The hand of frog

As you well know, players dive, and fudge/cheat during intense moments...such as trying to go to another world cup. Video replay will not only slow down the game, but the level of scrutiny that results from it leads to further stoppage. In American Football, it has created yet another excuse to run 3 minute commercials while the 'ref. is under the hood reviewing the play.' This is nonsense. Let the game flow. The rules are clear. If the refs catch it, it's a foul. If they don't, play on. Leave the flow alone. American Baseball also decided to forgo video review. Baseball players are fine strategists and if you can pitch intelligently, you can get a few strikes outside the strike zone. Subjectivity must be respected. Game flow is important. Here in the States, after this type of incident, the NFL may fine a player after the game for example. Finally, please pull back a bit and morph into being a competitor. If Ireland wanted to win they should have scored more goals. In the heat of the moment, Henry did the what comes naturally to a competitor. The opportunity was there, and I know other pros would be tempted too. Imagine a rematch, during which a slow motion review after the game shows that someone dove to get a penalty and clearly was never touched in the box. Then what? Another rematch? And then another? I'm a lawyer out here in the Eastern Sierra of California near Yosemite. Humans are predictable. Tell them the rules, and they'll find a way to push the envelope..in order to win. Wouldn't video replay create players who cheat more efficiently? You can cheat on a corner kick by acting like you accidentally elbowed someone in the face, or stepped on their boot while they try to leap, or shield the goalie and block his view. It happens all the time. Will we be creating a slower game, with increased scrutiny that will only catch the obvious cases. On another note, there is also the fact that experts will differ on interpretation. Expert referees reviewing American Football plays, for example, focus on whether the call on the field was inaccurate and there is sufficient evidence to overturn the call? So, do you have to have a bad call before you can review? How about this rule: The game is reviewed by FIFA and noted cheaters who skated on game day are penalized. What if Henry knew he would be excluded from playing in the cup finals? I think that would be a pretty good deterrent. Also, I think we need to distinguish between flagrant fouls, and ones that could be construed as voluntary. When the ball first hits Henry's forearm, is that first touch voluntary or not? Probably voluntary in this case, but each case will present it's own problems. Finally (again-this whole thing is driving me crazy) I am a huge soccer fan, and I would love to watch Zidane come out of retirement. And of course I would love a rematch, to see them play the beautiful game again. You spoke of precedent, and the precedent here could be fatal to soccer worldwide. Causing multiple appeals for replays, until each match is considered the first, to be appealled, and replayed. This happens in California Law practice as well. But note that the rule in those matters is similar to the NFL review criteria: A new trial is granted ONLY if the reviewing court, limited to seeing ONLY the evidence available at the original trial, opines that the lower court judge abused his/her discretion. So at the very least, part of the conversation is whether there should first be a bad call, rather than no call at all for lack of evidence/presence of referee? And then, you need to determine what would be considered an abuse of discretion, as far as the referee's call. If the ref did not see something, they should just play on. It happens all the time.