[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]...Unless you define every deliberate in-game offence as cheating.
By saying deliberate handball is cheating, you have to say that deliberately tugging someone's shirt is cheating. I don't believe either is.
Erm, I'm not sure you understand the English language:
Cheat - verb - to violate rules or regulations
If deliberately violating the rules of a game to gain an unfair advantage isn't cheating then nothing is. Just because you happen to agree with all the self-serving ex-footballers in the media who don't have hypocrisy to call a cheat a cheat because they know they did it their whole career, doesn't mean it's not cheating.
Sadly the game has been ruined by the divers and the cheats and it's people like you who let them get away with it by making excuses for them.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]...Unless you define every deliberate in-game offence as cheating.
By saying deliberate handball is cheating, you have to say that deliberately tugging someone's shirt is cheating. I don't believe either is.
Erm, I'm not sure you understand the English language:
Cheat - verb - to violate rules or regulations
If deliberately violating the rules of a game to gain an unfair advantage isn't cheating then nothing is. Just because you happen to agree with all the self-serving ex-footballers in the media who don't have hypocrisy to call a cheat a cheat because they know they did it their whole career, doesn't mean it's not cheating.
Sadly the game has been ruined by the divers and the cheats and it's people like you who let them get away with it by making excuses for them.
Ironically Andy, it is you who's struggling with understanding the English language; do you always make up your own definition of words? Because the one you plucked from the air for 'cheat' is wrong.
I agree regarding the hypocrisy though; one of the reasons I do side with Henry is because I know I would do the same, and no doubt have broken the rules in matches before to gain an advantage. And I know that I'd be happy for a Charlton player to do the same in the last minute of a play-off final to get us promoted. I would hedge a bet that you would too - so maybe you should consider your hypocrisy by slating Henry...
To be honest I wouldn't be happy. I know I've always been disgusted when a charlton player has dived and this is no different.
As for you're earlier point about would I be happy to do the same, well no I wouldn't, it would taint the whole club. For the next decade or more France will be seen as cheats by the majority of football fans, in the same way people still refer to Dirty Leeds.
I can't personally see how deliberately breaking the rules of a game to gain an advantage isn't cheating. Let's apply the same logic to another game, for instance Snooker, unseen by the ref I deliberately move a ball that was stopping me getting the shot I wanted, then take the shot on, pot it and win the frame. By the logic you've applied that isn't cheating, it's just one of those things, balls get move accidently all the time and the ref doesn't always spot it, so my doing it deliberately isn't cheating at all.
That's frankly rubbish.
And, as you prefer the oxford dictionary to dictionary.com:
Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
cheat
• verb 1 act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. 2 deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means. 3 avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular crash.
1. Deliberately handling the ball to control it and stop it going out of play is unfairly gaining an advantage
2. The handball was unfair and for henry to act like nothing had happened is deceitful, and Ireland were deprived the result, so that's number 2 sorted
3. Henry avoided the ball going out, and avoided miscontrolling the ball and avoided extra time
So by Oxford's standard Henry is a cheat on every definition of the word. I don't need to make it up, he cheated ergo he is a cheat. You're just indulging in the sort of double speak politicians use and we use with children (i.e. telling a child they're not naughty, but the thing they did was). That's fine is you either enjoy spin or liked being treated like a 3 yr old.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]You meandeliberatehandball is not cheating, Si?
The laws of the game do not define 'cheating'.
But then Thierry Henry himself - and just about everybody else knew he cheated.
Otherwise there wouldn't have been such a protest.
I agree, cheating is not defined in the laws. Or even mentioned.
But deliberate handball is. It is defined as an in-game offence, punishable by a yellow card.
So linking deliberate handball with cheating is impossible. Unless you define every deliberate in-game offence as cheating.
By saying deliberate handball is cheating, you have to say that deliberately tugging someone's shirt is cheating. I don't believe either is.
I don't think you can argue that the majority of people thinking something makes it true!
It was unsporting, yes. But not cheating. I probably would have done the same, as would the majority of people I'd've thought. I know I'd not begrudge a Charlton player doing the same in a play-off final to get us promoted!
So once an act of cheating or deception is punishable in the rules it's no longer cheating? It's then an 'in game offense'.
Can you give me an example of what you think is cheating? And if, should that cheating catch on enough for FIFA to legislate a rule against it, it suddenly becomes not cheating?
Stu, you're not making any sense. The online OED does not have that definition. Check it. Instead of just trying to make illogical, 'witty' replies.
Sussex and Andy,
Cheating and breaking the in-game rules are not one and the same. I don't have long to write the reply, but by this logic, every deliberate foul would be considered cheating. Is this what you believe?
A split-second offense during the game, in the heat of the moment, no matter how 'deliberate' cannot be compared to a pre-conceived and prolonged attempt at rule-breaking. Andy, your snooker example is the latter, and is comparable to the rugby bloodgate scandal. A prolonged, though out, deliberate attempt at deceit - which can be called cheating.
Henry broke the rules, and knew at the time he had. But he didn't set out before the game to; it wasn't planned, it was a heat of the moment action to gain an advantage. I can't believe you can argue that this is more like bloodgate, and less like any other type of cynical foul? Or that you could classify them both the same as cheating?
P.S. Sussex, I think you misunderstood my earlier point - whether Fifa recognise an offense or not has no bearing on whether I, or others, consider it to be cheating. I was making the point that Fifa don't consider any in-game offence as cheating (which carries further connotations of deceit that cannot be attached to in-game offenses). Knowingly fielding an ineligible player, by contrast, I'm sure they would classify as cheating.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Check it. Instead of just trying to make illogical, 'witty' replies.
I have, the dictionary is still sitting on my desk, I'm pretty sure if I open it up again it's just going to say exactly the same thing, books tend to work like that.
In tonight's game several of OUR players will CHEAT! They'll claim a foul when they know the defender got the ball. They'll slip and claim they were pulled. They'll claim an opposition player knocked a ball out of play when they did. The ball may even hit their hand and the ref might not notice it and they won't tell anyone. Somebody might even claim a penalty that's not a penalty. It's professional football. It's always gone on. The only difference is that because of TV it's all on screen, endlessly replayed, for idiots to get worked up about. I think it's good that when players cheat outrageously (diving like Stevie G on a slippy floor) or endanger other players, that the authorities use retrospective punishments. This was not that type of a case. I don't believe a single Eire player (or pretty much any other pro) would have played the cards any different to the way that Henry, did.
So, because the vast majority of professional footballers cheat, a high profile incidence of cheating shouldn't be punished. Which means the players will always cheat because they know it will go unpunished. Great, there's the death of football by a thousand cuts.
At some stage the authorities need to clamp down, to say enough is enough and start punishing cheating. It may be harsh on the first few players to get done, but it is for the good of the game, and as you say they've all got away with far too much for far too long, so can't have any complaints.
[cite]Posted By: randy andy[/cite]So, because the vast majority of professional footballers cheat, a high profile incidence of cheating shouldn't be punished. Which means the players will always cheat because they know it will go unpunished. Great, there's the death of football by a thousand cuts.
At some stage the authorities need to clamp down, to say enough is enough and start punishing cheating. It may be harsh on the first few players to get done, but it is for the good of the game, and as you say they've all got away with far too much for far too long, so can't have any complaints.
I think the problem is that it's not always so clear cut. I quote McLovin:
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]The ball may even hit their hand and the ref might not notice it and they won't tell anyone.
In Henry's/Maradona's case, I would argue that they were cheating. But let's say the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away, hits a player's hand and goes in. The ref gives a goal. The player knows it's hit his hand. He didn't mean to do it. Is he cheating if he doesn't tell the ref? You'd have to introduce a notion of 'intent' into the rules and I don't see how it could work. Nor can we get into a situation where every moment of the game needs to be analysed retrospectively.
There also seems to be a misconception in a few posts above that if Henry had told the ref he'd handballed it the ref would've changed his mind. I was under the impression the ref isn't allowed to take a player's word when making a decision anyway?
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]
Cheating and breaking the in-game rules are not one and the same. I don't have long to write the reply, but by this logic, every deliberate foul would be considered cheating. Is this what you believe?
Yes I would say so, why wouldn't it be? It's a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage outside the laws of the game, there's no reason it shouldn't fall under the umbrella term.
'Cheat' has become a loaded word, normally reserved for the more severe instances of cheating, but the minor forms of cheating are still cheating. Some cheating has become acceptable or turned a blind eye to as it's so commonplace, but it still effectively is cheating. You could quite easily substitute ' deliberate in game offense' for 'in game cheating'.
Why is something an offense? - Because it broke the laws of the game.
In what instance is a person cheating? - When they knowingly and deliberately commit an offense in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. Minor cheating is rife in the game, but what is and isn't turned a blind eye to is separate to the fact that it's all cheating of differing severity.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]
A split-second offense during the game, in the heat of the moment, no matter how 'deliberate' cannot be compared to a pre-conceived and prolonged attempt at rule-breaking.
In severity obviously not, and the severity of the punishment that each offence recieves represents that. But that doesn't mean they can't both fall under the umbrella term of 'cheating'.
You can have on field cheating, you can have off field cheating. You can have drawn out cheating and you can have split second cheating. Surely all that matters is that they are deliberately trying to gain an advantage through unfair means? Henry is still cheating whether he made the decision there and then, or whether Domenech had a secret doctrine planned beforehand that the French should try and get away with handball whenever possible.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]
Henry broke the rules, and knew at the time he had. But he didn't set out before the game to; it wasn't planned, it was a heat of the moment action to gain an advantage.
Rules are there to stop people gaining unfair advantages. If you purposefully flaunt those rules to gain such an advantage, you're cheating.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]I can't believe you can argue that this is more like bloodgate, and less like any other type of cynical foul? Or that you could classify them both the same as cheating?
Your phraseology makes it seem like you have to either separate them into separate terms or put them all on the same level. Just because they're all cheating doesn't mean they're all on the same level, there are different levels of severity. Henry's handball was indeed much closer to any other type of cynical foul than it was to bloodgate, but this doesn't detract from them all being technically cheating.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]
I was making the point that Fifa don't consider any in-game offence as cheating (which carries further connotations of deceit that cannot be attached to in-game offenses). Knowingly fielding an ineligible player, by contrast, I'm sure they would classify as cheating.
So there isn't deceit in diving for example? Sure, there might be more deceit in knowingly fielding an illegible player, but we're simply back to the question of severity again. There isn't an arbitrary 'amount of planning' or 'amount of deceit' where it suddenly becomes cheating. Deliberate intention to gain an unfair advantage by breaking the rules is enough.
[cite]Posted By: dabos[/cite] You'd have to introduce a notion of 'intent' into the rules and I don't see how it could work. Nor can we get into a situation where every moment of the game needs to be analysed retrospectively.
Very true, hence it'll be difficult for there ever be a clampdown on subtle cheating (the yellow card for diving is already a difficult one for referees). The first priority is to stop the cheating being effective (i.e. spotting the Henry handball and disallowing the goal) but then in terms of punishing the player is when the tricky stuff about intent comes in.
[cite]Posted By: dabos[/cite]There also seems to be a misconception in a few posts above that if Henry had told the ref he'd handballed it the ref would've changed his mind. I was under the impression the ref isn't allowed to take a player's word when making a decision anyway?
I think the uproar was because Henry's handball was so obviously deliberate. It was this fact that made people so angry. He cheated when he deliberately handled the ball, not when he didn't tell the ref about it - players aren't expected to do that.
Like yours and Dabos' points above, intent is the primary issue. However, although you say Henry's was obviously deliberate, I don't think you could say that it was obviously intended.
I don't really want to get into a debate about the definitions of 'deliberate' vs. 'intent', but I know from playing myself that you can quite deliberately handle the ball (ie. move your hand out to it) as a pseudo-natural reaction. That happens plenty of times in games I've seen. For example, Deon's handball versus Swindon - he knew he was on a yellow so leading with his arm and punching the ball was obviously not what he would have intended, because he knew he'd get sent off. But it was deliberate.
Henry's first handball was unintentional and non-deliberate in my opinion. Therefore not an offense even if the ref did see it. The second was deliberate, no doubt. But I think it can be put down to a natural split-second reaction, rather than to any considerable intent (which implies consideration - I don't think he had time to consider). Even if you do think he had time to consider the action (I can't see how you could personally), it is impossible to prove.
Thus only where an action is obviously considered (ie. involves planning, is prolonged, etc) can you reliably call it 'cheating'.
So as any crime requires there to be intention, by your logic only when an action is obviously considered (ie. involved planning, is prolonged, etc) can you reliably call it 'crime'.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Thanks for your reply Sussex.
Like yours and Dabos' points above, intent is the primary issue. However, although you say Henry's was obviously deliberate, I don't think you could say that it was obviously intended.
I don't really want to get into a debate about the definitions of 'deliberate' vs. 'intent', but I know from playing myself that you can quite deliberately handle the ball (ie. move your hand out to it) as a pseudo-natural reaction. That happens plenty of times in games I've seen. For example, Deon's handball versus Swindon - he knew he was on a yellow so leading with his arm and punching the ball was obviously not what he would have intended, because he knew he'd get sent off. But it was deliberate.
Henry's first handball was unintentional and non-deliberate in my opinion. Therefore not an offense even if the ref did see it. The second was deliberate, no doubt. But I think it can be put down to a natural split-second reaction, rather than to any considerable intent (which implies consideration - I don't think he had time to consider). Even if youdothink he had time to consider the action (I can't see how you could personally), it is impossible to prove.
Thus only where an action is obviously considered (ie. involves planning, is prolonged, etc) can you reliably call it 'cheating'.
I agree to an extent, but I wasn't arguing about whether or not we can tell what is intent and what is not. I was saying if there is intent then it is cheating - whether we can 'reliably' detect cheating is a separate issue.
Basically whether it's deliberate or not makes no difference to the ruling (a handball is a freekick or penalty regardless) but it does become an issue when it comes to punishing the player involved. As Randy Andy says, there probably needs to be some sort of tightening, but I forsee this being difficult.
One suggestion that's decent is retrospective punishment, probably only for big games to start with. So an opposing team can make an appeal if they feel the opposition has cheated, and some sort of panel will review the evidence and hand out a punishment to that player.
You may say Henry's handball was a pseudo-natural reaction, but I can't help but think he wouldn't have done it if he'd had the knowledge of a potential 5 game ban in the back of his mind. If we get player's into the mindset that cheating is very very risky, I'm sure it would help curb incidents.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]So as any crime requires there to be intention, by your logic only when an action is obviously considered (ie. involved planning, is prolonged, etc) can you reliably call it 'crime'.
Not every crime requires there to be intention - manslaughter is one example.
And within crime the amount of intention is always a central issue - hence the existence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murders.
[cite]Posted By: Sussex_Addick[/cite]
I agree to an extent, but I wasn't arguing about whether or not we can tell what is intent and what is not. I was sayingifthere is intent then it is cheating - whether we can 'reliably' detect cheating is a separate issue.
Basically whether it's deliberate or not makes no difference to the ruling (a handball is a freekick or penalty regardless) but it does become an issue when it comes to punishing the player involved. As Randy Andy says, there probably needs to be some sort of tightening, but I forsee this being difficult.
One suggestion that's decent is retrospective punishment, probably only for big games to start with. So an opposing team can make an appeal if they feel the opposition has cheated, and some sort of panel will review the evidence and hand out a punishment to that player.
You may say Henry's handball was a pseudo-natural reaction, but I can't help but think he wouldn't have done it if he'd had the knowledge of a potential 5 game ban in the back of his mind. If we get player's into the mindset that cheating is very very risky, I'm sure it would help curb incidents.
I agree in theory then that if there is intent then it is cheating, but I think we're working on different definitions of cheating - yours being literal, mine allowing for the loaded nature of the term (and using it comparatively in football terms, as you described in an earlier post).
I put Henry's handball in the same bracket as all other cynical fouls, from shirt pulling to deliberate fouls. For me, it's no different and no worse. So although in theory the game would be better without any of this (although that too is debateable), it's hard to not only measure intent, but also to decide which decisions to apply the measure too. In every single game (as McLovin pointed out), there are plenty of occasions where 'cheating' by your definition occurs.
If there was the threat of a 5 match ban for Henry's handball, there would have to be a threat of a 5 match ban for every shirt pull, every deliberate obstruction, every deliberate foul, etc etc. And then, you would have to introduce a measure by which if the incident IS spotted during the game by the ref, the punishment would have to be equal. ie. if the ref had spotted Henry's handball, the rules would have to be changed to warrant it a red (and not yellow) card, plus a 5 match ban. Symbolic measures are unfair and inconsistent, and consistent measures would be completely unworkable.
For me, the only answer is to improve the spotting of incidents during the game. I really can't see there being any fair or logical solution for punishing players after it.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]Not every crime requires there to be intention - manslaughter is one example.
Involuntary manslaughter does not require intention, however that is a very rare exception to the doctrine of mens rea.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]And within crime the amount of intention is always a central issue - hence the existence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murders.
There is no existence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder in UK law, intention is either present, or not.
For what its worth, I would be absolutely appalled if a CAFC player won us a game, no matter the stage, by doing what Henry did against Ireland - in ANY GAME AT ALL - its a disgraceful way to win a game.
Except if it was against Millwall or Palace then they could punch it in from the halfway line and I would be delighted.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]If there was the threat of a 5 match ban for Henry's handball, there would have to be a threat of a 5 match ban for every shirt pull, every deliberate obstruction, every deliberate foul, etc etc. And then, you would have to introduce a measure by which if the incident IS spotted during the game by the ref, the punishment would have to be equal. ie. if the ref had spotted Henry's handball, the rules would have to be changed to warrant it a red (and not yellow) card, plus a 5 match ban. Symbolic measures are unfair and inconsistent, and consistent measures would be completely unworkable.
I'm pretty sure I've had this conversation with you before.
If there was a 5 match ban for getting an advantage from some sort of cheating (whether it's shirt-pulling that should be a penalty but was missed by the referee or a handball that leads directly to a goal - if you handle the ball and it then goes straight out for a throw-in, no advantage is gained and no one is hurt, so no penalty should be incurred), and referees could change their mind, then players would have the incentive to tell the referee they've just broken the rules and demand a yellow card, because the other option would be to wait for the video evidence to give them the match ban and presumably a fine from their club or not being able to play in the World Cup or whatever.
So it'd be consistent in that everyone would know the rules beforehand and they'd be applied consistently (no chance of a reduced or increased ban if it's 5 matches every time). Also, the punishment would be internalised more by the player, because getting an advantage from the breaking of rules will take money or prestige from them.
Having the first such punishment in a case this high-profile may not have been fair, but then I don't really care about fairness for Thierry Henry. There are 22 players not going to the World Cup, largely because of his actions (they didn't have the chance to go to penalties - a lottery, sure, but a lottery they missed out on) and he used a technicality of the law to escape punishment (which he's entitled to do, but don't expect my sympathy). It did, however, provide FIFA with the potential to drastically change how it deals with breaches of its rules. FIFA chose to fluff that chance and leave it for another report in a year's time. What's the betting that the report will say that there shouldn't be video referees because football is too fast a sport. I don't want video referees, but changes need to be made.
I understand your solution, and it's good in theory, but has inherent flaws. The main one being that you then expect a player to put himself before his team e.g. Henry to say, 'i don't want a ban, so i'm going to chalk off our winning goal by telling the referee about my handball'.
In big games, and big decisions (where any solution to this problem would have to be the most effective), players will not want to deduct their team a winning goal, give away a match-deciding penalty etc, just to avoid a 5-match ban. And you think their manager, club, or fans would want them to? In the majority of cases, probably not.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]I understand your solution, and it's good in theory, but has inherent flaws. The main one being that you then expect a player to put himself before his team e.g. Henry to say, 'i don't want a ban, so i'm going to chalk off our winning goal by telling the referee about my handball'.
In big games, and big decisions (where any solution to this problem would have to be the most effective), players will not want to deduct their team a winning goal, give away a match-deciding penalty etc, just to avoid a 5-match ban. And you think their manager, club, or fans would want them to? In the majority of cases, probably not.
Fine, then they take the hefty punishment.
Bear in mind that a 5 match ban for Henry would've essentially ruled him out of his last World Cup. For a younger player, it means taking himself off the world stage and essentially taking himself out of the market. If the football authority fines the five weeks' wages as well, it means a lot of money coming out of their bank accounts. For the team, it means losing a player for a hefty portion of the season.
The current system has been shown to do absolutely nothing to prevent players from taking advantage of the referees' inability to see everything. I think my proposal helps. If it's not perfect, then improve on it, but don't throw it out because it doesn't result in world peace.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs or my opinion about them, I don't expect to see video referees within the next four years. I think FIFA's report is going to essentially say football is very different to rugby, tennis, cricket etc and video referees are impractical, so let's not have them
I agree, I can't see them bringing video evidence in either. Which I think is wrong - it is the obvious and perfect solution to everything. It will allow minor offenses to go unpunished, and let the game flow, while major match-changing offenses will be pulled up and corrected.
I think it's got to be that or nothing. No point replacing a flawed system with another, slightly better one. In every sport players try to get around the rules to gain an advantage when they can, it's part of their competitive mentality. I don't think anyone can realistically wish for players to care passionately about winning for their team on the one hand, but then complain when an occasional by-product of this passion causes some heat-of-the-moment rule breaking.
Hmm, "slightly better" is being a bit harsh, when your argument against it requires players not be be selfish, which in itself seems a bit of a stretch given the past decade, and, even with your example, it only really fails when players decide they couldn't be bothered about missing out on something massive (it has to be massive for his teammates to want it so much), but still the player isn't good enough for the team to want them badly for the massive thing/match/tournament. I mean, even if it's the Championship playoff, that's 13% of the season the player will miss because of the ban. For most other matches, either the rewards are less or the punishment is more severe as a proportion of the competition. I suppose it might fail in the World Cup final, but that's about it, to be honest, and that requires the player to be thinking things through, rather than do something that comes naturally to him (if it was what you did for 40-odd matches a year, you'd have to really think about it to avoid being conditioned into owning up anyway).
By the by, if it's a choice between video referees or nowt, I'd take the latter. I think that might be a discussion for another day/thread, though.
Comments
Erm, I'm not sure you understand the English language:
Cheat - verb - to violate rules or regulations
If deliberately violating the rules of a game to gain an unfair advantage isn't cheating then nothing is. Just because you happen to agree with all the self-serving ex-footballers in the media who don't have hypocrisy to call a cheat a cheat because they know they did it their whole career, doesn't mean it's not cheating.
Sadly the game has been ruined by the divers and the cheats and it's people like you who let them get away with it by making excuses for them.
I agree regarding the hypocrisy though; one of the reasons I do side with Henry is because I know I would do the same, and no doubt have broken the rules in matches before to gain an advantage. And I know that I'd be happy for a Charlton player to do the same in the last minute of a play-off final to get us promoted. I would hedge a bet that you would too - so maybe you should consider your hypocrisy by slating Henry...
ps. you're wrong.
P.S. You're wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat
I notice you didn't say whether you'd be happy for a Charlton player to do the same?
As for you're earlier point about would I be happy to do the same, well no I wouldn't, it would taint the whole club. For the next decade or more France will be seen as cheats by the majority of football fans, in the same way people still refer to Dirty Leeds.
I can't personally see how deliberately breaking the rules of a game to gain an advantage isn't cheating. Let's apply the same logic to another game, for instance Snooker, unseen by the ref I deliberately move a ball that was stopping me getting the shot I wanted, then take the shot on, pot it and win the frame. By the logic you've applied that isn't cheating, it's just one of those things, balls get move accidently all the time and the ref doesn't always spot it, so my doing it deliberately isn't cheating at all.
That's frankly rubbish.
And, as you prefer the oxford dictionary to dictionary.com:
Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
cheat
• verb 1 act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. 2 deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means. 3 avoid (something undesirable) by luck or skill: she cheated death in a spectacular crash.
1. Deliberately handling the ball to control it and stop it going out of play is unfairly gaining an advantage
2. The handball was unfair and for henry to act like nothing had happened is deceitful, and Ireland were deprived the result, so that's number 2 sorted
3. Henry avoided the ball going out, and avoided miscontrolling the ball and avoided extra time
So by Oxford's standard Henry is a cheat on every definition of the word. I don't need to make it up, he cheated ergo he is a cheat. You're just indulging in the sort of double speak politicians use and we use with children (i.e. telling a child they're not naughty, but the thing they did was). That's fine is you either enjoy spin or liked being treated like a 3 yr old.
So once an act of cheating or deception is punishable in the rules it's no longer cheating? It's then an 'in game offense'.
Can you give me an example of what you think is cheating? And if, should that cheating catch on enough for FIFA to legislate a rule against it, it suddenly becomes not cheating?
Then you're not very good at checking.
Sussex and Andy,
Cheating and breaking the in-game rules are not one and the same. I don't have long to write the reply, but by this logic, every deliberate foul would be considered cheating. Is this what you believe?
A split-second offense during the game, in the heat of the moment, no matter how 'deliberate' cannot be compared to a pre-conceived and prolonged attempt at rule-breaking. Andy, your snooker example is the latter, and is comparable to the rugby bloodgate scandal. A prolonged, though out, deliberate attempt at deceit - which can be called cheating.
Henry broke the rules, and knew at the time he had. But he didn't set out before the game to; it wasn't planned, it was a heat of the moment action to gain an advantage. I can't believe you can argue that this is more like bloodgate, and less like any other type of cynical foul? Or that you could classify them both the same as cheating?
P.S. Sussex, I think you misunderstood my earlier point - whether Fifa recognise an offense or not has no bearing on whether I, or others, consider it to be cheating. I was making the point that Fifa don't consider any in-game offence as cheating (which carries further connotations of deceit that cannot be attached to in-game offenses). Knowingly fielding an ineligible player, by contrast, I'm sure they would classify as cheating.
I have, the dictionary is still sitting on my desk, I'm pretty sure if I open it up again it's just going to say exactly the same thing, books tend to work like that.
At some stage the authorities need to clamp down, to say enough is enough and start punishing cheating. It may be harsh on the first few players to get done, but it is for the good of the game, and as you say they've all got away with far too much for far too long, so can't have any complaints.
I think the problem is that it's not always so clear cut. I quote McLovin:
In Henry's/Maradona's case, I would argue that they were cheating. But let's say the ball has been smashed from 2 yards away, hits a player's hand and goes in. The ref gives a goal. The player knows it's hit his hand. He didn't mean to do it. Is he cheating if he doesn't tell the ref? You'd have to introduce a notion of 'intent' into the rules and I don't see how it could work. Nor can we get into a situation where every moment of the game needs to be analysed retrospectively.
There also seems to be a misconception in a few posts above that if Henry had told the ref he'd handballed it the ref would've changed his mind. I was under the impression the ref isn't allowed to take a player's word when making a decision anyway?
Yes I would say so, why wouldn't it be? It's a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage outside the laws of the game, there's no reason it shouldn't fall under the umbrella term.
'Cheat' has become a loaded word, normally reserved for the more severe instances of cheating, but the minor forms of cheating are still cheating. Some cheating has become acceptable or turned a blind eye to as it's so commonplace, but it still effectively is cheating. You could quite easily substitute ' deliberate in game offense' for 'in game cheating'.
Why is something an offense? - Because it broke the laws of the game.
In what instance is a person cheating? - When they knowingly and deliberately commit an offense in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. Minor cheating is rife in the game, but what is and isn't turned a blind eye to is separate to the fact that it's all cheating of differing severity.
In severity obviously not, and the severity of the punishment that each offence recieves represents that. But that doesn't mean they can't both fall under the umbrella term of 'cheating'.
You can have on field cheating, you can have off field cheating. You can have drawn out cheating and you can have split second cheating. Surely all that matters is that they are deliberately trying to gain an advantage through unfair means? Henry is still cheating whether he made the decision there and then, or whether Domenech had a secret doctrine planned beforehand that the French should try and get away with handball whenever possible.
Rules are there to stop people gaining unfair advantages. If you purposefully flaunt those rules to gain such an advantage, you're cheating.
Your phraseology makes it seem like you have to either separate them into separate terms or put them all on the same level. Just because they're all cheating doesn't mean they're all on the same level, there are different levels of severity. Henry's handball was indeed much closer to any other type of cynical foul than it was to bloodgate, but this doesn't detract from them all being technically cheating.
So there isn't deceit in diving for example? Sure, there might be more deceit in knowingly fielding an illegible player, but we're simply back to the question of severity again. There isn't an arbitrary 'amount of planning' or 'amount of deceit' where it suddenly becomes cheating. Deliberate intention to gain an unfair advantage by breaking the rules is enough.
Very true, hence it'll be difficult for there ever be a clampdown on subtle cheating (the yellow card for diving is already a difficult one for referees). The first priority is to stop the cheating being effective (i.e. spotting the Henry handball and disallowing the goal) but then in terms of punishing the player is when the tricky stuff about intent comes in.
I think the uproar was because Henry's handball was so obviously deliberate. It was this fact that made people so angry. He cheated when he deliberately handled the ball, not when he didn't tell the ref about it - players aren't expected to do that.
Like yours and Dabos' points above, intent is the primary issue. However, although you say Henry's was obviously deliberate, I don't think you could say that it was obviously intended.
I don't really want to get into a debate about the definitions of 'deliberate' vs. 'intent', but I know from playing myself that you can quite deliberately handle the ball (ie. move your hand out to it) as a pseudo-natural reaction. That happens plenty of times in games I've seen. For example, Deon's handball versus Swindon - he knew he was on a yellow so leading with his arm and punching the ball was obviously not what he would have intended, because he knew he'd get sent off. But it was deliberate.
Henry's first handball was unintentional and non-deliberate in my opinion. Therefore not an offense even if the ref did see it. The second was deliberate, no doubt. But I think it can be put down to a natural split-second reaction, rather than to any considerable intent (which implies consideration - I don't think he had time to consider). Even if you do think he had time to consider the action (I can't see how you could personally), it is impossible to prove.
Thus only where an action is obviously considered (ie. involves planning, is prolonged, etc) can you reliably call it 'cheating'.
I agree to an extent, but I wasn't arguing about whether or not we can tell what is intent and what is not. I was saying if there is intent then it is cheating - whether we can 'reliably' detect cheating is a separate issue.
Basically whether it's deliberate or not makes no difference to the ruling (a handball is a freekick or penalty regardless) but it does become an issue when it comes to punishing the player involved. As Randy Andy says, there probably needs to be some sort of tightening, but I forsee this being difficult.
One suggestion that's decent is retrospective punishment, probably only for big games to start with. So an opposing team can make an appeal if they feel the opposition has cheated, and some sort of panel will review the evidence and hand out a punishment to that player.
You may say Henry's handball was a pseudo-natural reaction, but I can't help but think he wouldn't have done it if he'd had the knowledge of a potential 5 game ban in the back of his mind. If we get player's into the mindset that cheating is very very risky, I'm sure it would help curb incidents.
And within crime the amount of intention is always a central issue - hence the existence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murders.
I put Henry's handball in the same bracket as all other cynical fouls, from shirt pulling to deliberate fouls. For me, it's no different and no worse. So although in theory the game would be better without any of this (although that too is debateable), it's hard to not only measure intent, but also to decide which decisions to apply the measure too. In every single game (as McLovin pointed out), there are plenty of occasions where 'cheating' by your definition occurs.
If there was the threat of a 5 match ban for Henry's handball, there would have to be a threat of a 5 match ban for every shirt pull, every deliberate obstruction, every deliberate foul, etc etc. And then, you would have to introduce a measure by which if the incident IS spotted during the game by the ref, the punishment would have to be equal. ie. if the ref had spotted Henry's handball, the rules would have to be changed to warrant it a red (and not yellow) card, plus a 5 match ban. Symbolic measures are unfair and inconsistent, and consistent measures would be completely unworkable.
For me, the only answer is to improve the spotting of incidents during the game. I really can't see there being any fair or logical solution for punishing players after it.
Involuntary manslaughter does not require intention, however that is a very rare exception to the doctrine of mens rea.
There is no existence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder in UK law, intention is either present, or not.
Except if it was against Millwall or Palace then they could punch it in from the halfway line and I would be delighted.
I'm pretty sure I've had this conversation with you before.
If there was a 5 match ban for getting an advantage from some sort of cheating (whether it's shirt-pulling that should be a penalty but was missed by the referee or a handball that leads directly to a goal - if you handle the ball and it then goes straight out for a throw-in, no advantage is gained and no one is hurt, so no penalty should be incurred), and referees could change their mind, then players would have the incentive to tell the referee they've just broken the rules and demand a yellow card, because the other option would be to wait for the video evidence to give them the match ban and presumably a fine from their club or not being able to play in the World Cup or whatever.
So it'd be consistent in that everyone would know the rules beforehand and they'd be applied consistently (no chance of a reduced or increased ban if it's 5 matches every time). Also, the punishment would be internalised more by the player, because getting an advantage from the breaking of rules will take money or prestige from them.
Having the first such punishment in a case this high-profile may not have been fair, but then I don't really care about fairness for Thierry Henry. There are 22 players not going to the World Cup, largely because of his actions (they didn't have the chance to go to penalties - a lottery, sure, but a lottery they missed out on) and he used a technicality of the law to escape punishment (which he's entitled to do, but don't expect my sympathy). It did, however, provide FIFA with the potential to drastically change how it deals with breaches of its rules. FIFA chose to fluff that chance and leave it for another report in a year's time. What's the betting that the report will say that there shouldn't be video referees because football is too fast a sport. I don't want video referees, but changes need to be made.
In big games, and big decisions (where any solution to this problem would have to be the most effective), players will not want to deduct their team a winning goal, give away a match-deciding penalty etc, just to avoid a 5-match ban. And you think their manager, club, or fans would want them to? In the majority of cases, probably not.
Fine, then they take the hefty punishment.
Bear in mind that a 5 match ban for Henry would've essentially ruled him out of his last World Cup. For a younger player, it means taking himself off the world stage and essentially taking himself out of the market. If the football authority fines the five weeks' wages as well, it means a lot of money coming out of their bank accounts. For the team, it means losing a player for a hefty portion of the season.
The current system has been shown to do absolutely nothing to prevent players from taking advantage of the referees' inability to see everything. I think my proposal helps. If it's not perfect, then improve on it, but don't throw it out because it doesn't result in world peace.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs or my opinion about them, I don't expect to see video referees within the next four years. I think FIFA's report is going to essentially say football is very different to rugby, tennis, cricket etc and video referees are impractical, so let's not have them
I think it's got to be that or nothing. No point replacing a flawed system with another, slightly better one. In every sport players try to get around the rules to gain an advantage when they can, it's part of their competitive mentality. I don't think anyone can realistically wish for players to care passionately about winning for their team on the one hand, but then complain when an occasional by-product of this passion causes some heat-of-the-moment rule breaking.
By the by, if it's a choice between video referees or nowt, I'd take the latter. I think that might be a discussion for another day/thread, though.