Comments on: Is this cheating?

By: K-S

K-S — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:29:05 +0000

LP, you posed such a great question, proven by the equally compelling counter arguments on the issue. I love that someone raised this. It was hotly debated in our household, too.

By: Ivy

Ivy — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:11:36 +0000

In cricket people are generally expected to make calls against themselves (particularly historically) when they know (as batters) that they are out. But cricket is not only fiendishly subtle (and the matter usually focuses around that most enigmatic ‘out’ LBW or Leg Before Wicket, which I won’t even try to explain unless someone needs a quick cure for insomnia) and quintessentially English where the manner in which the game is played is frightfully important. This has changed somewhat over the years, but there is still an amount of tsking and frothing where a player chooses to wait for a ref call (either human or camera) rather than walking when they know they are out. Personally I’d rather integrity won: I can’t see the point of winning otherwise. It takes the triumph out, if you ask me.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000

I’ve watched this sequence over and over since it happened. It looks to me like the ball hit Henry’s wrist and then he tapped it with his hand. He continued to play because it all happened so fast.

Is he a cheat? That’s a really fine line to draw, I’d say, and through an incredibly grey area. The amount of adrenaline release at a moment like that — not only was it a World Cup qualifier, it was in extra time — is just incredible. A stadium of around 50,000 French fans was going nuts; his teammates were rushing to congratulate him. (From many angles it’s impossible to see what happened, and it isn’t really clear if William Gallas, the player who scored the goal, could tell how Henry got the ball to him.) For him to stop and say, “Wait! No! I handled the ball. No goal,” at that moment is almost impossible and contrary to the nature of competition at that level. Also, it’s not clear that the referee would have accepted such a call. It’s *his* job, not Henry’s.

The real failure is on the part of FIFA, the international governing body of soccer, which should have instant replay available *and* extra assistant referees stationed behind the goals for games as crucial as this one.

For a much clearer moment of cheating at the top level of soccer, check out Diego Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal in a World Cup quarter final in 1986. Argentina beat England that day, largely because of this goal, and went on to win the tournament.

By: Marleyfan

Marleyfan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:42:59 +0000

That’s the game; the referee didn’t call a foul. You don’t call your own violations/fouls in any sport I know of except golf. I agree with ScottyMcGee.

There were three Major League baseball umpires talking about umpiring behind home plate-
Ump #1 said: There are strikes and there are balls, I call ‘em the way I see ‘em.
Ump #2 said: There are strikes and there are balls, I call ‘em the way they are.
Ump #3 said: They ain’t nothin’ until I call ‘em.

The fouls are what the referee calls.

By: ScottyGee

ScottyGee — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:51:13 +0000

A player’s greatest responsibility is to his or her team, and by extension his or her team’s backers. Refs miss calls all the time, and the assumption should be that in the end, some will go your way, and some will go the other team’s way. This is why prolonged complaining over a single call is ridiculous.