France's Fifth Down

[Josh '99]

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.)

That was the type of error I'm talking about, yes.

[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.

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.

Well that's shady.  You shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Now you can argue that we should not have turned ourselves in, but cheered the next week about our wonderful win over Dartmouth. However, personally I'm very happy and proud that that they decided to turn themselves in. After all, it has lead to countless discussions like this. And discussions about ethics are useful.

Argue all you want, but I'll still say that we did it because it was the right thing to do.

[Robb]

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.

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Now you can argue that we should not have turned ourselves in, but cheered the next week about our wonderful win over Dartmouth. However, personally I'm very happy and proud that that they decided to turn themselves in. After all, it has lead to countless discussions like this. And discussions about ethics are useful.

Argue all you want, but I'll still say that we did it because it was the right thing to do.

The bolded part is not true.  If the ball touches your hand but it was unintentional, it's not a foul.  

From FIFA's Laws of the Game:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact
with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following
into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards
the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected
ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is
an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing,
shinguard etc.) counts as an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard etc.) counts
as an infringement

So there is a judgement call to be made - it's not a black-and-white rule.  Now, in this particular situation, if you had 100 FIFA referees watch the replays from all the angles and in slow motion, probably 99 of them would agree that it was a handball.  So there are 3 choices that I see:

1.  The ref deliberately let France cheat to win (he saw it, thought it was a hand ball, but chose not to call it).
2.  The ref saw it, but was the 1 in 100 refs who didn't think it was a handball.
3.  The ref didn't see it.

Occam's razor picks #3 every time and twice on Sundays.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Now you can argue that we should not have turned ourselves in, but cheered the next week about our wonderful win over Dartmouth. However, personally I'm very happy and proud that that they decided to turn themselves in. After all, it has lead to countless discussions like this. And discussions about ethics are useful.

Argue all you want, but I'll still say that we did it because it was the right thing to do.

The bolded part is not true.  If the ball touches your hand but it was unintentional, it's not a foul.  

From FIFA's Laws of the Game:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact
with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following
into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards
the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected
ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is
an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing,
shinguard etc.) counts as an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard etc.) counts
as an infringement

So there is a judgement call to be made - it's not a black-and-white rule.  Now, in this particular situation, if you had 100 FIFA referees watch the replays from all the angles and in slow motion, probably 99 of them would agree that it was a handball.  So there are 3 choices that I see:

1.  The ref deliberately let France cheat to win (he saw it, thought it was a hand ball, but chose not to call it).
2.  The ref saw it, but was the 1 in 100 refs who didn't think it was a handball.
3.  The ref didn't see it.

Occam's razor picks #3 every time and twice on Sundays.

Of course you're correct. But he admitted it was a handball and the ref was likely blocked from seeing it well. That however, doesn't change anything about what to do now.

[Robb]

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.

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Now you can argue that we should not have turned ourselves in, but cheered the next week about our wonderful win over Dartmouth. However, personally I'm very happy and proud that that they decided to turn themselves in. After all, it has lead to countless discussions like this. And discussions about ethics are useful.

Argue all you want, but I'll still say that we did it because it was the right thing to do.

The bolded part is not true.  If the ball touches your hand but it was unintentional, it's not a foul.  

From FIFA's Laws of the Game:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact
with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following
into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards
the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected
ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is
an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing,
shinguard etc.) counts as an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard etc.) counts
as an infringement

So there is a judgement call to be made - it's not a black-and-white rule.  Now, in this particular situation, if you had 100 FIFA referees watch the replays from all the angles and in slow motion, probably 99 of them would agree that it was a handball.  So there are 3 choices that I see:

1.  The ref deliberately let France cheat to win (he saw it, thought it was a hand ball, but chose not to call it).
2.  The ref saw it, but was the 1 in 100 refs who didn't think it was a handball.
3.  The ref didn't see it.

Occam's razor picks #3 every time and twice on Sundays.

Of course you're correct. But he admitted it was a handball and the ref was likely blocked from seeing it well. That however, doesn't change anything about what to do now.

And of course, you're correct about that.

[Jim Hyla]

Of course you're correct. ... That however, doesn't change anything about what to do now.

And of course, you're correct about that.

And I suspect we've probably beaten this to death::deadhorse::, but if so, it was fun doing it.::drunk::So I think I'm ::bolt::

[Josh '99]

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Robb already addressed the point about handball, so I won't say any more about it.  I'd add, though, that I think my example illustrates that all kinds of things can be "directly responsible" for a given result, not just the ones that occur right at the end of the process leading to the result.  What if the CFB occurs when Cornell is on a power play, which would be negated by the penalty if it were to be called, and then Cornell scores a PPG and wins the game, couldn't that be said to be directly responsible?  My point is that there are all tons and tons of plays in a game that contribute to the eventual outcome, and there isn't really a cut-and-dried line between errors that are directly responsible for changing a result and errors that aren't, and might therefore be seen to be somehow less significant.

[ugarte]

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Robb already addressed the point about handball, so I won't say any more about it.  I'd add, though, that I think my example illustrates that all kinds of things can be "directly responsible" for a given result, not just the ones that occur right at the end of the process leading to the result.  What if the CFB occurs when Cornell is on a power play, which would be negated by the penalty if it were to be called, and then Cornell scores a PPG and wins the game, couldn't that be said to be directly responsible?  My point is that there are all tons and tons of plays in a game that contribute to the eventual outcome, and there isn't really a cut-and-dried line between errors that are directly responsible for changing a result and errors that aren't, and might therefore be seen to be somehow less significant.

The problem with all of your examples can probably be summed up by crudely invoking the butterfly effect. In all of those cases there was enough time, in a sense, for good to triumph over evil. At the very least, it is damn near impossible to say what "would have" happened if the correct call was made.

In this case (and in the two fifth down games) because the bad call happened so close to the end of the game, you can say with some degree of certainly that no matter what other mistakes may have been made earlier in the game (or season or series), THIS mistake was made at a crucial, observable time and was - indisputably both wrong and a turning point.

I don't claim that making an exception for a case like this doesn't present line drawing problems or lead to other kinds of slippery-slope problems but the reason the reaction to this is so visceral for so many is because there isn't any sense of "what if" - it is clear that the missed call resulted in an unjust result.

[ugarte]

Of course you can always come up with examples. The CFB and hook are judgment calls, this was not. You cannot touch the ball. And the missed call was directly responsible for the win.

Robb already addressed the point about handball, so I won't say any more about it.  I'd add, though, that I think my example illustrates that all kinds of things can be "directly responsible" for a given result, not just the ones that occur right at the end of the process leading to the result.  What if the CFB occurs when Cornell is on a power play, which would be negated by the penalty if it were to be called, and then Cornell scores a PPG and wins the game, couldn't that be said to be directly responsible?  My point is that there are all tons and tons of plays in a game that contribute to the eventual outcome, and there isn't really a cut-and-dried line between errors that are directly responsible for changing a result and errors that aren't, and might therefore be seen to be somehow less significant.

The problem with all of your examples can probably be summed up by crudely invoking the butterfly effect. In all of those cases there was enough time, in a sense, for good to triumph over evil. At the very least, it is damn near impossible to say what "would have" happened if the correct call was made. The "no-goal" on Hynes against UNH the most personally galling of those blown calls, of course.

In this case (and in the two fifth down games) because the bad call happened so close to the end of the game, you can say with some degree of certainly that no matter what other mistakes may have been made earlier in the game (or season or series), THIS mistake was made at a crucial, observable time and was - indisputably both wrong and a turning point.

I don't claim that making an exception for a case like this doesn't present line drawing problems or lead to other kinds of slippery-slope problems but the reason the reaction to this is so visceral for so many is because there isn't any sense of "what if" - it is clear that the missed call resulted in an unjust result.

[KeithK]

The problem with all of your examples can probably be summed up by crudely invoking the butterfly effect. In all of those cases there was enough time, in a sense, for good to triumph over evil. At the very least, it is damn near impossible to say what "would have" happened if the correct call was made.

But in the Cornell-Dartmouth contest good did triumph over evil because of the mistake.  By forfeiting we allowed evil to reign supreme!

(Well, I guess Dartmouth isn't quite as evil as Harvard. But still.)

[nyc94]

The draw for the 2010 World Cup was today.  The US ended up in Group C with England, Algeria and Slovenia.  France probably got the best draw by ending up in Group A with South Africa, Mexico, and Uruguay.  

The 32 teams were split into four groups of eight.  One team from each group was then drawn to make eight groups of four.  The first pool was made up of the top seven FIFA ranked teams plus host South Africa - currently ranked 86th.  The other three pools were organized by geography so as to keep countries from the same region (other than Europe) from playing each other during group play.  The Asian and North and Central American countries went into the second pot.  The African and South American countries went into the third pot.  And the unseeded European countries went into the fourth pot.  France was unseeded and thus ducked playing a top seven team during pool play.

[billhoward]

The draw for the 2010 World Cup was today.  The US ended up in Group C with England, Algeria and Slovenia.  France probably got the best draw by ending up in Group A with South Africa, Mexico, and Uruguay. The 32 teams were split into four groups of eight.  One team from each group was then drawn to make eight groups of four.  The first pool was made up of the top seven FIFA ranked teams plus host South Africa - currently ranked 86th.  The other three pools were organized by geography so as to keep countries from the same region (other than Europe) from playing each other during group play.  The Asian and North and Central American countries went into the second pot.  The African and South American countries went into the third pot.  And the unseeded European countries went into the fourth pot.  France was unseeded and thus ducked playing a top seven team during pool play.

... so might get past the first round before the rude awakening.

[nyc94]

... so might get past the first round before the rude awakening.

The Group C winner plays the Group D runner up and vice versa so the likely worst case scenario (other than not advancing) is a meeting with Germany.


Also, during the dress rehearsal for the draw Charlize Theron drew an Ireland ball.