by Robert Burns and John Juhasz, FoxSoccer.com

It's a simple question of risk vs. reward. If the handball is spotted (which I feel would not have surprised Henry at all), it's Ireland's ball and the game goes on. But, if for some miraculous reason this blatant handball is missed, an all too infrequent goal scoring opportunity is there for the taking.

And Gallas took it.

My heart bleeds for Ireland. I can only imagine the feeling of the U.S. not qualifying under such dubious circumstances, but then again, perhaps our injustice was even greater. American fans will never get over the missed handball call against Germany in the 2002 World Cup quarterfinals that would have evened up the match at 1-1 late.

Now this wasn't just to get into the World Cup, but perhaps into the World Cup semifinals. The U.S. played inspired football that day and was certainly the team that looked more likely to score. But thanks to Hugh Dallas, it wasn't meant to be.

Like that feeling for American fans, this one will take a long time to dissipate for Ireland. But years from now, on another day when Ireland does indeed return to the big dance, it will feel all the sweeter because of it. It's little consolation, but then again, nothing actually could be.

Let's do this thing ...

The soccer gods (or FIFA) really seem to hate the Irish Team. Can you see FIFA or UEFA compensating for the bad draw and even worse result. I am beginning to hate this game.
Gerard Buckley of Pittsburgh

Robert: Don't give up on it just yet, Gerard. Travesties of injustice occur in all sports across the globe — this isn't the first time something like this has happened and it certainly won't be the last.

What do you mean in terms of 'compensation?' If you're thinking replay that just won't happen. If France hadn't scored that goal and the 120 minutes ran out, it was still coming down to penalty kicks and Les Bleus still could have just as easily won that (especially with Lloris' good form).

Monetary? No, I don't see FIFA or UEFA offering something up other than their sincerest condolences and most likely a suspension for the referees in charge — I can't imagine we'll be seeing Martin Hansson and his Swedish crew in South Africa.

Ireland's only chance is not an appeal to FIFA or UEFA, but to France and France only. If the French agreed to a rematch (which they never would), then the powers that be would be forced to consider it.

UEFA WC Qualifying

Photos

• UEFA WCQ Playoffs, Nov. 18
• UEFA WCQ Playoffs, Nov. 14

Top Stories

• FIFA calls emergency playoff meeting
• Henry considered France retirement
• Ireland gives up on handball replay
• Legend Zidane: Henry is not a cheater
• FIFA: Replay is not going to happen
• Henry admits replay would be 'fairest'
• Lucky Domenech | Qualifying bonus

UEFA WCQ Pages

• Scores | Fixtures | Standings | On FSC

It's more likely that one of Johnny's teams in Cleveland wins a title before we see that rematch.

John: Compensating whom, and how? For the Irish, there would be no other compensation short of awarding a replay, which FIFA has already said they wouldn't do. Hypothetically, the only portion of the match that should have been replayed would have been the extra time. Ireland already did the hard part by winning the first 90 minutes 1-0. Why should they have been required to do that over again?

This is all moot anyhow. I'm not surprised, but am disappointed FIFA couldn't have made a special exception in this case.

Guys, now that Guus is out of the world cup please help me get the ball rolling for the USMNT to hire him as manager. Can you think of a more perfect fit for the US right now? Guus Hiddink could turn this program around for sure.
B.B. of Boston

John: We haven't even see what Bob Bradley can do in one World Cup yet, and he's staying through 2010, whether any of us like it or not. Give him credit, though. He does seem to know how to fire up his troops when it matters the most. Assuming we're not drawn into some ridiculous group that would include a Spain and Holland, I like our chances of advancing.

Robert: There are few miracle workers on the planet, but Guus seems to be one of them. However, for obvious reasons, the timing is not ideal. With only seven months to go until the World Cup, it's difficult to imagine any coach being able to come in and right the ship.

But that's where things get tricky. If you really think about it, what hasn't Bob Bradley gotten done? The U.S. won the CONCACAF hexagonal (finishing ahead of regional rivals Mexico and Costa Rica) to qualify for the World Cup, and were runners-up in the two biggest tournaments of the summer — the Confederations Cup and the Gold Cup.

Granted, winning them would have been great, but just how far do people think we've really come? Best in the world? No, that's not reality. But for a country that couldn't even qualify for a World Cup between 1950 and 1990, those recent results show some pretty serious progress in only 20 years.

Of course, we're building towards the future too, right? So at least looking ahead, getting Hiddink on board if possible now (before he signs on for another gig with a five-year contract) wouldn't be such a bad idea. It would be a pretty significant slap in the face to Bradley, but business is business.

The other question is of course Hiddink's willingness to take the job. Coaching U.S. Soccer means playing by U.S. Soccer's rules and if Klinsmann wasn't willing to do it, there's a good chance Guus isn't either.

As you can tell, I keep arguing myself in circles. Yes, I would love to see Hiddink in charge of the U.S., but I'm not sure that now is the right time. But one more dismal performance like the second half in Denmark and I might be willing to jump back into Guus' corner for immediate hiring.

I have been pondering the effect matches that end in draws have on MLS viewership and attendance. As a proud supporter of the newly minted Sounders FC and an ardent supporter of the beautiful game, I realize draws are part of the game but I hear people all over the US complain about the lack of winners in the MLS matches. Do you think (other than taking away some of the purity of the game) that adopting an NHL style of OT and pk's resulting in a winner of every match would add to the relevance of soccer in the US. Americans seem so tied up in winning and losing and every other major US sport features some system to ensure a winner at games end. I believe this is why the NHL adopted their system and altered the points system for standing purposes and it seems to have worked to a degree with increased hockey viewership.
Jeff Selby of Seattle

Robert: When MLS first started up in 1996, the hybrid shootout was invented to appease those very fans. It was different than any other system used in the game, and it was downright embarrassing.

So why would the league go backwards just to appease the naysayers? I like to think that MLS has realized its best advertising is the hardcore fan, the one who loves the game and supports it just the way it is. Seeing other people passionate about the game is what entices new fans to it, not abominations like the old shootout.

After the shootout was banned in 2000, MLS still didn't jump in with both feet, instead deciding on two five minute overtime periods to decide a winner. With neither team willing to take the risks required to go for a win, most of those matches ended in draws anyway.

Luckily, that was also shortlived and we are now in line with the rest of the world when it comes to the basics. No, tweaking the game is not what will bring in new fans, but instead continued investment in American youth, enticing some big name stars from around the world, and an ongoing push towards improving the product on the field for the true fans in the stands.

Your enthusiasm for the game Jeff is the biggest billboard the league could ever want.

John: As Burnsy said, it was already tried once, and the 35-yard shootouts were completely absurd. There are some days where teams can play at an equal level, and scorelines have to reflect that. There isn't always a better team each time out, and I don't know why some people have such a hard time accepting that.

Sitting here and trying to figure out the seeding and draw for the World Cup . . . Do you ever get the feeling that FIFA just likes the suspense because no one -- NO ONE! -- knows what's going to happen? I'm not trying to heap nefarious intentions on them, but really, maybe they're just addicted to the adrenaline rush? "Hey, we don't even know what's going to happen on December 4 -- for all we know Germany, England, France and Itay could wind up in the same group. I know we say we have rules, but c'mon, we all know the rules are flexible. We all go into a closed room, bring out the Johnnie Walker, eat some Chateaubriand, wait for Jack Warner to say something assinine and then we pretty much make it up on the spot in crayon. It's CRAZY!"
Kyle of Seattle

John: Wow.

No, as much as you might want to believe it, FIFA doesn't string us along for the sole sake of toying with the fans. They do it for the same reason there are two weeks between the last NFL playoff game and the Super Bowl, the same reason there are unnecessary breaks between NBA Finals playoff games, and the same reason bands wait an additional 20 minutes to take the stage after all their gear has already been set up.

Robert: While it seems like organized chaos, there is a little method to the madness. Assuming they don't deviate too much from the 2006 model, pots should be distributed more based on geography than rankings (outside of Pot 1).

The only thing we know at this point is that South Africa and Italy will be in the first bowl as hosts and reigning champions, respectively. The next top-ranked teams will fill out Pot 1, and then we should see something like the UEFA teams in one pot (so no more than two European teams will be in the same group together), and then some combination of all the rest so none of those regions find their neighbors in the same group.

FIFA took a lot of heat recently for the playoff seedings that helped France and Portugal go through (although the Russians didn't have as much luck), so they should be keen to keep things simple for the draw.

Robert's response to Jacob from East Rutherford is a large part of the reason I do not write in anymore, but I thought I needed to this time. Jacob simply expressed his dislike for penalty kicks to end drawn games, which many former players dislike as well, and the response was, "I think it is easy to judge athletes from the sofa." That is nonsense. He did not write anything that could even mistakenly be thought to judge any athlete. If fact, he praised the athletes for battling so hard. To say you are an elitist would be to impugn elitists. You are a mediocrity hoping to becoming an elitist and you would do better to simply answer people's questions instead of make unfounded disparaging remarks.
Jeffrey Weber of Bryant, Ark.

Robert: An elitist? No Jeffrey, I know for a fact that there are plenty of people out there with a lot more knowledge of the game than I have, especially all my friends back in Europe who taught me everything I know back in the early 90's.

I'm sure Jacob has tougher skin than you imagine, but I was more interested in making a point than attacking him. You think I can afford to alienate any more readers?

Oh yeah, and thanks for writing back ... hopefully it won't be the last time.

John: That one's on Burnsy, but I don't think he was quite as cruel as you made him out to be.

Although if we want to start dissecting which of us answers questions better than the other, I'll cast one Jeff vote for me.

Robert Burns is the senior editor of FoxSoccer.com and John Juhasz is a fantasy writer for FoxSports.com.

	Side Kicks Archives:
	11/20/2009 | 11/13/2009 | 11/06/2009 | 10/30/2009 | 10/23/2009 | 10/16/2009 | 10/9/2009 | 9/25/2009 | 9/18/2009 | 9/11/2009 | 9/4/2009 | 8/28/2009 | 8/21/2009 | 8/14/2009 | 8/7/2009 | 7/31/2009 | 7/17/2009 | 7/10/2009 | 7/3/2009 | 6/26/2009