It is just as well football is the most popular and perhaps most lucrative sport in the world because the publicity it has had in the past fortnight could have killed lesser ones off.
The suicide of German national goalkeeper Robert Enke did not help the macho image of the game given that he had sought to hide his battle with depression fearful that it would harm his image in the sport.
Then there came the “hand of frog” – Thierry Henry’s blatant handball which effectively put France into the World Cup finals at the expense of the Republic of Ireland in Wednesday’s play-off.
As if that was not bad enough allegations surfaced on Friday of widespread matchfixing from Germany to Bosnia-Hercegovina filtering down to even regional matches and Under-19 level.
Enke’s suicide after years of battling depression was at least treated with great dignity — not least by his widow Teresa whose behaviour makes her definitely worthy of role model status — and decorum with a tribute at his club Hanover’s stadium.
However, if any good can come out of such a tragedy it was highlighted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said that his death should serve as a means of making German society a more transparent and caring one.
“We must send a clear signal,” Merkel told German weekly newspaper Die Zeit.
“We can help to change the social climate so that taboos like depression, and also issues like homosexuality, are no longer impossible to discuss.
“If someone is affected by either issue, they should be able to talk about it in peace.”
Whether Henry, one of the formerly more respected players in a sport not exactly awash with role models, can rebuild his reputation is a moot point.
Even the Barcelona forward’s calls for the match with the Irish to be replayed fell on deaf ears as FIFA had already ruled that possibility out before he issued his statement.
Henry is caught in the eye of the storm after his handball gave William Gallas the chance to score the goal which took the 1998 champions through, leaving the Irish distraught and the former Arsenal striker sheepish as he admitted his misdemeanour.
“Of course the fairest solution would be to replay the game but it is not in my control,” the France captain said.
“Naturally I feel embarrassed at the way that we won and feel extremely sorry for the Irish who definitely deserve to be in South Africa.”
“The ball bounced and it hit my hand,” added Henry, though he insisted: “I am not a cheat.”
The circumstances, while not as blatant as Diego Maradona’s slam dunk past England keeper Peter Shilton in the 1986 finals, may now sadly prove the abiding memory of a player who has worn French blue for 12 years, won the Champions League with Barca and lit up the English Premiership with Arsenal.
Certainly that is the opinion of the Eric Cantona, who suffered his own World Cup heartbreak in the final qualifier for the 1994 edition when Bulgaria scored in the final minute.
“What shocked me most was that at the end of the match, in front of the television cameras, this player (Henry) went and sat down next to an Irish player to console him, even though he’d screwed them three minutes earlier,” Cantona said.
“If I’d been Irish, he wouldn’t have lasted three seconds.”
So if there is any good to come out of this dark episode then calls for video replays to be introduced — like they are used in tennis and rugby union — have reached a cacophony which is so loud that even UEFA supremo Michel Platini’s implacable opposition to such a measure might wilt.
Mick of Newie
Guest
Pip I take the opposite conclusion from the same premise, if we looked only when goals are scored the only outcome is that certain proportion will be disallowed, therefore less goals. For example Paul Ifill's goal against the Jets on the weekend may have been knocked back for high feet. Goal scored so can bew reviewed. But James Hollands handball in the Jets v Mariners GF would not be reviewed because no goal resulted. Nothing annoys me more than the incorrect offside against the attacking side 30metres from goal. A goalscoring opportunity is lost. If you are going to use video my problems are more practical than philosophical. If you are going to use it you must have a mechanism to look at foul play/cheating that prevents goals. I hate myself for suggesting it but if you are going to use video you would need a process for the captain to challenge a decision and have it referred.
Dan
Guest
Mr Cheese, "It’s a nice idea that people should attack football for being popular but, of course, it’s more about envy than real criticism." That wasn't an attack, it was an observation of the reality that any sufficiently large multi-member organisation is faced with. Go and review the difficulty with which any mildly contentious United Nations Resolution faces and come back and tell in what way my statement was "an attack". "On the BBC World Service last week, an American said that video technology had turned the NFL into the No Fun League." Anecdotal rubbish. Watch ESPN sports news and you'll find NFL commentators explaining how silly it is that France were able to get away with a hand-ball and how something like that would never happen in their "more sophisticated form of football". Both are opinions, but that doesn't means stating them makes either right. What I find interesting Cheeso, is that on all occasions you've replied to me here (I've been moving up the page) you've failed to grasp the central tenet of what I'm saying: that soccer could utilise video review systems in a limited and controlled manner that would reduce the referee's error rate. Instead you've attempted to divert the argument with nonsense like 'football is the biggest... therefore it's the best and its perfect!!!'. I'm honestly beginning to wonder how old you are...
Dan
Guest
Mr cheese, I am certain you have indeed seen more soccer than I have, but that doesn't change the fact that it is possible to institute a video review system that would reduce the referee error rate and not disrupt the game. That was my argument. Now, if you like the idea of matches containing a significant degree of randomness allows for a greater proportion of victories to occur due to inept refereeing, then I suppose that's up to you, but I would suggest that if that's the case you may as well just start flipping coins to decide who wins matches. As for it being "the best", well Personally I don't think soccer is the best sport in the world, but I enjoy the world cups. To claim that it being the most popular in the world means "it's the best" is subjective drivel on the same level as those who claim the world's wide-spread belief in deities is proof that God must exist. Soccer has the benefit of being one of the simplest and most accessible games, and this has enabled it to spread.
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
I seem to recall that England also won a WC by way of one of the most dubious decision of all time. But that's sport, it all evens itself out eventually. Henry would have been denied dozens of penalties in his Arsenal days but no-one is going back to count them, or see what other injustice he or his team has faced. I've heard enough from the narrow-minded people picking on the here and now to try and get video technology introduced into the sport and ruin it for everyone else.
Mr cheese
Guest
How do you know that you speak on behalf of all fans ??? I completely disagree with you. If you're Australian, I have probably seen more football than you because I live in England and you don't have football in Aussie. We will NEVER agree on what is a "clearly wrong decision". England lost some years ago because of a Maradona handball. That causes me no pain whatsoever. Football is the most popular sport for a reason - it's the best. Where were the video referees when Tony Cascarino played for Ireland ??? Where were the video referees when an Englishman with no Irish connection whatsoever played for Ireland ?? I don't remember hearing the Irish complain about that.
Mr cheese
Guest
The Guru I love you. Couldn't have put it better myself. Have the video fans watched the RU World Cup final from 2007 ???? Mark Cueto's 'try' was sent to the video ref. I went for a steak. I read the bible from cover to cover. I translated the complete works of Shakespare into Swedish. When I came back into the room, they still hadn't decided. Slow two-tier refereeing in football ? No thanks....
Mr cheese
Guest
It will introduce a 2 tier system of refereeing. 2 Tiers of refereeing within one match ?!?!?!?! Sorry..................that is ridiculous. The status quo is perfect. Leave it alone.
Mr cheese
Guest
You argument makes no sense. Video fans argue that it should be used for Black and White matters. A dive is not a black and white matter. How can boredom raise football's reputation ??? I watched the RU world cup final 2007 and at least one person I was watching it with doesn't like Rugby Union. Was she convinced by the long wait before England's try was ruled out ???? No. She thought it was boring. She was right. Video technology is a waste of time.
Mr cheese
Guest
So what about Zidane in the 2006 World Cup Final ? He was sent off because of the video ref. That had nothing to do with a goal. You have videos for everything OR you have videos for nothing. I say NOTHING.
Mr cheese
Guest
If you use a video for goals, why not use it for fouls ???? Why not use it for dives outside the box ? Why not use it for foul throws ? Why not use it for off-sides ? Why not.............................stop playing the game and just play computers ?? Blessed are the geeks for they shall inherit the earth ? No thanks.
Mr cheese
Guest
I felt sorry for the All Blacks against France in the 2007 world cup. Wayne Barnes did make a fair few mistakes, and without them they'd have gone through. However, the Damien Traille forward pass in that match was NOT sent to the video ref. In the final, the Mark Cueto try WAS sent to the video ref. They're both illegal, but one is apparently more illegal than the other. Am I the only one who is confused ??????????????
Mr cheese
Guest
You think that RL is lucky that it's really unpopular ??? Strange kind of luck, that. It's a nice idea that people should attack football for being popular but, of course, it's more about envy than real criticism. On the BBC World Service last week, an American said that video technology had turned the NFL into the No Fun League. Keep watching the RL if you want, young man, but don't pretend that football is hamstrung by its popularity. Popularity is a good thing, n'est-ce pas ??????
danny
Guest
is it the europa league where they're trialling an extra referree behind each goal? that's something that i would like to see more of, and it would certainly have helped with the ireland-france game.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Yes - agreed - this isn't about the line ball decisions (like the Neill/Grosso incident, video will not help there, the ref has to call it on the spot) - it's about missing those obvious things that sway which way those 2.3 goals per game go.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Yes - FIFA are bloody hopeless - they are lucky they look after a game that is extremely popular and takes care of itself come what may - but these jokers in FIFA are some of the most inept humans to walk the Earth.
Dan
Guest
You can't be serious. He played to the referee's whistle the same way every other player does and got lucky. That is all. If there is anyone who should be ashamed it is FIFA themselves for being so utterly inept at organising officials who have eyes.
dasilva
Guest
You can used video review to stop diving in game without causing unnecessary stoppages.. Just do it by reviewing any penalty that is given (which is the most important effect of diving). It takes time for penalty kick to be set up. Therefore give the video ref a minute to rescind any penalty decision. If there is diving, the diver can get yellow card as well (although I preferentially prefer a red card to this offense).
dasilva
Guest
The fact is people are very forgiving of line ball decision. If there is a decision that could go either way or you need a microscope to determine which one is correct then people will forget about it and just say it's a luck of the draw Video referee should not be used to overanalyse decision like that. THat's why there should be a time limit. However decision that are obvious mistakes that results in goals. This is where just looking at one replay, you can tell it's a mistake. That's where you get these outrages and accusation of cheating, corruptions etc.
dasilva
Guest
I think people need to think about this Video referee will not remove all referee mistakes. It will just reduce it If there is a handball in the box that prevented a goal. You don't review it and just hope the referee gets it right If there is a handball that scores, you review it and can rescind any goal. If there is a penalty that should be given but is not given. Bad luck If there is a penalty that the referee has given. You can review it whether it was a mistake or not. So is video referee perfect? The answer no However the key is that it will reduce the amount of referee errors in the game not remove it completely.
Dan
Guest
I agree entirely. It is the clearly wrong decisions that cause fans the most pain. Decisions that a video referee could not decide for one way or another within 30-40 seconds are generally going to be ambiguous anyway, and thus are less likely to cause the level of ire that has been witnessed since the Ireland France match.