Can Payne be excused or is he the A-League’s Henry?
By Adrian Musolino, 15 Mar 2010 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- A-League, Chris Payne, football, John Aloisi, Ricki Herbert, Sydney FC, Thierry Henry, Wellington Phoenix
Related coverage

Sydney FC's Christopher Payne celebrates Wellington FC's Liam Reddy protests Sydney's second goal during their A-League preliminary semi-final at the Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney, Saturday, March 13, 2010. AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy
Chris Payne channelled Thierry Henry on Saturday night at the Sydney Football Stadium to help ‘hand’ Sydney FC a berth in the A-League grand final, reigniting the debate over the ethics of an intentional handball.
Payne, an early substitute for the injured John Aloisi, reinstated Sydney FC’s lead in the 30th minute with what was a clear handball. Replays confirmed the touch, but without the benefit of such hindsight, the goal stood despite the protests of the Phoenix players, and the pendulum of the game swung back in Sydney’s favour.
While Sydney’s 4-2 victory meant Payne’s goal wasn’t the difference between the sides, it undoubtedly helped change the momentum of the game considering it occurred so quickly after Wellington had equalised.
Was it as intentional as Henry’s handball? I don’t think so.
It seemed the ball bounced off his flailing arm, which was in the natural movement of a player trying to reposition his body to make contact with the ball.
Payne’s celebration, however, will disappoint purists the most, especially following Henry’s example of masking his misdemeanour in exuberance.
Payne is a young player given an enormous opportunity when Aloisi’s hamstring popped. Undoubtedly inspired by his opening goal of the game, perhaps the occasion and the excitement of his second got the better of him.
Considering his age, inexperience and stature, especially when contrasted with Henry, we should go easier on Payne.
But the more salient point is that these issues will continue to scar the game without some action from FIFA, be it an extra referee on the goal-line or the more extreme option of video technology.
Until that happens, and as referees continue to miss such incidents (which can so easily happen), the burden falls on the players and teams to admit their guilt – something most will not do.
The question, therefore, is whether it is right that players, with a responsibility to their teams’, should face this pressure when the burden of responsibility should be with the officials.
It’s a lot to expect from players so determined to win at all costs, and as Jason Culina confirmed in the wake of the Henry controversy, most players in that situation would have done the same.
But such incidents damage the game’s brand.
As a disappointed Ricki Herbert said after the game about Sydney FC: “As a club you’ve got to consider what your ethics are like and if accepting of that then so be it.”
Thanks to Henry there is increased pressure on players to come clean with such incidents and live up to the game’s “Fair Play” motto.
There is a place in football folklore for the player who, in the current climate, defies the trend set by Henry and following such an incident puts their hand up (couldn’t avoid that pun) to the referee and admits their folly or misdemeanour.
Perhaps then other players will follow the trend and football can find its ethical core.
Adrian Musolino is editor of V8X Magazine, and has written as an expert on The Roar since 2008, cementing himself as a key writer who can see the big picture in sport. He freelances on other forms of motorsport, football, cycling and more.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- A-League, Chris Payne, football, John Aloisi, Ricki Herbert, Sydney FC, Thierry Henry, Wellington Phoenix

March 15th 2010 @ 8:17am
Lu said | March 15th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
We can not judge this kid for what some of best players in the world have done or going to do:
“Chelsea midfielder Frank Lampard has admitted he would “do a Thierry Henry” and handle the ball if it meant getting England through to the World Cup final.” – The Sun
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2890859/I-would-do-a-Thierry-for-place-in-World-Cup-final-says-Frank-Lampard.html
Granted the Sun is not the most reliable of sources, but still.. If Maradona, Henry and Lamps are happy to do it to win. Glory at all cost..
If the authoriites had dealt with the Hand of Frog properly, than no player would ever even think about enduring the same humiliation.. However they haven’t and now we have Arm of Payne.. it won’t be the last.
March 15th 2010 @ 8:29am
whiskeymac said | March 15th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
any worse than Hollands handball in a grand final? the fact that incident was somewhat overshadowed by Vukovic’s implosion doesnt mean it wasnt a “large” game deciding moment.
paynes first goal was very impressive, and SFC controlled large parts of the game.,. and just like in the Jets win, the better team won out. sure it might have been different if the goal didnt stand but 4-2 was a fair reflection IMO.
am sorry the ‘Nix went out on controversy – but that’s always good as it gives them a moral “but for” causation argument which can gloss over such a large loss – but a MV -SFC final is what the HAL needed in such a whimpering year.
March 15th 2010 @ 8:33am
apaway said | March 15th 2010 @ 8:33am | Report comment
The prevailing wisdom from Fox Sports commentators after the game was that Payne should have informed the referee that the ball hit his hand, and would then have been lauded with FIFA Fair Play awards. Mark Bosnich was particularly critical of Payne.
The only voice of sanity was that of Michael Durante. “What player would ever do that?” he said, when asked whether Payne should have owned up. It’s a pretty inarguable point. Would Bosnich have “admitted” to a referee that a ball had crossed the line if it had been ruled to have not, thereby conceding a goal for his side when he was playing? If Payne had handled the ball in the lead-up to the goal, rather than in the final touch, would he have been castigated for not owning up to it then? Should Tom Pondeljak have owned up to handling the ball on the line last week against Sydney, an action that would have led to a Sydney penalty and a red card for Pondeljak? The two incidents are similar: neither looked deliberate but both were most assuredly handballs. What’s the difference?
Maybe the one thing Chris Payne can take out of this is that one day an incorrect refereeing decision is going to go against him at a crucial time. Before he reacts badly or feels hard done by, he can take a moment to remember his second goal against Wellington.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:49pm
Ghost said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
If Melbourne Victory had owned up to the fact that they saw the ball in last week’s game (the 2nd leg of the semi) clearly hit McFlynn’s head and not his hand, and/or then if they had taken the free kick in the spirit of the game then Sydney V Nix would not have even happened as a game and the Sky Blues would have gone straight through to the decider.
So lets not get too precious. A hand ball is an obvious foul in a game played so predominantly with the feet. But it is just a foul, and no worse than any other foul. How many goals have been awarded despite obvious obstruction, shirt-pulling, offsides, incorrectly kicked or thrown balls, or any manner of other things? Are we going to write headlines about all those as well? Again, a hand-ball is just another foul.
What was really disappointing about Saturday night was not the game itself which was good. 13000 people was a shocker. And the pitch, totally torn up by the Waratahs the night before, was one which put shame on the venue and on our club.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:45pm
pezz said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
apaway you mention last weeks game
Melbournes second goal came from a free kick that was blown as a “handball” by McFlynn
replays show it hit his face, so the handball call was wrong.
so if people expect Payne to admit to his handball, why didnt the melbourne players around mcflynn who knew it was awrong call step up and tell the ref?
instead Muscat took the kick and they now host the grandfinal.
i think Chris Payne should not have to apologise, and should take pride in his first goal which was a great run, and acknowledge he got a bit lucky for the second.
and just throwing it out there
why did the wellington defenders allow him to be in the position in the first place?
March 15th 2010 @ 8:58pm
Doug said | March 15th 2010 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
I disagree with you two wrongs make a right argument. Its pointless arguing about what “should* have happened. For example in the Melbourne v Sydney game there were a number of decisions that went the wrong way and cost both teams goals. At my count Melbourne would have scored 3 goals but not scored the second goal, Sydney would have scored 1 more goal. But that Melbourne defender should have been sent off so maybe Melbourne wouldnt have scored so many… When it comes down to it thats not what happened. Part of the game is that right or wrong the ref is always right. Which means the team that won on the day deserved to win.
As for Chris Payne he almost certainly didnt go out there to cheat. He most likely made a split second decision to leave his arm out there and then claim the goal, that he now regrets. But he will have been called for handball in the past that he didnt do, and will again in the future. The ref missed it so too bad. Nothing to see move along.
So bad luck Wellington to lose with that dodgy goal but it wasnt Sydney’s only one. Come back stronger next year and hopefully go one better.
Looking forward to the grand final next week the two best teams in the league. Go Victory!
March 15th 2010 @ 8:46am
Fly on the Wall said | March 15th 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
This is why I cannot stand soccer – it’s full of cheats as we see in TV replays week in week out, whether it be shirt-tugging or diving or nasty slide tackles or handball goals.
For Payne to parade around like he had scored a ‘real’ goal shows he is a cheat first and a soccer player second. He knew it came off his arm and might be the goal to put Sydney FC into the grand final, so that was good enough for him.
Laviska sounds like a decent bloke – he should explain to Payne why he won’t be chosen for the grand final. Payne should be forced to admit he cheated and explain the reasons why.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:15am
Realfootball said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Go to another forum then.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:53pm
Ghost said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
So people don’t dive/stage and obstruct in AFL? They don’t head-stomp and gouge and throw off-side passes and celebrate incorrect groundings in the rugby codes? They don’t incorrectly appeal in cricket?
I’m not defending unsporting behaviour mate, and I love football so I wish there was less of it. But make sure you realise that in each of our revered codes and games there are plenty of people and plenty of instances where ethics are forgotten. The specifics look different according the the game being played. But its still all cheating.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:00pm
Sam said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Completely agree. If you don’t watch soccer because of cheating then you can’t watch any sport right?
March 15th 2010 @ 9:02am
Hammer said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
I don’t think you can put this in the same ball park as Henry … Henry’s was blatant cheating and FIFA should have dealt with that properly with a ban from the W/cup (but that’s a different story) …. Paynes’ wasn’t a deliberate act … the celebration was – but the goal scoring act wasn’t …
I think Cullina’s comment is wrong in respect to Henry – most players wouldn’t deliberately do that – but it is probably correct in this instance – most if not all wouldn’t own up to it …
It’s also far to simplistic to say – 4-2 scoreline – therefore it didn’t have effect on the final result – as Adrian says “it undoubtedly helped change the momentum of the game considering it occurred so quickly after Wellington had equalised”… in the in end Wgtn will have to wear it – learn from it and come back stronger … and I’m sure Payne will be aware of the sort of reception he’ll get in Wgtn next season ….
On something completely different … Durante – from his performances over the season and especially the last 5-6 weeks has he played himself into W/cup contention …. From what I’ve seen I’d be taking him instead of an aging, slow, positionally poor Moore
March 15th 2010 @ 9:23am
Lu said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Much respect for Durante.. Not only a great captainfor the Nix and real professional, but also decent player that should be definitely in contention for WC10.. Really thought he should have gotten the nod a head of the over rated Milligan for the Indo game. Just so see how he handles himself..
March 15th 2010 @ 9:07am
Dogz R Barkn said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Durante is right – no player would ever own up to punching the ball into the back of the net, similarly, it might be unclear whether a player has grounded the ball (in either rugby), that player will accept the call if it goes his way (and might have a whinge if it doesn’t).
The key difference is that the rugby player’s body language will be a “phew”!, but Payne’s celebrations made you vomit.
The other thing I found sickening was so many willing to accept that it was involuntary.
Who honestly believes that?
Are people watching the game carefully? It’s now commonplace for both defenders and attackers to have their arms positioned in such a way that it provides additional insurance if they can’t reach the ball with their head, and for the most part, players get away with it more often than not, as they say, the hand is quicker than the eye.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:08am
Kathy said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Herbert has form for bitter post match interviews and he’s done it before against SFC. In a perfect world Payne would have put his hand up (no pun intended) for the arm ball. But the fact is there were several instances of handball in the game – two that I can think of were deliberate (yet no one is ranting) and 1 wasn’t (and Payne is getting crucified for it). Byun clearly and deliberately handled the ball. Dadi deliberately hit the ball out of Bolton’s hands. Now if we’re going to be fair dinkum about this and players are to take responsibility (aka Herbert) then we should be lampooning the other two players in the media. Or are we saying it’s only cheating if a goal results. We was Herbert’s outrage at Dadi, for instance? I think the football family has to first decide what it accepts and what it doesn’t because at the moment it’s sending very mixed messages to young players and it seems the only morality is if it benefits you then it’s okay if it doesn’t, it’s cheating.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:10am
Mr Mac said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Did the ball hit his hand or upper arm? I though the latter.
Where does the hand end in soccer?
I also agree that it was not intentional.
If thsi is the case then he should celebrate.
March 15th 2010 @ 2:14pm
apaway said | March 15th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
The whole of the arm, from just below the shoulder to the finger tips is the handball zone, so it was handball without a doubt. And contrary to popular belief, “deliberance” has nothing to do with determining a handball. It is instead a discretionary ruling by the referee, as to whether a handball could have been avoided, such as when the ball is fired from close range and hits a player’s arm while it is in what is known as a “natural” position, and whether the ball hitting the arm resulted in a significant advantage to the would-be offender and his/her team.
There appears to be some argument as to whether Payne’s arm was in a “natural” position if he was going for a header. It was, beyond a doubt. It still shouldn’t have been a goal, but it does differentiate the incident from the Thierry Henry controversy, or for that matter the Diego Maradona goal in the 1986 World Cup.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:30pm
Doug said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Yes it certainly started in a natural position. But It looked to me like he left his arm hanging out there deliberately knowing he had missed the the header. So I would leave it in the same category Henry and Maradona.
But I would also say why all the moral indignation about handballs? Defenders hack forwards down with dirty tackles knowing they will likely cause injuries. Players take dives trying to pick up frees. Sure lets try to stamp all foul play out of the game. Suspend the players or what ever but can we give the cries of “we would have won if only…” a rest. Sydney was the better side.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:36pm
Doug said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Actually being a little OTT there, not too many Wellington fans are saying that. I was more thinking of the furore over Henry.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:26am
Marcel said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Im disappointed in Payne but Im not sure we are in Henry territory here. I think it was a reflex action because as a young player he was just desperate to connect with the ball. That doesnt make it right though and he should have owned up….still moralizing about this sort of thing was much easier in the days before shirt pulling defenders and strikers become more interested in falling over in the box than shooting. FIFA have allowed the boundaries of fair play to become blurred and this is the sort of consequence that we have to live with. You cant have it both ways
If we want to talk about honesty and integrity lets discuss Ricky Herbert. A man of his experience should be able to admit both Nix goals were offside and that his team were outplayed….Instead of basically calling the whole SFC organisation immoral. I find his whingeing and slandering far more distasteful.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:44am
Davybhoy said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
have a look again Marcel. Neither Phoenix goal was offside….not even close.
You’ll also find that Herbert said that Sydney were worthy winners, but rightly pointed out that Payne’s cheating gave Sydney the upper hand at an important time.
Goals change matches.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:08am
Hammer said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:08am | Report comment
get real Marcel – neither Phoenix goal was offside .. and as for Herbert – I actually find him probably the best of all the coaches with his after match comments … and that shows through with the the foxsports guys who interview him post match
March 15th 2010 @ 10:17am
Marcel said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Look again boys. first goal Nix had an obstructing player offside in the 6 yard box,cant be passive inside the 6 yrd box…..2nd goal Dadi was clearly offside, I was at the ground and was sitting exactly in line with it.
I really like the Nix and what they have brought to the league. Just think Herbert is doing no one any favours with his little man syndrome.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:39am
Frank said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Do you actually know the offside rule??? Not even close
March 15th 2010 @ 2:08pm
Marcel said | March 15th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
So Frank, I assume your trying to tell me a player standing inside the 6yrd box directly in front of the goal and in the keepers line of sight is not contributing to the play? As for the second goal, take your pick of either of the two nix players without the required 2 opposing players goalside of them when the ball was played……you might want to think things thru a little more before slagging others off.
The point is that if people want some kind of “mathematical” certainty about decisions then has to apply to all decisions… it has to include this sort of error as well.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:37pm
pezz said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Marcel i was at the game aswell, and initially i thought it was offside too
then after watching replays, i notice at the time the ball is kicked from the nix player, he is onside, it hits our defender (at which point he is offside) and then goes to him.
but the laws are clear, at the time the nix player kicked it, not when our defender put a touch on it, so therefore he is onside
March 15th 2010 @ 9:36am
Davybhoy said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
You are kidding yourselves if you think that handball was not intentional.
His arm was not in what could be called a “natural position”. He knew when trying to head the ball that he wasn’t going to be able to reach it and he deliberately put his arm up to direct the ball into the net. Its not even questionable.
Should he have apologised? hell no. He’s a cheat. Why would a cheat apologise? He knew when he handled it he was trying to cheat.
What this incident has done though is take the eyes of a bigger picture and that is the completely substandard level of refereeing in this match.
Kathy (above) has already pointed out that Dadi handled the ball and was penalised Byun handled the ball and was not.
Brosque blatantly dived into the area and was not penalised (yellow card offence)
Bridge should have seen a red card for his over the top lunge on McKain yet went unpunished.
these are major match incidents……yet the decisions……sadly did not match the standard of play.