Calling him a cheat is a step too far though, especially considering that we are talking about Thierry Henry. Fans in the UK have seen him played for ten years and you would be hard pressed to name any incidents where you could call him a cheat.

Duff said he would have done the same and hoped he would get away with it...

Other sports have adapted to the use of a 'Video Ref', it's a straightforward solution.

If you don't want to 'ruin' the beautiful game with video reffing, then don't bloody whine about Refs making poor calls. Simples.

Erm, its still cheating.

I am not going to waste my arguments on a chickenhead. People who know way more about football than you or me don't agree with you so I am going to leave it at that.

er its still cheating though

To paraphrase and quote Roy Keane "You lost - get over it!". The sooner video evidence is accepted as part of the game the better (my quote).

Al

Who are you calling a chickenhead you [LIFTED] prick. Agree or dont agree but you're wrong. Handling the ball in football is against the rules and therefore cheating. [LIFTED] retard.

Hey, what's up veato? Have you hit a blip or something? No need to lose your head over this!

Gentlemen, play nicely, please.

It's only a game. I don't think there's any need for getting out of sorts about it, really.

Who was it that said "Football is not a matter of life and death. It's far more important than that." ??

Bill Shankly

Although I prefer Vince Lombardi:

Bill Shankly. A very great man, but also a man who knew a joke when he said it.

The OED definition of 'cheat' is as follows - " Verb: To act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage."

Theirry Henry acted unfairly - he broke the rules - and dishonestly - he ran away to celebrate rather than the tell the referee that he had controlled the ball with his hand. In doing so, his team gained an advantage - Gallas was able to score a goal which he would not have been able to without Henry's actions.

So, tell me, against that path of logic, what evidence do you have to suggest Henry didn't cheat?

Not that he's alone in doing so, nor will he be the last. But that doesn't change the nature of what he did, nor make it any less objectionable.

Jon

I am not saying he didn't cheat. What he has done is against the rules and I don't dispute that.

But:
1. Use of the hand was instinctive, he is a striker after all. For those who are a bit slow: I am not saying that strikers use hands, I am saying they try to score by any means, it is in their blood. We could argue day and night whether he could have avoided handing the ball but all of us who play football know that sometimes you just can't help it and you use you hand. I don't think there is a player who never ever used a hand.

2. After he handed it and Gallas scored, who exactly should had he done? Go to a referee and say it was a handball? Is it realistic? Even if he did say to a ref, what would ref do? Would he disallow it? I really doubt that. We see it all the time in premier league that a played who was deemed to be fouled goes to a referee and appeals against a card or a free kick given against oposition's player but referees don't change their decisions once they made them. Like when Arshavin won a penalty last season even though he clearly indicated that he was not fouled.

3. And even if Henry did it all wrong on that night, can you call him a cheat? Even if we establish that he cheated, can you just disregard all his previous years when he was one of the best behaved players? I don't think you can call him a cheat just because of happened in one game and forget about hundreds of games he played before.

So keep on saying he cheated if you wish but don't call him a cheat because you would have to call cheats all other players on the planet.

it doesnt matter if its instinctive, he gained an advantage through an unlawful action therefore he is a cheat.

that would have been up to the ref.

yes you can. He acted against not only the rules but the spirit of the game. unsportsmanlike conduct. Therefore he is a cheat. His previous conduct is totally irrelevant

he cheated therefore he is a cheat. What other players have done or will do is irrelevant.

I personally think your argument has the power of a chocolate fireguard. He was caught "bang to rights", it was just the fact the ref/officials didn't see/act on it and the goal stood.

The first action, I'll give you that. The second action looks entirely intentional to me. The first action effectively stops the ball, the second pushes it back across goal. It is true that the rule requires intentional handball, not merely contact between hand and ball. The first part I think intention is debatable, the second to me looks a cast-iron foul.


Obviously it would have been unusual but not unprecedented. I don't know about leagues outside the UK but there are a at least a couple of examples of players doing 'the right thing' in English football in the recent past.


That's kind of irrelevant to the point though. What the ref would have done we'll never know because Henry never gave him the option. He celebrated as if a legal goal had been scored when he knew it hadn't.


If it waddles and quacks and likes water...


There's definitely a case for 'previous good character' arguments but you have to weigh it against the consequences of his action. He didn't do this in a league game where his side were already 3-0 up, he did it in extra time of effectively a play-off to get into the world cup finals, the greatest stage in world football. Is Henry an inveterate cheat? No, absolutely not. But he has made capital in the past of playing the game 'the right way' - and has made a lot of money out of endorsement contracts he got mainly due to his image. This event has shown that that image, to a degree, was a front. When it comes down to it, he's no better than any other footballer.


Er.. yeah, I pretty much do do that already.

Jon