French Lawyer to challenge Zidane Red and try to have the Final Replayed

[Scarecrow]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/07/13/lawyer.zidanechallenge/index.html
PARIS, July 13 (Reuters) -- A French lawyer plans to ask a court to intervene in the controversy over Zinedine Zidane's sending-off in the World Cup final.

Doubts over whether a match official relied on video evidence of Zidane's head butt to Italian defender Marco Materazzi meant the final should be replayed, lawyer Mehana Mouhou said.

"I am going to ask the judge to question all individuals concerned and to reconstruct the end of the refereeing," Mouhou, who is based in the northern town of Rennes, told Reuters on Thursday.

"If it is proved that the fourth referee used video evidence, FIFA can have the final replayed," he said.

I can only say wow. Let it go already, that anyone would even dispute the red, base it on video replay, some other technicality, is a joke. Zidane deserved his Red for his actions. As for the use of Video, I fail to see how he can prove this or not, but does it really matter? The correct call was made.

Now I just hope some sort of penalty is imposed on Marco Materazzi. FIFA needs to show that abusive lang. will not be tolerated either.

[Nanbawan]

WC final in Rennes, October 9th. Contact me for tickets ! :D

[astronomer]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/07/13/lawyer.zidanechallenge/index.html

Let it go already, that anyone would even dispute the red, base it on video replay, some other technicality, is a joke. Zidane deserved his Red for his actions.

I am not a lawyer, but I have to say the following. In all types of legal situations, lots of important decisions go one way or the other on "technicalities." Sometimes even iron-clad cases get tossed out because of "technicalities."

Lawyers and judges treat "technicalities" seriously -- so you shouldn't be so blithely dismissive of them.

[Scarecrow]

I am not a lawyer, but I have to say the following. In all types of legal situations, lots of important decisions go one way or the other on "technicalities." Sometimes even iron-clad cases get tossed out because of "technicalities."

Treat "technicalities" seriously -- don't be so blithely dismissive of them.

Well I do take them seriously, what I do not like abou this is that despite this technicality, it is very obvious that the correct decsion was made in regards to giving the Red. There is no call for such action on the pitch.

Something else I am unsure of, did either of the AR's see the head butt? If so, and they informed the Center then this is all moot.

[astronomer]

Well I do take them seriously, what I do not like abou this is that despite this technicality, it is very obvious that the correct decsion was made in regards to giving the Red. There is no call for such action on the pitch.

Something else I am unsure of, did either of the AR's see the head butt? If so, and they informed the Center then this is all moot.

As I said before, regardless of whether it was obvious the correct decision was made or not, such "technicalities" still have importance in the eyes of the law. There have been many instances of "foolproof" cases being dismissed because of these so-called "technicalities."

"Technicalities" do matter, regardless of whether we like them or not or whether we think that they are fair or not.

[zico82]

A request to replay the final from a French lawyer. How utterly pitiful.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/07/13/lawyer.zidanechallenge/index.html

Now I just hope some sort of penalty is imposed on Marco Materazzi. FIFA needs to show that abusive lang. will not be tolerated either.

Uhhh, sure. And while FIFA is at it, they should encourage any other player that might have been subjected to "abusive language" during the 64 games of the cup to step forward so that all guilty parties can be penalized.

Good grief.

This whole matter isn't about abusive language. It's about some guy losing his cool on the pitch and assaulting an opponent. *That's* that type of behavior that shouldn't be tolerated. Period.

[Scarecrow]

A request to replay the final from a French lawyer. How utterly pitiful.



Uhhh, sure. And while FIFA is at it, they should encourage any other player that might have been subjected to "abusive language" during the 64 games of the cup to step forward so that all guilty parties can be penalized.

Good grief.

This whole matter isn't about abusive language. It's about some guy losing his cool on the pitch and assaulting an opponent. *That's* that type of behavior that shouldn't be tolerated. Period.

And that action wasn't tolerated.

[Nanbawan]

Something else I am unsure of, did either of the AR's see the head butt? If so, and they informed the Center then this is all moot.

The hard point in this lawyer's case is to prove (even if apparently there are witnesses from the media, players, etc) that the fourth referee did not see the incident with his own eyes at first, and in fact only relied on video replays. Even if it's the case, you can be sure that FIFA officials will back him 1000% whatever he says !

[astronomer]

The hard point in this lawyer's case is to prove (even if apparently there are witnesses from the media, players, etc) that the fourth referee did not see the incident with his own eyes at first, and in fact only relied on video replays. Even if it's the case, you can be sure that FIFA officials will back him 1000% whatever he says !

Yes, proving that the fourth referee did not see the incident with his own eyes is going to be very difficult for this lawyer.

[Pingudo]

This is beyond ridiculous.

[Fan123]

This is good, I have no doubt the result will be the same. The question is though: Lippi going to coach Italy for the match or the new guy?

But before we get there: How are they to prove that the 4th saw the replay???????

[ElverGun]

This is beyond ridiculous.


You can say that again.

Imagine this...what if the lawyer gets his way and Italy wins the rematch...and then the Italians decide to challenge the 1994 final because of some technicality they dig up.

Boy, a bunch of Brazilians are biting their nails right now.

Hell, will the Germans then sue to replay the 1966 final?



The French are #1…number one sore-losers, that is.:eek:

[Nanbawan]

The French are #1…number one sore-losers, that is.:eek:

Based on that article ? Wow, you don't need much to forge an opinion on any topic...:rolleyes:

[Nanbawan]

This is good, I have no doubt the result will be the same.

A draw against 10 french players ?

[ElverGun]

A draw against 10 french players ?

Well, it would be a draw only if the referee gives the French team a nice gift-wrapped penalty, otherwise the game will end 1-0 for Italy. :rolleyes:

[ElverGun]

Based on that article ? Wow, you don't need much to forge an opinion on any topic...:rolleyes:

Well, I am basing my opinion on the fact that Zidane did not deny the accusations that French people sore-losers during his interview, therefore it must definitely mean that indeed they are sore-losers.

Boy, I wonder where this weird logic is coming from.

[Fan123]

Unless France gets something like 3 penalties, they're not going to win against Italy. Why not? Might as well have a rematch to settle all the whinings and ease the losers. Has any country complained this much???

[ElverGun]

Has any country complained this much???

I don't think so. At least I can't remember anything close to this example of...err...sportsmanship.

[Nanbawan]

Why not? Might as well have a rematch to settle all the whinings and ease the losers.

Italy has won the title but France has not lost the match, confused ? Trez' shot went inches wide and you feel as if you destriyed us...:rolleyes:


Has any country complained this much???

The irony...

[ElverGun]

Italy has won the title but France has not lost the match, confused ?

That is exaclty what the Italians said back in 94. Welcome to their hell. Lol.

You know, all the laments uttered by the Italians back then did not prevent the Brazilians from touting their trophy around for the following four years.