Thierry Henry

Not since Zinedine Zidane lined up Marco Materazzi’s chest with his head in Berlin over three years ago have so many opinions, distortions, hyperbole and hypocritical utterances been spewed forth.

The “Henry Incident” has provided an opportunity for outlandish stereo-typing and xenophobia. Opportunists have embraced a platform from which to moralize while others see the chance to advocate the red herring solution of video replay. (When Tony Cascarino lectures on ethics and fair play and isn’t laughed out of town then the apocalypse must be at hand.)

Certainly the goal should have been disallowed and the Republic of Ireland and their fans have a right to be aggrieved and to feel badly let down. The officials got the call wrong – either through not seeing the play or wrongly interpreting Henry’s actions. However, the debate was quickly hijacked and rapidly distorted. The hijackers seem to fall into three categories.

First of all we have the “the what will we tell the kids?” faction and the “it just reinforces the view that cheats win,” multitude. To the first tell the kids the same thing that you tell them when someone does something bad but prospers. Bad things happen in life and some nasty people do benefit – sport is no different. It doesn’t mean you have to take the same route.

As for the latter it is not only simplistic but also wrong-headed. It is no truer than the assertion that people who don’t cheat always lose. (If you do happen to believe that then please take a place in chronic cynics’ corner, far far away.)

The second group is the souls who believe technology will cure all and the latest occurrence proves irrefutably that it is time for the camera to be used. It is a very cute way of avoiding the debate about the full ramifications of using technology to review calls that are almost always subjective rather than objective. Video technology may arguably be less likely to bring consensus than our present method.

Technology advocates are often zealots and refuse to countenance the possibility that the law of unintended consequences may kick in. Essentially the law – which is not actually “a law” – relates to the unintended results that accrue from a course of action that might in fact be counter to the intended results.

Rather than video replays ensuring fairness and light for all could it encourage players to cheat even more on the basis that “if I am doing something wrong it is up to camera to catch it?”

Such a possibility only increases when it is suggested that the use of replays would not interrupt play because they would be capped. (Isn’t a paradoxical position to claim that “irrefutable evidence” should be used but only once each half?). “Cheating” might become less overt but much more insidious.

The final clique is the “Henry is a cheat” bandwagon-jumpers. (Is is just a coincidence that such a high percentage of video proponents also seem quick to besmirch Henry? Perhaps it comes from watching replay after replay is super-slow-mo and the V-Js have forgotten that the game is played in real time.)

Cheating surely requires premeditation. From the time the ball skips off the turf to the time it leaves Henry’s hand it can be no longer than one second. Essentially Henry had to deal with the following in that miniscule amount of time. The game was in extra time, he was traveling at a good clip towards the Irish goal, the ball was skipping off a greasy surface and heading towards him at an angle.

To “cheat” Henry would have had to act with a level of premeditation that would be nothing short of superhuman. (This is not supporting the notion that Henry did not commit a foul – there is no direct requirement for intent - by the conventional meaning - in the laws of the game. Undoubtedly the goal should not have been allowed to stand.)

But surely it is a case of a player reacting in a way that is quiet natural given the circumstances and in particular the time available. A defender on the goal line and with a ball blasted at him within arm’s length will almost always move his hand towards the ball. In both instances it is an instinct fine tuned through thousands of hours of practice and playing.

To label Henry a cheat in such circumstances requires us to cast a wide net over almost everyone who has ever played the game. Handball – cheat, pushing off a defender- cheat, picking a defender at a corner kick – cheat, moving ten yards up the touchline for a throw-in – cheat.

That leaves us with the failure by Henry to admit to the referee that the ball stuck his arm and hand. The French captain is taking a roasting for that as well. The laws of the game do not require self policing by players but that can be written in if the powers-that-be see the advantages of such a system.

We could then look forward to the day when a defender admits to a referee that he did in fact trip the opponent and insist on being sent off. Or in the absence of such a change can we look forward to the same level of indignant protests that we have seen and heard in the last 24-hours the next time a defender fails to own up to a wrong-doing?

HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE
With the Thierry Henry incident top-of-mind the newspapers have been quick to recount other injustices. One that I remember well (or I certainly thought I remembered it well) was the penalty given against Wales in a World Cup qualifying game against Scotland at Anfield in 1977.

The score was 0-0 at the time and although Scotland would score a late second goal through Kenny Dalglish the Jordan/Jones incident was a critical event in the game.

The reason I say “thought’ is because I have come upon a couple of articles that are at odds with my recollection. Here is how the Daily Telegraph described the incident,

“In the 78th minute of Scotland’s crucial World Cup qualifier against Wales at Anfield, striker Joe Jordan rose with defender Dave Jones to challenge for Asa Hartford’s throw into the box. To the surprise of the Welsh fans and players, referee Robert Wurtz pointed to the spot believing Jones to have flicked on the ball with his hand while TV replays showed otherwise. Scotland duly scored to book their place at the 1978 World Cup Finals in Argentina.”

First of all I remember it as being a long-throw from Willie Johnston and a quick check of some reputable sources confirmed that to be the case. As for Welsh fans and players being surprised – well that surprises me. In fact I don’t recollect it generating much controversy at the specific moment or even right after the match.

As for TV replays showing otherwise – again that is very much at odds with how I remember things unfolding. The quality of television replays was poor 30 plus years ago and I never saw nor have I seen a replay that conclusively shows Jordan punching the ball rather than the Welsh defender David Jones.

However, a Scottish Sunday paper (Sunday Mail perhaps?) was the first to print an enhanced picture that showed Jordan’s fist making contact with the ball rather than Jones. That was five days later.

Paul James in the Globe and Mail also has a different version than the facts of the time.

“After seeing Thierry Henry's get away with a blatant handball in last night's pivotal World Cup qualifier between France and Ireland it was difficult to not recall a similar incident back in 1977 when Wales played Scotland in their all important final qualifying game.”

Well it certainly seems difficult to recall it correctly. It was indeed Scotland’s final game but it was not the case for Wales.

It was a three country group and before the Anfield match the table looked like this; Scotland P3, Pts 4, Czechoslovakia P3, Pts 2, Wales P2, Pts 2. A Wales win over Scotland would have certainly made them favourites to qualify but it would have been far from certain.

In fact, a Wales win would have pulled Czechoslovakia back into contention and there would have been a possibility of a three way tie at the completion of group play.

At that time Czechoslovakia were the European Champions after beating the then reigning World and European Champions West Germany in the 1976 final. Hardly a slam-dunk even if a draw would have been all Wales needed.

A draw with Scotland would have left Wales needing a win – again hardly a fait accompli.

The penalty decision was unjust and rightly grieved by what was at the time a fine Welsh side. However, to imply in any way that the decision solely stopped Wales from reaching the World Cup Finals is a distortion of the facts.
BobbyMcMahon