Tottenham Hotspur Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
The most sensible solution I've heard is for the Ref to ask the player if he handled. This gives him the chance to atone for his error, which understandably is often a spur of the moment reaction. If he owns up then the goal is dis-allowed and the game continues.
However, if he denies it and the officials haven't spotted anything then of course the goal must stand, as the officials must be certain. If TV replays later confirm (as in this case) that the player did in fact cheat, he should be banned for a considerable time....like missing any remaining World Cup games in the current competition (Qualifying and Finals).
I say this, because even though I would prefer action replays that the officials can scrutinise "on the fly", I doubt this will happen in the foreseeable future
P.S. Henry is a cheating frog bastard and to say he is not the Ref and therefore intimating it's not his fault sickens me. If it's not his fault, who the fcuks is it!!!!.
The idea is only really taking the court pleading system to the football pitch.
IE you rely upon the integrity of the player to say 'guilty as charged' or 'not guilty'. The point being is that you then punish the player far more if they plead not guilty and force the 'trial' and they are then judged to be 'guilty'.
However, as in all walks of life the drawback is 'intent'. Hanball being a particularly awkward bit of legislation as it has to be 'hand to ball' - ie with some form of intent. I personally think in Henry's case, the first contact was unintentional - so that wouldn't have been punished - but the second touch showed (IMHO) intent.
The problem will still be the play who jumps or slides in and their hand is then in an 'abnormal' position and the ball strikes it (that then isn't necessarily handball) BUT you could argue that you assumed that body position to create a bigger obstical - so therefore was intentional.