No they shouldn't. It's a dumb idea.

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8742_5706097,00.html

Good article on the whole thing.

No, it would set a ridiculous precedent for teams to complain about every poor decision and ask for a replay (Which they would have to grant).

stupid game who cares

but its time to use VIDEO REPLAY in football..

Football already has replays, ur talking about soccer.

And yes, it needs replay.

soccer is for Americans and their wannabes, here the game is called football.

Soccer is the proper nickname for the sport (Association Football).

what millions of people call it is the right name for it, not what some association or some yankies think.

lol

It's not what some association thinks, the name of the sport is Association Football and the nickname given to it originally was Soccer (nothing to do with America).

So the correct nickname for the sport is Soccer. Football is also acceptable but you can't complain when others confuse you with other varieties of football.

I wasn't serious man, guess didn't make it obvious enough.

If that was meant to be light hearted/funny then it was quite possibly the worst attempt ever :D

It wasn't meant to be funny, I was just like 'I'm calling it football, gtfo with your ancient\American names'.

That's a serious comment then.

Serious in another way, I'm just saying that I accept soccer as a proper name but don't care enough to read mile long posts about how it is.

But apparently not only did you, but you also bothered to reply.

Good not caring there mate, I think we should send you to the not caring Olympics as that's a gold in the bag.

God yes I did, I simply expected better understanding from your side, but you look like you have nothing better to do but troll.Good day.

that wasn't a troll, you just failed. I agree though, but less arguments were in order.

Ahh, I'm to lazy to describe how much I care exactly, but w\e, I wasn't going to argue about it and I didn't. Also, his post wasn't a mile long one, too, but I would expect one to be writen if I happen to try and argue about it seriously.

No he is talking about football.

soccer is for Americans and their wannabes, here the game is called football.

soccer is for Americans and their wannabes, here the game is called football.

It's called Football, you're talking about Eggball.

handegg
http://blog.georghermes.de/wp-content/uploads/handegg.jpg

soccer is for Americans and their wannabes, here the game is called football.

for commercial reasons there won't be any replays ...
you know unfair decisions lead to more interest in the media ...
there is opportunity to write about unjustice and there is more emotion ... all this translates well into more money

we have it in basketball in tenis in ....... noone telling use replay in every fault , but in moments LIKE THIS wtf? if i was irish i would burn france ambasada in irland!

burn ambasada burn!

seconded. wondered for some time shy they dont use it

No, just time for video replays for the refs..

Video

No, but they should fine Henry and give him a several game ban in the WC or even ban him completely from it.. That cheating bastard obviously did it on purpose and even though he talks smooth after the game saying how he told the referee about it and all that crap, he couldnt have been more proud of his accomplishment after the ball went over the line. I know there are no rules to support this but I think it is about time that FIFA comes down hard on players that are willfully deceiving the referee for their own gain.

And herein lies the problem with the sport in general. You don't think that the over-acting of about EVERY player within the sport whenever they get tackled shouldn't be punished with a dive? I'm sure plenty of people would object to it, claiming it is a part of the game.

However, it falls under the same category of deceit. Trying to act to make the referee think the tackle was more of an intent-to-injure rather than just a misjudged touch. I cringe whenever I see players go down sobbing about an injury that my two-year-old daughter would get up from.

As far as the play itself, Ireland may have prevented the goal had they not been too busy trying to convince the referee it was a handball.

A misjudged tackle is just as bad as an intent to injure anyway.

It really pisses me off when I see shockingly poor technique tackles unpunished time after time and all the commentators/pundits say is "just a misjudged tackle".

While I agree that careless tackles should be punished, I also feel that players who clearly feign injuries are just as bad.

It's harder to tell when a player is feigning injury or has dived though, I feel if the refs cracked down and were consistent with the rules throughout every game then players would dive/feign less anyway.

I just dont like it when players try to deceive the referee on any level. So players diving when they are barely touched of course falls under that category. If there was severe punishment for incidents like this after the fact then they would stop all together, since no player in his right mind would try to "cheat" his way through a game where there are a dozen video cameras on him at all times that can be used to judge his behavior after the fact.

Wow that was idiotic. It's a yellow card offense at most. Should Keane be banned then for handling multiple times in the game? His were very blatant. Should Rooney be banned from the world cup for his ridiculous dive against Slovenia?

Even Roy Keane thinks you whiney windbags are idiots.

If it had happened on the other end it would have been a straight red card for Henry and in turn a three match suspension. So why is it idiotic to want him to be banned for the same amount when he decides to use his hands to score a goal ? Also about Rooney, yes he should have gotten a several game ban for his blatant dive. If there is one thing that I hate about footballers it is when they act like they are morally superior to other players when they are off-pitch and claim they dont cheat like this, but then all of a sudden when things get rough on pitch every trick in the book is used.

I liked Redknapps suggestion of just asking the players about incidents like these after they happen to see what their view on them are. If they lie ( Which is very easy to see with video cameras ), then they get a ban but if they tell the truth they just get a slap on the hand but are branded as the cheaters that they are.

No it would have been a penalty and a yellow card if that. You only get red carded if you blatantly deflect a shot going towards goal. Like Paul Scholes did the other day. This was nothing like that. Also bans for professional fouls are one game. How can you not know that?

There is simply no way Henry could be banned for that. I remember being pissed off about Liverpool winning the 2001 FA cup by two blatant handballs on the line by Liverpool defenders. But I wasn't retarded enough to whine about a replay and that Henchoz should have been banned. It's football. Get over it.

Well Im going by the assumption that Henry would be stopping a goal, like he produced a goal on the other end. Which would be a red card, while a mere handball is of course by the rules always just a yellow card.

But my original point was more in the lines of that he should be banned, not on the basis of rules. Like I said in my original post :o Just something like they were trying to experiment with when they kicked up all that fuss about the Eduardo incident against Celtic if I remember correctly where he blatantly dove to win a penalty. Just because things are the way they are it doesnt mean you should just accept it and move on, maybe it is time for some sort of video technology to counter behavior like this.

They weren't experimenting with shit. The scots kicked up a fuss and because there are some major Scottish influence in UEFA they got him banned. They even admitted that they weren't going to look at any other incidents. Such arbitrary bullshit will just be bad for the game. Whine and bitch enough and you get your way. Not good for football.

Alright.

Personally I like it when rules are made up on the fly, especially retrospectively and based on arbitrary reasons and taken out of context.

I also like it when the rules try to punish intent based on video footage, always good to see the thoughts within someones head during split second moments analysed through video footage.

Yeah because it is so hard to decipher intent when someone plays the ball with his hand twice, the audacity to want to ban blatant cheaters retroactively, oh the humanity,.

Yes it is, I'm sure you've never done anything based on instinct and are in complete conscious control of everything you do.

Pre-meditated split-second cheating is my favourite.

Im sure a lot of rapists would agree with you. Now I finally understand why they only get a couple of months sentence here in Iceland.

Are you comparing something that either takes planning or gives you lots of time to think about it to an implicit judgement in a split second?

Neither, I am just entertaining his sarcasm.

He's just stupid.

Stupid ? I said I knew there were no rules to support my desire. I dont know where you guys get off telling me that the rules for it arent there again and again.

And yeah, Roy Keane can go kick a tactical board if he doesnt like my opinion :p

"he couldnt have been more proud of his accomplishment after the ball went over the line"

who wouldn't?

After the event punishment is basically always totally impractical and often utterly ridiculous.

What FIFA need to do is step up and grow some balls and introduce as much technology as possible to help support referees make decision and to train the referees up better (honestly, the inconsistency between the leagues et cetera is retarded).

Also the referees need to be strict and stick to the rules and not the context of the situation.

Soccer is for suckers!

did you delete my comment in this thread?

Yeah

why?

Because it wasn't written in English.

god you're pathetic

And the worse is that I like it : ]

that comment wasn't written in english, delete it.

typical islandic rage!

And the worse is that I like it : ]

god you're pathetic

Full Name: Barbosu Eugen
Age: 35

I know my name, thank you very much, on the other hand it seems you don't have any sense of humour

should fifa grant football matches proper refereeing and enforce good sportsmanship?*

fixed.

no, they shouldn't, but henry is a cunt anyway.

me lucky charms!

no, the decision was right,
ireland is full of pricks, they deserve it,
god did justice to them, it was not the hand of henry,
but the hand of god that changed the outcome of the game

Maradona?

They should not grant it. I feel sorry for the irish, and i would have loved to see them advance over france, but I have gotten used to wrong decisions nowadays in football. We see dives cause free kicks/penalties and decide games every week, and they arent replayed. Why should this be any different?

maybe

HAWNED

lewl, epic handpass is epic. apply poker mindset to this and its alright, if he bluffs it well enough, let them have it.

hand control. the pass itself was leg-it

FIFA shouldn't force a rematch, but since 95% of France think they should have a rematch then yes..they should.

If FFF agree then it's all good, it's probably the right thing to do too.

I can understand FIFA's hesitation. It would set up a dangerous precedent. But i agree, the Irish deserve a replay.

This reminds me of how Australia got cunted vs Italy. Henry even told the ref he handled the ball, and the whole Irish team stormed him demanding the goal to be denied, how daft must you be to ignore that? IMO not Henry's fault, he acted up on instinct. The linesman should be hanged tho, he must have seen one of the three faults in that action (the third being offside).

Wasn't offside.

Was.

Nope. Henry wasn't offside when the ball was kicked and other french players weren't involved in active play. Not offside.

They were involved unless they'd stop moving entirely = offside.

That's not how it works.

People really need to learn the rules of football :(

As long as they demand defensive attention, it is, sorry.

No, it has to be a much more direct influence such as blocking the line of sight etc.

Actually, the level of involvement needed to call an offside is up to the ref to decide. The simple fact of being close to the action is enough to justify that ruling.

Technically, everything in football is up to the referee to decide and he has the final say so that is a pretty irrelevant point.

Dude, seriously. Two Frenchmen were in the penalty box, making room for themselves, and when the pass was made, they were clearly behind the line of defense. That is, beyond dispute, an offside, no technicalities, no nothing. You can't say they were outside the scope of action, as they were clearly absorbing the Irish defenders, thus making an impact on the whole situation. You are correct that the ref has the final say in everything, but even the ref has to follow the rules, and the rules clearly say what should the ruling be in a situation like that one.

They weren't interfering with play.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're talking about. :|

I'll repeat myself: they are interfering with the play because they try to keep the attention of the Irish defenders. If they'd stop the moment the pass was made and not move at all/move back, they would be clear of the offense, but they moved inside the box to follow the action, making the offside a fact and something that should have been called.

He doesn't know anything about football, he even thinks Bendtner is a good player.

- Only one player is in an offside position (Squillaci?)
- Only one Irish defender pays any attention to him (Dunne)
- As a side note, Dunne is practically pulling him over anyway
- The ball floats over them without them having a chance to affect the play
- The rest of the Irish team were ball watching and didn't pick up Henry/Gallas or clear the ball when they had the chance (Which they briefly did)

It's hard to make out in youtube footage, but it looks like one guy is clearly offside, and the other is just offside, by a foot lenght or so. Even assuming only one man was offside, he was indirectly involved in the whole action. You don't need to be able to touch the ball or be near it to affect the play - the defender marking him could just as easily plugged the hole through which Henry later passed if his attention wasn't diverted. The same applies for the other guy.

Gallas is onside and in line with Dunne (Perfectly positioned in fact as he was behind his maker) and the offside player wasn't close to a foot away from Dunne.

For a player to be called offside the player must be taking an active role in the play of the ball which means touches or blocking the line of sight from a shot, being present and moving isn't enough.

In this scenario he wasn't taking an active role, he didn't get near the ball (Mostly because Dunne pulled him down) and only Dunne was paying attention to him.

If the hand ball hadn't occurred I doubt anyone but the Irish would be claiming offside here, offside there or it shouldn't have been a free kick et cetera.

From Wiki:

Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or maintaining a position which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent in any way.

I think the last line applies here. If they were further away from the action (far right side, for example) it wouldn't be a biggie, however, they were close enough to influence the action by simply being there, as i said, since it could have went differently if Dunne didn't have his hands full with that guy.

This is ref's call to make, and i think he made a mistake.

Dunne wouldn't have been involved much anyway, his position would have been more or less the same since he was attempting to track back to head clear but it went over him.

It just so happens an offside French guy was there too whom Dunne decided to pull to the floor.

Well, maybe he wouldn't make an impact, or maybe he would. I don't think we can determine that 100% either way, however, the sheer possibility he could should be enough to make the decision, as he had the option to do so, Dunne.

Working on that basis opens up so many cans of worms.

When applying rules you really shouldn't ever base things on "what if".

Normally i'd agree, but in this instance the facts are those: the Frenchman was offside, and he stopped the defender from being able to change how the situation went. By my interpretation, that would be enough to call it a foul, the rules seem to support it.

I'll concede that it was a tough one to call and maybe not as obvious as i first thought it was.

He looks pretty damn offside in the video link i posted earlier.

Edit: I am talking about the player who is headding the ball.

Edit again: I've just realized that he doesn't hit the ball so actually it is a bit tricky.

Using video replay will only slow the game down. No video replays is simply a necessary evil to keep football moving at a constant pace.

Also, no, Ireland shouldn't be given a re-match. Henry apologized which is, imo, sufficient. Besides, the last thing Ireland probably wants is to rematch against a reorganized and well playing France. In which case they may have wanted to spare themselves the embarrassment.

replay only for goal decisions wouldn't slow the game down alot
but that could also be difficult to handle in terms of when to use it (after an offside goal for example etc.)

Yeah, it opens up a whole new realm of what should be replayed... I think it's best to keep football grounded in tradition. It sucks for Ireland what happened... but still, it only happens once in so many years. Not such a HUGE deal to change the whole game.

Replays at referees discretion is fine and wouldn't slow the game down at all since the majority of the time the referees wouldn't want a replay anyway.

coaches should be able to call for 1 replay per half

problem solved.

They could do something like the 'challenge' system that functions in tennis. That wouldn't slow the game by much, and that would give the possibility for coaches to have their peace of mind, and make them careful about when to use them (obviously there would be a limited amount of challenges, maybe 3 per team for the whole game, +1 more if the games goes in extra time).

It shouldnt be replayed and they shouldnt introduce video replays

Why shouldn't they introduce video replays?

because i like the rare occassions like this...
when a goal goes 2ft behind the line but doesnt get awarded as the keeper scraped it back over the line
when maradonna punched the ball in the net
when sunderland scored via a beach ball

none of these would have happened with video replays and the game would have been more boring because of it

that and it opens up a can of worms where people will want everything replayed...that video replay was wrong; they didn't look from this angle...they didn't use video replays to see that the player was offside on the half way line which ultimately lead to a goal etc

[-]

liverpool fan? xD

what is tireland?

welcome to football

henry hes cheating like yuka and celebrating it rfolforlfl.

id screw this prick if i were his girlfriend. really wayward person that scumbag