THE FAI’S hopes of winning what would be a rather remarkable a World Cup reprieve appeared to rest with the French Football Federation last night after officials at the game’s governing body dismissed the idea that Wednesday’s game in Paris might be replayed.

“There is no way the game can be replayed,” said a source at Fifa headquarters in Switzerland. “To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.”

The French Federation was keeping a decidedly low profile yesterday with its officials revealing only that they did not intend to say anything despite suggestions that Fifa was attempting behind the scenes to budge it into some sort of action. There was a statement from its president, Jeane-Pierre Escalette, in relation to the game but it made no mention of the controversy, although it did suggest that the home side might have had a penalty at one stage.

At a press conference held at Abbotstown yesterday afternoon, FAI chief executive, John Delaney, nevertheless made a very public attempt to pressure the French into making a gesture as he confirmed that the association here has lodged an official complaint with regard to Thierry Henry’s handball prior to William Gallas’ goal and Swedish referee Martin Hansson’s failure to penalise it.

“Every time I go to a Fifa conference I hear all about fair play and integrity,” said Delaney. “Well, this wasn’t Bohemians against Waterford in the cup (speaking later, on radio, he also used the example of Sligo Rovers and Sporting Fingal). The whole world was watching last night and if Fifa really care about fair play and integrity they have a chance to show it. It’s up to the people who run the game to step forward because well done is better than well said.”

The FAI is attempting to make a case that there is a precedent for Wednesday’s game being replayed in the form of the 2005 World Cup qualifier between Uzbekistan and Bahrain.

On that occasion the referee awarded a penalty to Uzbekistan which was scored but before the spot kick was taken one of the team’s other players had encroached upon the area and the match official gave Bahrain an indirect free-kick rather than, as he should have done under the rules, having the kick retaken.

The Uzbekistan captain protested before play restarted and the national association pursued the matter afterwards with the World Cup organising committee which eventually granted the replay.

Fifa argue, however, that a replay could be ordered on that occasion because the rules of the games were not applied whereas, in the case of Paris, the match official made an incorrect assessment of fact – in this instance, whether Henry had breached a rule or not. The organisation’s line, as highlighted earlier, is that to revisit an instance of the latter afterwards would be to open the floodgates.

The FAI, which is the governing body of the game in Ireland, would be well aware of the potential difficulties of the situation for Fifa and perhaps it was with that in mind that they sought to emphasise the role of the French in the matter.

On this front, the example of the 1999 FA Cup fifth round tie cup between Arsenal and Sheffield United was cited with the Londoners having offered a replay amid recriminations over a throw- in that had been conceded so that a United player could receive treatment for an injury but which was instead taken quickly, leading to the game’s winning goal being scored.

“It’s up to the French,” said Delaney. “Their president (Escalette) actually said to me afterwards that it was a handball and if I was Thierry Henry, I wouldn’t like to be remembered like Maradona. If they (the FFF) came out and said that they would accede to a replay then I think that Fifa would go with that.”

Delaney declined to say how much the team missing out on the World Cup would cost the association, insisting that he did not want anyone to think that the position being adopted by the association was motivated by financial considerations.

He also sidestepped question on how the association might proceed in the entirely likely scenario that its initial appeals come to nothing.

Bringing a case to the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) would appear to be pretty much its only real option but the idea that it might involve itself in ordering replays where officials in sports events had made mistakes seems utterly unthinkable.

Giovanni Trapattoni said yesterday that he supports the association’s efforts to pursue the matter but doesn’t expect his employers to have any success.

“I know this is a separate situation for me – I look after the team and the football – politics is the greater responsibility. That belongs to the FAI and they will ask Fifa about a replay because that is their job. I agree with the association but it’s not up to me.”

However, he added: “When the game is finished, it’s impossible to replay it but this type of situation must create a chance for those responsible (Fifa) to think about and rethink the rules so that this situation does not arise again.”

Trapattoni acknowledged that there is a general feeling in football that good and bad decisions tend to even themselves out over the long term.

When asked to, he didn’t cite any example of a case when he had benefited from a poor refereeing decision although it is widely acknowledged that the penalty that won his Juventus side the European Cup on the night of the Heysel disaster in May 1985 was given by the Swiss referee for a foul which occurred outside the box.

It is suggested that he was keen to avoid a penalty shoot-out. Michel Platini converted the spot kick for a 1-0 win.