Can Payne be excused or is he the A-League’s Henry?

If the ref had spotted it it was a yellow card. Clearly stated in the FIFA rules as follows:- http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/7.%20law%2012_miscounduct_557.pdf

Luke Totally agree, maybe bring two extra linesmen. I hate the idea with football being tampered with. It's fine leave it as it is. Sometimes it goes your way and sometimes it doesn't (trust me i've been on both ends). Doesn't everyone here enjoy the controversy?

Actually being a little OTT there, not too many Wellington fans are saying that. I was more thinking of the furore over Henry.

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.

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!

A Sydney V Tards GF is better for the press and crowd ...

the question is whether it's the equivalent of doing 65 in a 60 zone or sideswiping a parked car.

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.

I shall settle this for everyone using the powers of logic If as the clowns..,. ahem... I mean commentary team at Fox Sports suggest that a player should advise a referee that they handballed to score then accordingly Players should advise the ref when the handball defensively Players should advise the referee when they kick a player on the ground (Kevin Muscut) Players should be able to advise a referee when they infact didn't handball it and it came off their head (Terry McFlynn for the winning goal scored by ArchieT two weeks ago) In fact, lets take this whole fairplay thing to its LOGICAL conclusion. We don't need a referee, players can just adjucicate themselves, according to the Fox Sports Commentary Team this is how football should be played. And while we are living in this bright shiny new world maybe we could attach mics to the bench players so they can commentate and we can do away with sensationalist hack journalists and former middling sports stars and drug addicts desperately trying to carve out a career in the media when they should be selling used cars on Canterbury Road. As for video refereeing, It simply won't happen. The appeal of football is twofold Drama and The direct relationship between park soccer and professional The more rule changes the more removed the professional becomes from the park and The more drama the more people become attached to their club For those of you who are new to the beautiful game, Welcome. If you find it all a little too emotional, perhaps lawn bowls or AFL is more your speed. Best of luck

99% of good ol' Sepps time and energy is spent on networking to consolidate his grip on the his power, votes and authority... something as useful and simple as an assessment of video technology in modern football is simply a waste of time and extra work for no gain for him......

I get your drift. It emphasise the need for dialogue by experienced football people. But even for the lay person you can see that restricting Manager/Captain calls to immediate goal scoring incidents such as Paynes is how it should be implemented. Also goal hits cross bar bounces over the line,was it an offside goal or not & should it be a penalty etc . Nobody ever discusses the unfairness of a goal scored after 10 passes,but they can go home annoyed, frustrated by a grave sense of injustice if one of the immediate refereeing errors above occurs. German fans old enought to remember dont forget England/Wembley 1966. Back then an injustice or otherwise couldnt be disputed. Today it can.

That's a fair criticism that it's difficult to determine how far back does the video ref have to review to determine whether the goal is legal or not. Personally, I think it's fair game to review back to the incident where the attacking team won the possession that lead up to the goal. Of course the video referee shouldn't have to watch everything from the beginning of the play everytime a goal is scored but if the video referee remembered the infringement during the period of possession then they should be able to overturn it from there. If that's too inpractical and the video referee just reviews just the last 4-5 passes/moments that led to the goal. I'll be satisfied with that as well. that means that there will still be some goals that are allowed that shouldn't be. However there will be far LESS undeserved goals. The goal of video technology isn't to eliminate referee mistake. It's just there to reduce it. About getting on with the game? Well I like to think that it shouldn't take much longer then the goal celebration. however if it turns out that it will delay the game longer then that. Then put a time limit on video referee to make the decision (maybe one minute when the video referee got access to the replay). People are generally forgiving with line ball decisions that could go either way that would take hours for video referees to get things right. People just don't like blatent mistakes that it just takes one replay to see the error of the decision. Again like i said, less mistakes not zero mistakes.

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.

"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?

The main reason I oppose video technology in football is it is much more difficult than other sports to determine where a passage of play began (to determine if no laws were broken). What would happen if a defender used his hand to win possession in his own half, his team then strung together 10 passes without the ball leaving the field of play before the ball is crossed in and a goal is scored? Could the referee refer the decision to check for a handball? Could the manager/captain challenge it (as has been proposed in this thread)? Where is the line where a potential foul stops affecting the play? At a throw in? The other reason I oppose video technology is because it is touted to bring consistency and fairness. Any person who watches the NRL will know that the video referee system brings anything but. Everytime a video ref made a decision about the obstruction rule I was left scratching my head. If anything it is more frustrating than if the referee just made a decision on the spot. Get on the with game!

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.

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.

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.

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?

then don't watch it ... nobodies holding a gun to your head