Why there shouldn't be a rematch - and another bash at the governing bodies

Now those of you who know me will know that I dislike the French as much as anyone and personally would love to see a rematch, and to see the snail-munching frogs get slaughtered. However there is no strong argument for a rematch other than "lots of people think we should have one".

The reason a rematch wouldn't be right is that the Laws of the Game clearly state that the referee's decision is final, and "The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assisstant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match." meaning that as soon as the match is kicked off again, there is nothing that can be done about it.

Also while we're at it why don't we replay Crystal Palace vs. Bristol City in which Palace scored a clear goal that was disallowed because none of the officials thought it had gone in. And then we should replay Arsenal vs. Celtic because Eduardo dived to earn Arsenal a penalty.

I will accept that in an ideal world the rules would be so that there could be a rematch, however as it is this is not the case and is unlikely to be for a long time. In fact, scratch that, in an ideal world there'd be video technology to help the referee disallow the goal so that all this wouldn't even be necessary. Also to keep within the Laws of the Game, Henry shouldn't be punished, but then again, that would smack of hypocrisy from the governing bodies when one considers the Eduardo incident (I knew it would come back to haunt them!) For those who don't know, the high and mighty UEFA went and handed Eduardo a two-match ban after the match for a cautionable offence which in the Champions League carries...*drumroll*...a zero match ban unless you've got 2 in 2 matches, which he didn't.

All in all, the guys upstairs need a good slap.