Topical today at the World Cup: When 'cheating' isn’t cheating
by Steve Davis on Jul 3, 2010 12:12 PM EDT
Email
Print
There were two big talking points from
I know there’s a lot of frustration when someone’s favorite team goes out – and I recognize that
But I just don’t think there was anything wrong with what went on with the
As for the Dutch, did Arjen Robben go down too easily at times? Probably. On the other hand, what choice does an attacking player have when he’s met with brute force and efforts at intimidation rather than legal, physical defending?
And accusations of "diving" really are too much.
There’s a difference between "diving" and what often goes on with attackers dealt with in such a thuggish manner. Drawing attention to fouls to help ensure that the referee does his job is not "diving."
The action in the 52nd minute of
"Bastos leaves the pitch before he can get himself sent off. Which, let's face it, he should have been already. Gilberto Melo comes on in his stead."
So, again, I don’t see the problem here. If Robben (or anyone else) does that thing were they throw their body into a defender looking for a foul, or kicks out at a defender as they go by in order to draw a whistle for "tripping," that’s something entirely different.
But Bastos was making a point to hit Robben at every opportunity. The rules of this game are quite clear here: when a player has position, it’s illegal to run up from behind and hit, whack or kick the guy. If the defender has some chance of gaining position and attempts to win the ball, then being physical is OK. But Bastos repeatedly hit and kicked Robben from behind. In that case, I don’t see any point in an attacking player straining to keep his balance. He’s probably just going to lose the ball – thereby rewarding the defender for doing nothing skillful, but for breaking the rules.
The other situation is a little more complicated.
When players break the rules, they are taking a calculated gamble. Suarez certainly was. He gambled that by stopping the ball and preventing a sure goal, even at the expense of expulsion, he was giving his side a chance. A slim one, but a chance.
It happened to pay off. But players do that all over the field, all game long. Every intentional foul is a calculated risk. It’s the referee’s job to ensure that these actions are met with the appropriate punishment. Suarez was sent off and
It’s a tough situation, but I just cannot judge Robben nor Suarez too harshly.
35 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Suarez took the best option at that moment
He knew he was breaking the rules he got caught, it’s not cheating, they gave Ghana a chance to seal the game they failed to convert the penalty and ultimately people who are bad mouthing Suarez are trying to use him as a scapegoat, the real culprit is Asamoah Gyan. If you get a chance to seal a game and you fail it falls on your shoulders no matter what happened, if I were rooting for Ghana at the time I would have been ecstatic that he handballed, but enraged when Asamoah Gyan failed to convert.
by TerpsAllTheWay on Jul 3, 2010 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know about being ecstatic about the handball, it did prevent a goal. A penalty kick is always only a high probability shot, it is never a certainty. I agree that what Suarez did certainly wasn’t cheating. He broke the rules and the proper redress was given.
I called the miss on the Paraguayan kick today when they showed a close-up of Cardozo and it sure looked like the pressure was getting to him. He had the look of someone afraid to miss rather than someone eager to score.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
Perhaps I exaggerated a little....
It’s all about pressure, this Ghana team clearly displayed talent and motivation, but they clearly faltered under the immense tension of that game. Now FIFA is talking about penalizing Suarez, which is completely ludicrous.
by TerpsAllTheWay on Jul 4, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
"asking for the call"
A little different way to describe the Robben situation: defenders often will foul a player to slow them down, to remove the little bit of speed or redirect the attacker just enough to remove the threat. The ref is supposed to play the advantage, that is not call the foul since the attacker has managed to maintain control of the ball. What if the attacking player would rather have the foul called? The defender has blunted the attack by fouling but doesn’t get called for the foul. Thus it is OK for the attacker to go down. I heard a ref once call this “asking for the call.”
Half agree
I think you are right about Robben, but the fact that Suarez got caught and punished does not lessen the fact that he was cheating. His getting caught and sent off just means that the procedures of soccer justice (what ethicists call ‘procedural justice’) was done in this case – as it was not in the Hand of God episode. Cheating is independent of whether one gets caught and has an element of theft to it – and in this case Suarez stole a perfectly good goal from Ghana. It would have been different if he was attempting to head it and accidentally handled it, but he deliberately used two hands to swat the ball out. And the fact that his decision paid off also does not negate the fact that he didn’t just foul, but that he deliberately subverted the game of its most crucial component (goal scoring) at the most critical time (end of extra time) in its most important tournament. His cheating paid off, but it was still cheating.
Surprised noone has mentioned this in relation to the Henry handball
Cuz you could make the exact same arguement for him.
“It happened to pay off. But players do that all over the field, all game long. Every intentional foul is a calculated risk. It’s the referee’s job to ensure that these actions are met with the appropriate punishment. Suarez was sent off and Ghana was awarded a penalty kick.
It’s a tough situation, but I just cannot judge Robben nor Suarez too harshly”
Insert Henry for Suarez, and a goal for France for Ghana gaining a free kick, and its all the same.
Except for the minor thing that Henry wasn't cited for breaking the rules
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Like Steve Davis says, “It’s the referee’s jobto ensure that these actions are met with appropriate punishment…. I cannot judge…Suarez too harshly.”
Whether or not Henry was or was not cited isn’t the issue. They both knowningly commited the foul while knowing the risk if they were caught or not. One the ref caught, the other wasn’t.
Happens all game long.
But who is mad at Henry?
I thought most of the ire regarding that situation was directed at the ref. If you intentionally break the rules and knowingly accept the appropriate punishment, I see nothing wrong here.
by Incipient_Senescence on Jul 4, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The whole United Kingdom
And all his previous sponsors that then terminated the contract with him.
ie Gillette.
The whole UK?
Why would the fans of the 4 national teams from the UK care that Ireland (a different country) got jobbed in qualification?
That’s like saying the whole UK is irate at the no-goal against Germany, when most soccer fans in Glasgow or Cardiff probably think it’s pretty funny.
What do you think of amending the rule to make that an automatic goal?
I’m having a difficult time justifying Uruguay in the semi’s; they made it there by cheating, in a way.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
No automatic goals.
In this case, it’s clear that the ball would have entered. But that wouldn’t be the case in most situations. The last thing we need is a subjective situation where a phantom goal is given. I think a penalty kick is perfectly fair, since it can almost always be converted.
Other sports take varying approaches, though. American Football will not give an automatic touchdown for pass-interference in the end-zone. It instead grants the attacking team a 1st and 10 at the 1-yard line. So it is like soccer. But basketball does what you call for: points are awarded in goaltending situations. I prefer to see the element of players deciding these things, not referees. A well taken penalty is almost always converted.
by DrWeevil on Jul 4, 2010 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Seconded
Good analogy with American football. That’s probably the closest thing we have here.
by Incipient_Senescence on Jul 4, 2010 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
No automatic goals?
What if a photographer had run onto the field and grabbed David Villa’s 45-yard, open-net shot before it went into the goal? Would the remedy for that have been a PK, or can you count a goal that’s interfered with by a non-player?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Law 5
Law 5 covers “outside interference.” When the outside interference occurs, the referee stops the match. In your hypothetical situation there would be no goal counted (unless of course the ball had already crossed the line when the interference occurs). Outside interference does actually occur on occasion, like the infamous “beach-ball goal” Sunderland scored against Liverpool in the English Premier League. The goal was improperly allowed. The proper restart is a dropped ball. While this does seem unfair in the situation you give, a PK would be unfair to the other team who after all committed no infringement and who could argue the referee could not know for sure that the ball was actually goal-bound.
If that's the rule, that's the rule
but it seems like a terrible rule to me. The referee is allowed to rule on “clear goal-scoring opportunity” or “professional foul” in the rules, but isn’t allowed to notice that the ball is rolling into the net unimpeded, except by an “outside interference”? I think baseball’s fan interference rules are better.
The beach-ball goal was a problem because the GK was in position to save the initial shot.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Hockey is probably the most analogous sport
And there is one situation where an automatic goal is awarded – if a foul from behind prevents a breakaway, it is normally a penalty shot (much like a PK in soccer, except that you start at center ice, can move forward with the puck but must continue to move forward, and can’t score on the rebound). But if the goalie has been pulled (generally in the last minute of a close game when you need an extra attacker) and a penalty shot would normally be awarded, it’s an automatic goal instead.
I think a deliberate handball on the line is probably worthy of an automatic goal – there was no legitimate chance of it not being a goal. That’s analogous to a breakaway with no goalie: short of falling flat on his face, there’s no way he’s not going to score. Similar for outside interference on a shot that is clearly goalbound with no chance of an intervening player stopping it (American football does give automatic TDs for things like this, though I’ve never actually seen it happen; the infamous Stanford Band play could have been awarded one if the player hadn’t gotten to the endzone anyway).
And yes, a phantom goal for a non-handball on the line would suck. But does a phantom PK+red suck any less?
Valid points,
I guess my thing is that, there is no reason for Suarez to not hand that ball. There is basically no penalty for him cheating.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
Except in the next game
There is a penalty. The team needs to play without him for the rest of the game (though, in this circumstance, a very rare circumstance, there was no more time). He’s also not allowed to play the next game.
It may not be satisfying as far as you’re concerned, but there is a penalty.
If he lets the ball go in, Uruguay is eliminated, and he doesn't play in the next game anyway (nor do any of his teammates)
And not that it’s too big a deal, but FIFA gives semifinalists’ FA’s $2 more than they give quarterfinalists, so what Suarez did deprived the Ghanaian FA of $2,000,000.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Yeah, alright
I could go along with this. But only if a goal was awarded for a player deliberately handling the ball while standing on the goal line, or something.
Ya
If goal line technology is added, I definitely would want to see that.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
Right
Should only be if it’s obvious the ball was going in and there was no legitimate chance of it being stopped legally by another player. If there’s any doubt at all, give a PK.
The Dutch did their share of hacking.
You read this and you’d think it was a case of dirty Brazil against the Dutch saints. Bull. Robben gave as he got, and how Van Bommel escaped multiple yellows for persistent infringement I’ll never know.
(In the Suarez case, I agree. The infraction was spotted, the penalty given, the player ejected, the system worked. All Ghana had to do was claim its prize. It was there for the taking. I’m not at all bothered by what happened there.)
One thing I have noted in this quarterfinals round is that referees have been very reluctant to pull out the cards. I know that pleases the complainers about too many cards, but what I saw were too many cynical deliberate fouls committed for the purpose of disrupting and intimidating, which ruins the game. What did Van Bommel have to do to get a card for persistent infringement? Late and with a lead, he was constantly fouling. And mere minutes into the Argentina v. Germany match, Bastian Schweinsteiger (I think it was him) deliberately hacked down an opponent from behind for what should have been an automatic yellow, but was rewarded by a useless “talking-to.” We all know what message he wanted to send, and he was allowed to do it. Of course the other players took their cue.
The problem, as I see it, is not referees ruining games with too many yellows, it is players ruining the game with too much cynical play. Referees need to have more latitude to pull out the yellow or red until players get it through their thick skulls that making that idiotic tackle from behind that has zero chance of getting the ball and 100% chance of getting the player doesn’t pay. I would like to see some changes to encourage referees to card what needs to be carded, regardless of who and when it is. For example, increase the limit of 2 yellows for a suspension to 3, or eliminate it altogether, so the ref is not reluctant to put out a “star” from the next game (the big threat—don’t get tossed from this game with 2 yellows—would remain). Ditto for all the clutching and bear-hugging on corners. Call the penalty, dammit, like Carlos Batres did in the Spain game.
And enough with the whining about players getting deserved yellows.
by DrWeevil on Jul 4, 2010 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
This.
There are so many complaints about all the shoving and grabbing in the box on set pieces. You want to do something about it, start handing out penalties left and right. I guarantee that will clean up set pieces. (Calling a zillion fouls on the attacking team, like they are doing now, only guarantees that defenders will continue to bear-hug knowing that if the forward tries to break free it will be a foul the other way.)
And you’re right about how to deal with “intimidation” fouls. The suspension rule convinces refs not to give out cards (some sort of rule in a longer competition, much as the NBA does with technical or flagrant fouls during the season, is okay, but here there’s too small a sample size to penalize consistent rough play; maybe yellows in 3 consecutive games would be worthy of a suspension), and the outcry after the Portugal-Holland game last time (in which, if anything, the ref gave out too few cards) has had a similar effect. Take away the absurdly high penalty for yellows which occurs at no stage of the tournament except the most important one (does any confederation have a similarly punitive rule during qualifying?), and start handing out cards when they’re deserved.
There is one exception I’d make to getting rid of the suspension rule, and that is to go after floppers. Review the tapes afterward, and hand out retroactive yellows for dives. Every dive after the first is a suspension. The ref from the Germany-Australia game got the red on Cahill wrong, I think, but he was very quick to pull the card for a dive early – and that meant it didn’t happen again. Something similar needs to be done to deal with the time-wasting like Ghana pulled on the US in extra time (guys going down for nothing, rolling around for minutes in agony, then popping up the instant they’re stretchered off and getting back in). If the ref was doing his job there, he would have handed out five yellows in extra time at minimum.
Agreed.
One other argument against automatic suspensions after ‘n’ cards: Why benefit a future opponent by banning a player when the aggrieved team is right there on the field? If the player commits an infraction against team X, it is team X that should benefit from the remedy, not some future opponent. So no suspension, but yes to yellows on the spot.
As a former ref I find it difficult to pull yellows for apparent injuries. Look at the end of the Spain Paraguay game: was Sergio Ramos tanking for time? No, he’d really gotten whacked by a kick to the head. Changing the timekeeping rules might help here. As for the slow throw-ins and goal-kicks, etc., by all means, card those.
Obviously this is not Saurez's fault that this was such a stupid situation
He took what was by far the higher percentage chance other than letting the goal go in. A 25% chance of success is a much higher chance of success than 0%.
But why on earth would FIFA not change the rule to make a ball that is going on target hit with an intentional hand ball an automatic goal? That would take away all of the advantages of cheating. The penalty kick is a way of giving back a very good scoring opportunity that was taken away (e.g. pulled down in the box), it isn’t necessary if the ref knows for a fact it was going in. This would probably be one of the simplest things to rule in a game, in most cases a defender is not going to use his hand unless he is absolutely certain the ball is going in.
You don’t want added subjectivity? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. All penalties in the box make the referee to make a judgment. If the rule was changed, that would have been the easiest call the ref made all day.
The fact that the same penalty (a penalty kick) is given for a push at the corner of the box and a handball keeping the ball from going in just doesn’t make sense.
If the rule was changed, if the player get caught cheating, he gains no advantage. The fact that FIFA can not fix simple rule changes like this and can not get technology to see whether a ball goes over the line in goal or not does not speak well for them.
Why wouldn't FIFA change it?
Because that would make sense. What part of FIFA’s behavior in the past ten years makes you think they are capable of doing something that makes sense?
What would you do?
Ok, this question is not about what FIFA would do. This is about what Suarez personally did.
For all you Sunday league players on here, if you were in Suarez’ boots, what would you do? The ball is going in, there is no time left for a possible comeback, your team will get eliminated from that fun Labor day tournament you are playing in.
Until I am in that exact same situation, I am not 100% sure what I would do. I think chances are far greater than not that I would instinctively try to stop the ball from going in anyway I could, and that may include using my hands. I’m pretty sure most of you out there would do the same. Think about that before you judge Suarez to critically.
I'm not judging Suarez that much
I’m judging the rule, which I think is completely inadequate in this case. Yes, it’s a very rare circumstance, but it also happens to be the kind of circumstance in which history is made. Whoever hit that ball that Suarez deflected would have been a national, maybe continental hero — it would have been one of the truly brilliant moments in the history of the World Cup, much, much, much bigger than Donovan’s last-second goal against Algeria. And remember how excited everyone was about that?
The rule that turns a certain goal into an 85%-certain PK, through the alchemy of bald-faced violation of the rules, is a terrible rule, it seems to me. If you get the most thrilling, dramatic moment in your sport — extra time (or normal time) is almost over! this sequence could win it! what’s going to happen?! — and practically encouraging the defending team to ruin it.
Suarez realized that the costs were really minimal, given the fact that the ball was going in, and the benefits were clearly worth it. That CBA is what needs to change, and FIFA needs to change it.
As for a club game…do you plan on being friends with anyone on the other team after the game? Are you willing to look the guy whose winning goal you grabbed in the eye and say, “Yeah, I robbed you of the game-winner. Deal with it.”? I don’t really know what soccer etiquette is on something like this, but a baseball player who pulls bush-league shit like that should expect to get a fastball in his ear, or a set of spikes in his leg if he’s an infielder.
You know what? On second thought, maybe I am judging Suarez’s decision somewhat. What he pulled was absolutely bush-league. It worked, but what it says is that he doesn’t believe he can win, or his team can win, if they play by the rules.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
If you were playing with friends
Everyone would just laugh and the goal would just count.
Its only in serious football would something so ridiculous have meaning.
