by Jonathan Greengrass

Created on: November 27, 2009

The simple answer to this question is no. Before people come at me with "He was a cheat", "You're condoning his behavior" and "He's a disgrace to football", I would like to say that I agree with most of this. There is no doubt the handball was deliberate, he took not one, but two touches to control the ball with his hand. I also agree that he has disgraced himself and brought the game into disrepute. A part of me also thinks that by doing nothing it condones his behavior and allows other professionals to think they can get away with deliberate cheating. But these are no reason to ban a player from a sporting event.

Firstly, it would set an alarming precedent. We live in times where you can tune into any football game and see 3 or 4 incidents where a player has deliberately cheated or gone to deceive the referee. Would we ban every player who takes a dive or handles the ball unpunished? If we did we would ban at least 5% of the playing population. Also any punishments that are given in retrospect greatly undermine the role of the referee. It would be akin to the governing body accepting that the referee was wrong, and this puts even more pressure onto men who are usually the most reviled men on the pitch anyway.

Players make mistakes, especially in such pressure situations as the one Henry was in. Think about this from Henry's perspective. This year is his one and only chance to captain France in a world cup. By the time the 2014 world cup comes along, Henry will be well past his footballing prime, and given the emergence of players such as Karim Benzema, he would not hold such a pivotal role in the team as he does now. In the half second he had to decide whether to handle the ball or not, these selfish thoughts may have overwhelmed the idealls of fair play which he has exhibited through most of his career. It is not fair to punish a player for one moment of dishonesty.

The real point people should be contemplating is how to make the game fairer. Many people call for video refereeing to prevent mistakes from being made. This is a fair argument, after all, referees are only human. If we insist on demanding perfection from referees, then we must use this technology or else be disappointed. However, football purists such as UEFA president Michel Platini (himself a frenchman) argue that this would unduly disrupt the flow of the game and make it too contentious and boring. In my view the best assessment is to have a mixture of the two, a system similar to the one currently used in the NFL. Coaches would have two challenge flags over the course of the game, and would be able to throw them during the match. There would also be a video referee who would be able to ask for reviews if the refereeing mistake was pivotal to the match. If a coach challenged incorrectly, then his side would concede a free kick at the point where play was stopped. This seems a fair way to balence between an uninterupted game and fairness.

So in conclusion, no, Henry shouldn't be banned. He has been a great footballed, one of the most talented players of his generation. He will have to live with the legacy of his actions, in much the same way as Diego Maradona has had to live with his. He may not be remembered as one of the most gifted finishers the world has ever known, but as a man who let one moment of weakness ruin his legacy. That is surely punishment enough. Even if France win the world cup, it will be tainted with guilt. That, surely, is the best punishment

Learn more about this author, Jonathan Greengrass.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.