by Blaise

While it has become certain now that soccer World Cup France V Ireland won't be replayed, the hand of Henry "incident" may have an impact on the sport. It may force changes that the ruling instances have been refusing for a long time and look up to rugby which is, in that matter, a much more advanced sport.

Fouls are accepted both in soccer and in Rugby; they are part of the game and are the object of different level of sanction by the referee.

The lightest degree of foul play is punished by a free kick in soccer and a penalty kick in rugby. A penalty kick in rugby has usually more consequences than a free kick in soccer as it is often immediately converted into points. The next degree is the yellow card and there again, rugby's sanction is much heavier as it gives a 10 minute handicap, whereas in soccer it seems to be a kind of a joker; the right to commit a free foul. Soccer has another type of sanction for a foul committed inside the square; the penalty which almost as good as a goal. The penalty try exists in rugby but is very rarely used; only if a certain try has been prevented illegally. There is no heavier sanction for a foul committed near the try line than a penalty. It sometimes leaves the strange impression that a defending team can choose to risk conceding three point than risk conceding a try.

Alain Rolland, famous Irish referee in action © Denis Kelleher

Overall, fouls in rugby cannot be committed as lightly as in soccer. Unless the foul happens in front of his own goals, a soccer player does not risk much.

The trivial aspect of fouls might be the reason why a number of people, particularly active or retired soccer players, qualify Henry's foul as a "game incident" and seem to think that it should have been the referee's responsibility to spot it... tough luck on Ireland.

So, unsurprisingly, people involved in the game are a bit reluctant to deal with the concept of cheating... There is a very similar incident in rugby that would spring to mind of most Munster supporters; the famous "hand of Back". Reading the reactions at the time, it is interesting to see that the exact same arguments and semantics have been used around the Henry's case. Martin Johnson in particular insisted on the trivial aspect of the incident "If it gives an advantage to your team, obviously you're going to say 'great,' and if the opposition do it you won't be happy, but these things happen - just not always in the last minute of a major final".

Whether it is the hand of Henry or Back, calling it "game incident" is accepting that cheating is part of the game. As matter of fact, voluntarily committing a foul, hoping that it goes unnoticed to try to change the course of a game does qualify as cheating, Henry like Back has cheated and got away with it. As a matter FIFA also looked like they were satisfied with the "game incident" concept. As they reminded the FAI following the request to have the game replayed: "the decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final". In other terms, the only thing the FAI can count on is a sudden urge from the French Federation to redeem themselves, replay the game or suspend their player.

In a similar case, I am not sure the IRB could have acted differently. However, rugby has methods and tools to ease the the referee's task and to prevent mistakes or injustice to happen or to cite and punish illegal actions afterwards.

Try awarded! © Gerard Reidy

Video refereeing has been used with success in rugby for almost ten years now. Some shortcomings have appeared; who has not been annoyed by a referee who checks every single try. Sometimes, mistakes are made even with the video; not later then two weeks ago, a perfectly valid drop goal from François Steyn (Racing Metro) was refused by the video referee. However these mistakes are marginal and we, rugby fans, could not even consider doing without video refereeing anymore. As Munster supporter, I can testify that you can only take John O’Neill’s disallowed try only once in a supporters life.

The citing commissions also take a little weight from the referees’ shoulders. A citing commissioner can come back on an incident and take disciplinary measures against a player for a foul committed during the game. The decision taken by the referee won’t be altered but the player, if found guilty can be suspended. The same is beginning to appear timidly in soccer.

The French “Ligue Professionnelle de Football” has just created, for the 2009 season, a “comité de visionnage” dealing with any foul committed against the game and fair play. Its range of action is wider than the rugby citing committees which rather deal with dangerous play. So far the “comité de visionnage has suspended several players for one to three games but has also generated a lot of controversy, through the difference in sanctions applied to different cases in comparable decisions. We have known similar controversy with, for example some ban length allegedly designed to make a player available for important International games. That was the case with Martin Johnson a few years ago and it has been the case number of times since.

Some will also remember, in the case of Munster how citings can be the object of unverifiable counter-citings. Castres Lasissi escaped a certain (life?) ban in 2002 for biting Peter Clohessy by counter-citing Munster for “racial insults”. These could never be proven but allowed Lassissi to get away cleared. The exact same thing happened to Marcus Horan in 2004 when he was violently and blatantly stamped on the head by Osprey’s Mustoe. After citing Mustoe, Horan was cited for “racial insults” and he ended up having to clear his name in front of a citing commission. Mustoe got a relatively lenient 12 weeks ban.

Citing Committees can be a source of controversy and are not an absolute guarantee that fair play will be respected. However the existence of such a committee for international soccer would have no doubt acted about Henry’s case. More than the final result, it is the absence or even the impossibility of action that has tarnished the image of the FIFA.

The Irish team can at least have the statisfaction opened everybody's eyes on the fact that this can't be the nature of the game, this outcome is against nature. The general public indignation has forced FIFA's president Sepp Blatter to admit "There is a lack of discipline and respect in the game by the players because they are cheating by playing with the hand, pulling shirts and diving,". Platini and Blatter are now forced to look up to rugby for solutions as a big ugly wart has now appeared on the "human face" of the sport they have defended so far.

Although rugby is by nature much more anchored to traditions, it has made its revolution and accepted to modify its rules several times and to implement modern tools to help the game being fair. There has always been much more than rules and referee enhancement to it; the old saying about “soccer being a gentlemen sport played by thugs and rugby a thugs sport played by gentlemen” is also probably part of the equation.

by Blaise