen, including on behalf of the team that won the game, including both captains, high-up Irish politicians and well-respected veterans of the France national team, (e.g. Ginola, Lizarazu) and Arsene Wenger (A French manager who a few years ago offered a replay to Sheffield United during an F.A. Cup match where his team benefited from unfair play)
12. It's for a place in the World Cup finals, the most prestigious sporting competition in the world. Arguably, just getting there is worth more to any nation than winning the thing is to a team already qualified for it.
I don't believe even 8 of these factors are enough to set a new precedent, but 12 just about is. The floodgates won't open as this precedent will only apply to cases that satisfy about as many of the conditions that are satisfied in this case. Also, note that I am advocating Option 3 here, not Option 4. There can be no floodgates opening if the replay must be at the consent of the team that would benefit from there not being a replay. Of particular importance is no. 7. At the end of the league part of the European qualification process, 8 teams remained that would play in a knockout round to decide the last 4 European teams in the World Cup. Halfway through the campaign FIFA decided to implement the rule that these knockout matches would be subject to seeding, with France, Russia, Portugal and Greece being seeded against Ireland, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Ukraine. Many critics have suggested that the reason for this was to maximise the number of "big nations" that made it to the World Cup, notably France, Russia and Portugal, but mainly France who had had a poor qualifying campaign and unexpectedly come 2nd in their group. It looks a lot like there was bias in favour of France by FIFA and how this case has been dealt with by them looks to strongly support this bias.
FIFA very recently made the comment:
`There is no way the game can replayed.
'To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.
'FIFA's rules are absolutely clear. Law 5 states that a referee's decision on points of fact are final. That is the end of it. You cannot replay the match on this basis.
'You have to have a rule that says the referee's judgement is always right.'
But we already know that FIFA are willing to change the rules in the middle of a football season so why should a new precedent not be considered now? Not long after FIFA issued this statement, the FFF gave the following statement: (translated from the French using Google)
In light of numerous reactions from Wednesday night in Ireland as in France, the FFF wants to make the following three comments:
1. The FFF has understands the disappointment and bitterness of players, officials and supporters in Ireland. She never sought to deny arbitration because allowing the tying goal validation French. By the end of the match and because the French football itself has suffered in the past events of similar nature, the FFF leaders have expressed their Irish counterparts regret and sympathy.2. Thierry Henry, captain of Team France, recognized his fault spontaneous labor. He was from the end of the meeting with the Irish players and the referee, then the media. This frankness and honesty are at the height of the exemplary career he has accomplished in all its clubs as well as national team. Faced with the pressure it undergoes the French Football Federation was providing full support.
3. The Federation of Ireland (FAI) was asked yesterday to FIFA that the match be replayed. FIFA rejected this request today, recalling the Laws of the game that govern the conduct of all football games: "The referee's decisions on facts related to the game are final, including Validation of a goal and the match result. Consequently, the result of the match can not be changed or the game replayed.
The decision by FIFA is authoritative and binding on the two federations.
They did not address whether they would have offered a replay had FIFA not intervened first and declared that no replay could be official. The FFF have been under a lot of pressure to offer a replay, but now FIFA making this decision has lifted the responsibility to do so away from them. This has just become one more of many unpopular decisions made by FIFA. Hopefully it will be the last, but I highly doubt it.
I believe that FIFA have tacitly made contradictory remarks here. On their website they state that:
i)Winning is without value if victory has been achieved unfairly or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing fair requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. Fair play always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns respect, while cheating only brings shame. Remember: it is only a game. And games are pointless unless played fairly.
So now they must admit that the whole World Cup is pointless. France's inclusion in the World Cup finals will have effects on many teams who don't at all consider the World Cup to be pointless. The French team and fans will now have to suffer from the fact that they should not necessarily be there and are essentially playing an illegitimate World Cup. No matter how well they play or even if they win it, their result will be marred by this event. So FIFA have robbed them as well as the Irish. In principle anyway. I actually suspect that FIFA and the FFF are in a very close relationship. Sepp Blatter (President of FIFA) and Michel Platini (President of UEFA) are both French. Blatter reportedly failed to present the last World Cup to Italy because he was upset that they had beaten France to get it. He is a controversial figure who seems to care more about results than the spirit of the game.
