France's Fifth Down

[jtwcornell91]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

So I saw something to the effect that Henry told the ref it was a handball.  Any idea when this was?  If he told him after the game, there's nothing they can realistically do, but if he told him immediately, the ref could have reversed the call.

[Chris '03]

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  

It's more than just France and the handball(s). There was already the sense the european playoffs were loaded in favor of the big guys. A last minute change, led to the seeding of the top four teams. As a result, the Irish were guaranteed a playoff meeting with France, Russia, Greece, or Portugal instead of having the chance to meet Slovenia, Bosnia, or Ukraine. The teams were already seeded for the group stage, so the double seeding makes it even more difficult for a lesser nation that fails to win its group to advance through the playoffs.

So with the backdrop of "FIFA really wants the big draws like France to qualify for South Africa" the way the Irish were denied is particularly painful. It was also their only loss in all of qualifying. The handball just capped it off and played into the conspiracy theories.

[RichH]

So with the backdrop of "FIFA really wants the big draws like France to qualify for South Africa" the way the Irish were denied is particularly painful. It was also their only loss in all of qualifying. The handball just capped it off and played into the conspiracy theories.

I thought the handball goal tied the match at 1.

[jtwcornell91]

So with the backdrop of "FIFA really wants the big draws like France to qualify for South Africa" the way the Irish were denied is particularly painful. It was also their only loss in all of qualifying. The handball just capped it off and played into the conspiracy theories.

I thought the handball goal tied the match at 1.

Yes, but it gave France the 2-1 advantage in the aggregate.  (Two-game total goals series, in hockey terminology.  The only reason they were playing OT was that after the end of two games, each team had scored one goal, at the other team's home field.)

[Swampy]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

Have you heard anything from France? All I've heard was that the governing body said they cannot set aside the game, since refs mistakes can't be overturned. But France could still say they won't except the victory, and won't go on in the World Cup. With that, they Soccer Assoc. might have to give in.

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  You can't go back and allow a replay now, when you wouldn't in countless other situations, simply because of in what match, and when in the match, this occurred.

And why, perchance, can't you allow a replay. The player who did it thinks they should, if the country said they wouldn't accept the outcome and wouldn't play on, then what. I don't like these, you can't because that's the rule. This is not a court of law, it's a game for heaven's sake, no one's going to jail. If both sides want to replay, I'm sure it could be worked out. Now the French Football Assoc. may not want to, but that's a different idea.

The issue need not be up to the refs. As hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time Cornell football had a winning streak of eighteen consecutive games and was a sure bet for the national championship if the team remained undefeated. According to the refs, they did beat Dartmouth on Nov. 16, 1940, almost 69 years to the day before France tied Ireland. However, unlike France, after Cornell became aware of the refs' error, Cornell contacted Dartmouth and offered to forfeit the game. Dartmouth accepted, thereby extending our drought without a NC in football indefinitely. See http://cornellsun.com/node/26006 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Down_Game_%281940%29.

[Jim Hyla]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

So I saw something to the effect that Henry told the ref it was a handball.  Any idea when this was?  If he told him after the game, there's nothing they can realistically do, but if he told him immediately, the ref could have reversed the call.

It was after. I don't blame the refs, they need more officials in soccer. But France could still decline.

[Jim Hyla]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

Have you heard anything from France? All I've heard was that the governing body said they cannot set aside the game, since refs mistakes can't be overturned. But France could still say they won't except the victory, and won't go on in the World Cup. With that, they Soccer Assoc. might have to give in.

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  You can't go back and allow a replay now, when you wouldn't in countless other situations, simply because of in what match, and when in the match, this occurred.

And why, perchance, can't you allow a replay. The player who did it thinks they should, if the country said they wouldn't accept the outcome and wouldn't play on, then what. I don't like these, you can't because that's the rule. This is not a court of law, it's a game for heaven's sake, no one's going to jail. If both sides want to replay, I'm sure it could be worked out. Now the French Football Assoc. may not want to, but that's a different idea.

The issue need not be up to the refs. As hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time Cornell football had a winning streak of eighteen consecutive games and was a sure bet for the national championship if the team remained undefeated. According to the refs, they did beat Dartmouth on Nov. 16, 1940, almost 69 years to the day before France tied Ireland. However, unlike France, after Cornell became aware of the refs' error, Cornell contacted Dartmouth and offered to forfeit the game. Dartmouth accepted, thereby extending our drought without a NC in football indefinitely. See http://cornellsun.com/node/26006 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Down_Game_%281940%29.

Uh, that's why this Thread is called France's Fifth Down.

[KeithK]

The issue need not be up to the refs. As hard as it may be to believe, once upon a time Cornell football had a winning streak of eighteen consecutive games and was a sure bet for the national championship if the team remained undefeated. According to the refs, they did beat Dartmouth on Nov. 16, 1940, almost 69 years to the day before France tied Ireland. However, unlike France, after Cornell became aware of the refs' error, Cornell contacted Dartmouth and offered to forfeit the game. Dartmouth accepted, thereby extending our drought without a NC in football indefinitely. See http://cornellsun.com/node/26006 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Down_Game_%281940%29.

Uh, that's why this Thread is called France's Fifth Down.

The same thing happened to Colorado back in 1990.  The Buffalos did not choose to forfeit and as a result shared the national title that year.  Decide for yourself who did the right thing.

[Josh '99]

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  

It's more than just France and the handball(s). There was already the sense the european playoffs were loaded in favor of the big guys. A last minute change, led to the seeding of the top four teams. As a result, the Irish were guaranteed a playoff meeting with France, Russia, Greece, or Portugal instead of having the chance to meet Slovenia, Bosnia, or Ukraine. The teams were already seeded for the group stage, so the double seeding makes it even more difficult for a lesser nation that fails to win its group to advance through the playoffs.

So with the backdrop of "FIFA really wants the big draws like France to qualify for South Africa" the way the Irish were denied is particularly painful. It was also their only loss in all of qualifying. The handball just capped it off and played into the conspiracy theories.

Granted, UEFA's double-seeding (comparable to reseeding in the NHL playoffs, I suppose) does favor the big draws, and personally I'd prefer it if it were a random draw among the 8 teams.  But favoring higher-ranked teams is a legitimate seeding policy, and one that's hardly unique to FIFA and UEFA, albeit a non-egalitarian one.  I can understand why it plays into conspiracy theories, but I think it's a tenuous connection that people are making because it's what they want to see.

[Josh '99]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

Have you heard anything from France? All I've heard was that the governing body said they cannot set aside the game, since refs mistakes can't be overturned. But France could still say they won't except the victory, and won't go on in the World Cup. With that, they Soccer Assoc. might have to give in.

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  You can't go back and allow a replay now, when you wouldn't in countless other situations, simply because of in what match, and when in the match, this occurred.

And why, perchance, can't you allow a replay. The player who did it thinks they should, if the country said they wouldn't accept the outcome and wouldn't play on, then what. I don't like these, you can't because that's the rule. This is not a court of law, it's a game for heaven's sake, no one's going to jail. If both sides want to replay, I'm sure it could be worked out. Now the French Football Assoc. may not want to, but that's a different idea.

Well, right, Henry said they should have a replay *after* FAI's request for a replay was denied.  It was lip service, no more.

To clarify, I don't mean that, strictly procedurally speaking, you CAN NOT allow a replay.  What I mean is, it sets a precedent that makes it hard to define when you should make some sort of a concession and when you shouldn't.  

Here's the example I've been using:  The English club team I root for had a match two years ago where they were trailing by a goal late in the match, and apparently scored a tying goal.  I say "apparently" because the referee and the linesman ruled that the ball had not gone into the goal, even though it clearly was; as you can see in this picture, the player's foot is about on the goal line, the ball is about a foot past it, and the goalkeeper is just getting to the ball:



It was so clearly an erroneous decision that the official who bungled the call was suspended for a week.  The team didn't score a goal that counted, and they lost the match, but because the match took place in August, all the way at the beginning of the season, the lost point was largely forgotten for the time being.  However, fast forward eight months, and the team almost gets relegated, eventually barely surviving by the skin of their teeth.  (Getting relegated from the top flight in English soccer involves a massive financial hit that is, I think, at least somewhat comparable to missing out on qualifying for the World Cup.)  As it turned out, they did stay up, and it was a moot point, but if things had fallen even slightly differently, that point could've made a massive difference, and, therefore, the bungled call could've made a massive difference.  But nobody would retroactively suggest that the match should be replayed, because it happened so much earlier. I just don't think it makes sense to treat the France decision differently from this missed goal call because it happened at the end of the qualifying process rather than at the beginning.

I'd also add that the Fifth Down analogy isn't exactly right, because handball is necessarily a judgment call, whereas a fifth down is a mistake of rule.  In legal terminology, it's the difference between errors of fact and errors of law, and FIFA's precedent is that errors of fact aren't reversible in this sort of situation, whereas an error in applying the rules can be.

(Sorry for the rambling.)

[Jim Hyla]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

Have you heard anything from France? All I've heard was that the governing body said they cannot set aside the game, since refs mistakes can't be overturned. But France could still say they won't except the victory, and won't go on in the World Cup. With that, they Soccer Assoc. might have to give in.

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  You can't go back and allow a replay now, when you wouldn't in countless other situations, simply because of in what match, and when in the match, this occurred.

And why, perchance, can't you allow a replay. The player who did it thinks they should, if the country said they wouldn't accept the outcome and wouldn't play on, then what. I don't like these, you can't because that's the rule. This is not a court of law, it's a game for heaven's sake, no one's going to jail. If both sides want to replay, I'm sure it could be worked out. Now the French Football Assoc. may not want to, but that's a different idea.

Well, right, Henry said they should have a replay *after* FAI's request for a replay was denied.  It was lip service, no more.

To clarify, I don't mean that, strictly procedurally speaking, you CAN NOT allow a replay.  What I mean is, it sets a precedent that makes it hard to define when you should make some sort of a concession and when you shouldn't.  

(Edited out some.)


I'd also add that the Fifth Down analogy isn't exactly right, because handball is necessarily a judgment call, whereas a fifth down is a mistake of rule.  In legal terminology, it's the difference between errors of fact and errors of law, and FIFA's precedent is that errors of fact aren't reversible in this sort of situation, whereas an error in applying the rules can be.

(Sorry for the rambling.)

I agree with what you're saying, except:

I've said from the start that it was up to France to say they wanted a replay. I've not asked the officials to change the game. That takes it away from precedent and everything else that people have complained about.

In fact it's exactly like the fifth down game. The officials didn't change the game. The game was over and CU won. We changed it when we realized it was wrong. Likewise France could admit the error, that's where the player comes in, he admitted it and to my point it doesn't matter when he admitted it. We admitted the game was in error after it was over, we then took responsibility and said no. France has exactly the same options, say it was wrong and refuse to accept the victory. It has nothing to do with the officials on or off the field. It's all up to France.

[jtwcornell91]

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  

It's more than just France and the handball(s). There was already the sense the european playoffs were loaded in favor of the big guys. A last minute change, led to the seeding of the top four teams. As a result, the Irish were guaranteed a playoff meeting with France, Russia, Greece, or Portugal instead of having the chance to meet Slovenia, Bosnia, or Ukraine. The teams were already seeded for the group stage, so the double seeding makes it even more difficult for a lesser nation that fails to win its group to advance through the playoffs.

So with the backdrop of "FIFA really wants the big draws like France to qualify for South Africa" the way the Irish were denied is particularly painful. It was also their only loss in all of qualifying. The handball just capped it off and played into the conspiracy theories.

Granted, UEFA's double-seeding (comparable to reseeding in the NHL playoffs, I suppose) does favor the big draws, and personally I'd prefer it if it were a random draw among the 8 teams.  But favoring higher-ranked teams is a legitimate seeding policy, and one that's hardly unique to FIFA and UEFA, albeit a non-egalitarian one.  I can understand why it plays into conspiracy theories, but I think it's a tenuous connection that people are making because it's what they want to see.

The problem is not that the playoff was seeded, but that it was originally not supposed to be, and they changed the rules in the middle of the qualification process.

[jtwcornell91]

I've said from the start that it was up to France to say they wanted a replay. I've not asked the officials to change the game. That takes it away from precedent and everything else that people have complained about.

In fact it's exactly like the fifth down game. The officials didn't change the game. The game was over and CU won. We changed it when we realized it was wrong. Likewise France could admit the error, that's where the player comes in, he admitted it and to my point it doesn't matter when he admitted it. We admitted the game was in error after it was over, we then took responsibility and said no. France has exactly the same options, say it was wrong and refuse to accept the victory. It has nothing to do with the officials on or off the field. It's all up to France.

But France doesn't really have the authority to schedule a replay.  The closest they could do would be to host Ireland in a hastily-scheduled friendly, and then based on the outcome of that, withdraw from the World Cup.  (And in fact, it would probably be against the rules for them to play extra time if the friendly ended with another 0-1 full time result.)

[jtwcornell91]

I'd also add that the Fifth Down analogy isn't exactly right, because handball is necessarily a judgment call, whereas a fifth down is a mistake of rule.  In legal terminology, it's the difference between errors of fact and errors of law, and FIFA's precedent is that errors of fact aren't reversible in this sort of situation, whereas an error in applying the rules can be.

Which is I guess what FIFA did a couple of years ago with Uzbekistan and Bahrain, although that also seemed kind of fishy.  I like the baseball approach: if you think the umpire mis-applied the rules, file a protest immediately, and if it's upheld, the game is resumed from that point.  (And, obviously, if you win anyway you withdraw the protest.)

[Josh '99]

How about a third choice: "Who cares, it's only soccer". :-P

There's a wrestling discussion going on in one of the other threads and you're saying this about the World Cup?  ::wtf::

CORNELL Wrestling, you infidel.

But in the context of a "fifth down," it is very apropos Cornell. D'ya think France will have as much class as we did?::cheer::

Well, the player who did the hand touch has already said they should.

After they decided they wouldn't of course.

Have you heard anything from France? All I've heard was that the governing body said they cannot set aside the game, since refs mistakes can't be overturned. But France could still say they won't except the victory, and won't go on in the World Cup. With that, they Soccer Assoc. might have to give in.

I think people are coming down awfully hard on France here simply because it's trendy to bash on France.  They're not the first team to benefit from an officiating error and they won't be the last, theirs just happens to have been in a high-importance situation.  You can't go back and allow a replay now, when you wouldn't in countless other situations, simply because of in what match, and when in the match, this occurred.

And why, perchance, can't you allow a replay. The player who did it thinks they should, if the country said they wouldn't accept the outcome and wouldn't play on, then what. I don't like these, you can't because that's the rule. This is not a court of law, it's a game for heaven's sake, no one's going to jail. If both sides want to replay, I'm sure it could be worked out. Now the French Football Assoc. may not want to, but that's a different idea.

Well, right, Henry said they should have a replay *after* FAI's request for a replay was denied.  It was lip service, no more.

To clarify, I don't mean that, strictly procedurally speaking, you CAN NOT allow a replay.  What I mean is, it sets a precedent that makes it hard to define when you should make some sort of a concession and when you shouldn't.  

(Edited out some.)


I'd also add that the Fifth Down analogy isn't exactly right, because handball is necessarily a judgment call, whereas a fifth down is a mistake of rule.  In legal terminology, it's the difference between errors of fact and errors of law, and FIFA's precedent is that errors of fact aren't reversible in this sort of situation, whereas an error in applying the rules can be.

(Sorry for the rambling.)

I agree with what you're saying, except:

I've said from the start that it was up to France to say they wanted a replay. I've not asked the officials to change the game. That takes it away from precedent and everything else that people have complained about.

In fact it's exactly like the fifth down game. The officials didn't change the game. The game was over and CU won. We changed it when we realized it was wrong. Likewise France could admit the error, that's where the player comes in, he admitted it and to my point it doesn't matter when he admitted it. We admitted the game was in error after it was over, we then took responsibility and said no. France has exactly the same options, say it was wrong and refuse to accept the victory. It has nothing to do with the officials on or off the field. It's all up to France.

OK, but if France should admit that error and ask for a replay because of it, why shouldn't every team that's ever benefited from an officiating error do the same?  If a player on Cornell's hockey team checks an opponent into the boards from behind and the opponent gets hurt and has to come out of the game, but no official saw it and there's no penalty called, should he go to the ref and tell him what happened and volunteer to take a 5+game penalty?  What if, instead of a CFB, it's an unseen hook that prevents a 2-on-1?  Or, going in another direction, what if the exact same thing had happened in the France-Ireland game, but instead of deep in extra time it happened in the first five minutes of the game?  What if it happened in the first leg?  What if it happened in an earlier stage of qualifying?  All of these errors can have far-reaching effects, and I just don't see why France should have a burden to come forward and ask to (in effect) have the error undone if that burden doesn't apply equally in, literally, countless other situations.