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

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.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- A-League, Chris Payne, football, John Aloisi, Ricki Herbert, Sydney FC, Thierry Henry, Wellington Phoenix


March 15th 2010 @ 9:58am
Al said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
The solution to problems like these are quite simple, video technology, but of course the knuckledragging sub-monkeys at FIFA headquarters could never back a sensible solution now could they? Their beloved France wouldn’t be playing in South Africa otherwise.
March 15th 2010 @ 9:59am
Towser said | March 15th 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Right or wrong , a decision in favour of a player or against him, the refs decision is final currently. Until FIFA brings in technology to overule the refs decision. A player can be charged with dissent if he argues with the referee.
So is there one rule for dissent for decisions against you & one for decisions in your favour. Of course not.
I wonder if all the moral police currently castigating this young lad would overlook a wad of notes they saw on the pavement.
A furtive look around & in the pocket.
Then again I wonder if anybody,moral police or not would put the notes in their pocket if a security camera was pointing at them?
Dont blame the ref or the lad & his team mates blame FIFA.
Forget ethical core. Human nature dictates that when it comes to winning ethics are out the window. Roy of the Rovers is a myth.
But there is a body that can help make the game fairer despite human frailities, it runs the show, its called FIFA.
It recently knocked back calls by the English & Scottish FA’s to bring in technology.
Why? Because they claim it would open a Pandoras box. Every decision could be questioned resulting in stoppages to a game that prides itself on its flowing nature.
That wont happen if you allow each coach a maximum of 2 or 3 technology calls per match on ” controversial” incidents.
Or better still an independent observer with access to technology who can make the 2 calls on technology per team per match.
FIFA states that another reason for not using video replays & technology is that human error creates talking points.
Sure it does ,no doubt, but what FIFA overlooks is that all sense of fair play should not be chucked out the window because it creates a headline.
Technology in moderation can make football fairer. After all isnt that what FIFA is always prattling on about?
March 15th 2010 @ 10:18am
Tadpohle said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
To my mind, Payne is guilty on two counts. Firstly, he is guilty of excellent heading technique, his arm extended as it was in the direction he wanted the ball to go, I am sure is the right heading technque. His arm was up in postion well before the ball was even close, he put his arm up as he was taught in how to direct the ball.
Secondly, and the glaring fault, is that he closed his eyes, you can see it clearly on the replay. He was not to know that when the ball hit his arm it was not already over the line, when the goal was awarded, I can see that he would not have been aware of the controversy, just that he had a hand ( now that’s a pun) in another goal.
No where near as blatant as the Henry goal where he controlled the ball twice to be able to redirect it.
I would give the boy the benifit of tyhe doubt, and commiserations to Herbert, who has proved that he is a class act in an ordinary group, but guilty of pinning his hopes on an injured striker.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:22am
Realfootball said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Having seen the replay many times I don’t know how anyone can claim it wasn’t intentional.
The key point is that it no outcome on the result, and I don’t believe for a moment that it is reasonable to expect a 19 year old in that situation to fess up.
The main outcome of this is to illustrate how much we need goal line offiicials.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:35am
punter said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I would have to agree 100% here.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:06am
Lu said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I disagree that Hand of Payne didn’t effect the outcome of the final result..
It was tense 1-1 at the time of Payne’s goal.. Granted Sydney had more control than Nix, but coming out 1-1 after the break, who knows what would happen..
Also the last two sydney goals was a result of Nix throwing men forward and looking for a score.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:25pm
Fly on the Wall said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
“I don’t believe for a moment that it is reasonable to expect a 19-year-old in that situation to fess up.”
That says a lot about soccer and the people who run it.
And BTW – this is not a forum for soccer only, it’s a forum for all sport.
I didn’t say cheating does not occur in other sports – just that it’s totally infected soccer, from the top down.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:39pm
Hammer said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
then don’t watch it … nobodies holding a gun to your head
March 15th 2010 @ 2:27pm
Al said | March 15th 2010 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
“just that it’s totally infected soccer”. Do you have any factual evidence to back up this assertion or are you just being a miscreant?
March 15th 2010 @ 10:28am
sledgeross said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:28am | Report comment
I think the issue is larger than the individual. Like Steve Waugh said regarding walking ” you dont dob yourself in to teh cops if you do 65k’s in a 60 zone”.
The FA and HAL have no recourse because FIFA did nothing about Henrys handball. And until there is a culture change, players wont admit they cheated, whether inadvertent, deliberate or otherwise.
March 15th 2010 @ 7:12pm
Ben of Phnom Penh said | March 15th 2010 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
the question is whether it’s the equivalent of doing 65 in a 60 zone or sideswiping a parked car.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:36am
Luke W said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Someone should have brought some hay to this thread to feed all the high horses that people are sitting on. It is not Chris Payne’s job to officiate the match. At the end of the day, the referee missed it, his decision is final and there is nothing that can (or should) be done about it. Get over it.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:31am
Realfootball said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Absolutley.
March 15th 2010 @ 10:49am
dasilva said | March 15th 2010 @ 10:49am | Report comment
I said it before and I say it again.
Video technology has to be introduced but in a smart and limited fashion.
Simply review every goal scored for offside or fouls and then rescind the decision if there is a problem
It works because when a goal is scored, this is a natural break in play. The time it takes to celebrate the goal is ample opportunity for the video referee to review the play.
Also since there is an average of between 2-3 goals per match, we don’t have to used the video replay very often. I honestly don’t see any problem with it. since there’s so few goals scored in the match, why don’t we make sure all the goals are correct.
Although Towser, I disagree with letting coaches have control over video technology. It could easily be manipulated to slow the game down and time wasting.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:08am
Towser said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Good to see you & I trying to nut something out on this dasilva.
But FIFA dont even appear to have got to the stage of discussing such practicalities on the best way for technology to be introduced.
NO is the current analysis it appears.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:59pm
dasilva said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Good to see you as well.
Nice that you bury the hatchet about the whole censoring fiasco.
Yeah, it was very disapointing that FIFA decided to outright reject technology. Fink wrote a pretty decent article criticising that decision. FIFA has always been rather slow with change
March 15th 2010 @ 11:34am
Realfootball said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
I am 100% against video technology. We should strive to keep the game human and simple – and quick, which video tech isn’t. BUT we do need something. I can’t see what the problem is with a goal line official at each end. It is simple, human, and effective. I just wish FIFA would get on with it.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:45am
Towser said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Whichever way brings a balance in favour of fairness I would accept. Be that technology or more officials strategically placed.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:47pm
dasilva said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
I accept that video technology is not the complete answer to the games woe.
The idea that the game is stopped to refer a decision to the referee is something the game must not do.
we can’t solve all the problems. However the issue isn’t removing referee errors, it is to reduce it.
how long does it take when the goal scored or when a penalty has been given for the game to start again. Now video technology may not be quick, but I believe it’s quick enough for that.
If there is a delay, instead of 1-2 minutes for the game to restart after the goal to be scored, it may well be 2-3 minutes.
however I don’t think that’s really a big problem considering how rare a goal is scored in a match.
Now this is not going to solve issues where someone was fouled inside the penalty box but the decision was not given to the attacking side. this is because there’s no way the decision is going to be referred to video referee without stopping the play. in that case, tough luck as there is no answer to solve it without slowing down the game.
However just because video technology is not going to work in all situation doesn’t mean we can’t used it for some situation (eg. when a goal is scored). Like I said, the key with video technology is to reduce errors not to remove it completely.
The idea that the game is human. Let’s just say that the attraction of the game is the human spectacle of the players not the referees. If the referee makes a really good decision, I don’t go wow, that’s a great decision, he’s my favorite referee, I’m going to watch every football match with that referee just to see him exhibit his brilliant decision making skills. it really isn’t part of the spectacle of the game. I don’t get enjoyment seeing referee adjudicating. The game of football doesn’t exist as a test of referee’s ability. They are not part of the entertainment. So I don’t really see why the decision has to be made by referee on the pitch to be considered sacret.
March 15th 2010 @ 2:29pm
Al said | March 15th 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Games after goals are stopped anyway, I can’t see how video referrals will create a stoppage in play in the situation of a contentious goal having been scored.
March 15th 2010 @ 6:34pm
dasilva said | March 15th 2010 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Yeah I was kind of arguing that reviewing all goals shouldn’t cause any delay in the game
The only thing that can cause stoppage in play is when the attacking side wants a penalty but it wasn’t given. In that case we shouldn’t use video replay in that case
So video replay may be useful for preventing hand of Henry and Payne.
However it’s not going to help out for situations such as Chelsea vs Barcelona and the numerous penalty shout that didn’t go Chelsea way.
However in my opinion, that doesn’t really matter. Video referees are there to reduce mistake not eliminate it.
March 15th 2010 @ 11:01am
keeper11 said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Memo to…Nit on the wall..
i guess if it was a 0-0 scoreline or umm..a flare was sighted you would have copied pasted the same garbage…..
there must some foody forum you can share your ..umm opinons..
here…you’re just a waste of digital space ….
som
March 15th 2010 @ 11:31am
KR said | March 15th 2010 @ 11:31am | Report comment
No handseys in football seems pretty cut and dried to me, but I sense the theme is that it’s ‘professional sport’ and winning is the only thing that matters. And that it’s anyone else’s fault but Payne’s. And that no one else would own up so why should he? A pretty common attitude in modern society, let alone football. It’s not stealing if you don’t get caught, right? But all the cool kids are doing it, Mum.
Intentional or not, Payne’s hand propelled the ball into the net and he knew it. He’s under pressure to win on behalf of his team and – like most other people – is fine with sweeping ethics under the rug when it suits him. I get that.
That attitude can be corrected. Use the cameras in a match review situation and keep the game as it is to minimise disruptions, but bring in a post-match penalty. If video evidence shows officials missed a handball goal the player gets an automatic 3 game ban but the result stands. Minimal expenditure and the game is seen to be honouring its ‘Fair Play’ motto.
The player, and by extension their club, can then decide: Roll the dice for 3 matches on the sideline, or own up and take their chances during the match. Sounds fair to me.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:44pm
JK said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
What happens if the video reveals other illegal play e.g shirt pulling in the box, offside not picked up etc. What do they do then, reverse goals and results. Too big a can, too many worms
March 15th 2010 @ 12:55pm
Dogz R Barkn said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Good question, and this is why I don’t mind the idea of captains/managers being allowed one appeal per game (or per half), and the subject of the appeal must be quite clear, e.g. handball, offside/onside, ball was in/out, etc.
To be honest, such a system would wipe out 99.5% of all controversies virtually overnight, because there are only one or two match determining incidents per game – the real problem is that when goals are involved, it’s a very high proportion of the final outcome and for this reason, all goal decisions really need to be as close to 100% as can be possible.
Also with only oine or two appeals per game, the argument of stopping the game too much is killed – the game is stopped for heaps of stuff, indeed, when a team scores, one minute is basically lost, plenty of time to double check the video on appeal.
Indeed, I can’t see any draw backs to such a system.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:21pm
Towser said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Out of interest here is how it happens in American Football.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_replay_in_American_and_Canadian_football
I dont understand the intracacies of what it applies to as I dont understand the sport or its rules.
However I’m sure that greater & more experienced football minds than those on the Roar could sit down & nut out an equivalent system that would fit Association Football.
As you indicate maybe just goal incidents only can be indicated in the one or 2 calls for instant replay.
March 15th 2010 @ 1:53pm
KR said | March 15th 2010 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
JK said, “What happens if the video reveals other illegal play e.g shirt pulling in the box, offside not picked up etc. What do they do then, reverse goals and results. Too big a can, too many worms”.
Not if you are only looking for one worm. Hands are either used in a scoring situation or not (defined as occurrences in the box resulting in an illegal scoring action). It’s pretty simple. Football = no hands. There’s not a lot of subjectivity there.
No reversing of results or goals, and no holding up the game. The gamesmanship and human element stays. Basketball with a large, vertical, rectangular ‘hoop’ goes — or at least gets punished after-the-fact — and attitudes start to change.
The point of my suggestion is not the face value punishment, JK. Payne felt little need to fess-up. It would be in both the player and team’s interests be honest at the time of the incident. Would Sydney have glossed over it if Payne was out for 3 matches? How about if you add potentially losing Aloisi for the final as well? Consider it incentive based ethics.
March 15th 2010 @ 12:19pm
Marshall said | March 15th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
The celebration is interesting cause it’s part of the con. Celebrate and be condemned, or don’t and it could convince the ref that it wasn’t legit.