Much as the game's governing body talk up 'fair play', it is more concerned with legal and sporting certainty, writes Emmet Malone

GIOVANNI TRAPATTONI appeared yesterday to have moved a little further on than his FAI employers with regard to coming to terms with the events of Wednesday night at the Stade de France. While John Delaney was effectively pinning his hopes on an act of generosity by the French Federation, the Ireland manager pretty much accepted that his side’s fate had been decided by William Gallas’ controversial goal and merely expressed the entirely reasonable hope that some good might come of the episode in the longer term.

Delaney has to know really that Fifa is not going to get into the myriad difficulties that would result from an intervention in relation to referee Martin Hansson’s error over Thierry Henry’s blatant handball. Indeed he went close to admitting as much when he seemed to suggest that an offer to replay the game by the French was really the association’s best hope.

He couldn’t quite bring himself to claim that he would make such an offer were the positions reversed, however, while the focus by the Irish players on Hansson rather than Henry has left the very clear impression that none of them would have held their hands up, so to speak.

In reality, there is not a week that goes by without refereeing decisions having decisive impacts on games at all levels, but those who run the game internationally tend to be more concerned with achieving legal and sporting certainty than with fair play and Fifa’s rulebook clearly reflects their priorities.

Delaney will have a tough time selling the idea that this case should be different to all of the others simply because there is a lot at stake.

Trapattoni’s argument that Henry’s transgression and the clear injustice that has resulted from it, should provide the basis for a comprehensive review of the situation and, he clearly believes, the introduction of video evidence may not be much more likely to succeed, but it does come across as a little more realistic.

In the past, the sport’s key administrative figures have taken strong stands against the use of video and seeing France rather than Ireland qualify for next summer’s World Cup is unlikely to be the calamity that changes their minds.

Former French international now Uefa president Michel Platini, has previously expressed the opinion that the use of video evidence would “destroy football” with what he believes would be a spiralling reliance on judgement by replay eventually making referees all but redundant.

In fact, the idea has been around for decades and gained a considerable amount of support within FIFA back in the early to mid-nineties although part of the attraction then, when breaking the US market was a major preoccupation, was that the short breaks during which an incident was being reviewed would give television companies opportunities to run additional advertisements.

Sepp Blatter, the hugely powerful president of Fifa, was against the idea and remains opposed, while other strands of the game remain divided.

Referees yesterday seemed to be about the only people from within the game to blame Henry and the bulk of the more senior ones appear anxious to resist any attempt to undermine the principle that they have the final word on matters during a game.

The opinions of managers and players, meanwhile, have an unfortunate habit of appearing to be linked to how they have recently fared in games.

Had things ended differently on Wednesday, the French would probably have been pointing at footage of Shay Given’s challenge on Patrice Evra in Dublin which replays clearly showed, should have led to a penalty.

That video would lead to fewer mistakes being made is beyond question, but critics say that its introduction would also involve countless interruptions which would break the flow of games and then routinely turn out to be inconclusive.

There is probably some truth to the claims, but the system has, with various ground-rules and within certain limitations, worked well enough at the higher levels in other sports such as rugby, cricket and tennis.

Alternative initiatives being looked at presently include the use of additional match officials, with one placed behind either goal to look at controversial incidents or a system whereby the referee simply asks a player if he committed an offence with harsh punishments to be imposed on those who are later shown, by video evidence, to have lied.

Either approach would have prevented Gallas’s goal from standing, which can only be good.

Both look more likely to win support from the game’s governing bodies than the introduction of video evidence, despite the sudden clamour for it on these shores.