The furore surrounding Thierry Henry’s handball against the Irish reminded me of an incident in Germany a few years ago. In October 2004, Gladbach’s Oliver Neuville scored a goal with his hand against Kaiserslautern in the Bundesliga. The referee missed it but the TV replays showed the misdemeanour so clearly that the German Football Assiociaton felt the need to act. The goal – and Gladbach’s 2-0 win  - stood but Neuville was banned for two games for „gross unsporting conduct“. Like Henry, the Germany striker admitted using his hand after the match and said he would have told the referee if he had been asked at the time.

While many saw the punishment for Neuville fitting, a few commentators had doubts. Why was it, they asked, that the retroactive punishment by way of video-evidence was much harsher than the one meted out by the referee on the pitch would have been? If the referee had seen the handball, Neuville would have only been booked. Deliberate handball in the pursuit of a goal is categorically not a red-card offence. By using the “unsporting conduct” paragraph, a handy catch-all provision, the German FA seemed to disregard their own rules in order to make a moral judgement.

Five years on, many experts and fans call for Henry to be banned for the group stage of the World Cup in South Africa. He should have told the referee, they say. He had a chance to be honest but didn’t take it. He’s a cheat. On the internet, some are campaigning for a boycott of his sponsors to teach the Frenchman a lesson.

To me, it all smacks of a witch hunt. The reaction is totally disproportionate to the crime. Yes, handling the ball is not allowed. Henry did commit an offence. Many Irish players saw it at the time, the referee didn’t, modern TV technology ensured that the rest of the world did. Now ask yourself this: why did Ireland’s Robbie Keane complain so bitterly to the referee when he himself was spotted handling the ball a couple of times earlier in the game? Shouldn’t he have said “sorry, ref, you’re right, it won’t happen again”? Furthermore, what would have happened if the referee hadn’t seen Keane handling the ball and the Spurs striker would have gone on to score? Could we have expected him to tell the referee and ask for the goal to be annulled?

You might think that “everybody would have done the same” is not a valid defence for Henry. And maybe it isn’t. But there’s another part to this argument, and it’s really a simple one: it’s grossly unfair to expect Henry to adhere to lofty moral principles when his direct opponents wouldn’t dream about doing the same. Robbie Fowler, the Liverpool striker, once confessed to the referee that the defender hadn’t actually tripped him up in the box. Miroslav Klose did the same, when he was playing for Lautern: he told the ref, who already whistled for a spot-kick, that he was mistaken. There are other, similar cases. On the other hand, I have yet to witness a single incident of a defender informing the referee that he had missed a foul on the striker in the box and should point to the spot, please.

I doubt that it will ever happen. Breaking the rules is considered okay and natural when you’re defending a goal but  as some sort of crime against humanity when you’re the striker, handling the ball or exaggerating contact in search of a penalty. The only reason for that is habit. In moral terms, I can’t see any difference at all. If anything, we should be more lenient towards the striker, as his work is both more difficult – there are very few goals at the highest level – and the more desirable one. Football, it should be remembered, is about scoring goals. If once every blue moon a striker gets a lucky break because a referee is unsighted, so be it. If you want justice, take it up with FIFA and their stupid refusal to allow video evidence. But leave Henry alone.