Gyan and Mensah should never have had to try, let alone fail.
Having grown up in the age of the television remote and ever faster internet connection speeds, I’m fully aware that I have a short attention span. With that in mind, I find it impressive that I’ve just spent 90+ minutes, or one regulation football match attempting a single Google search.
For what, you may ask? Actually, I was hoping to discover the last time that FIFA made a fundamental change in the rules of the game. Some of the more knowledgeable readers of WFC, I’m sure, will be happy to tell me that the answer to that is never. FIFA, it turns out, is merely part of another body, IFAB, which decides those changes.
Comprised of the original football associations in the United Kingdom, the FA (England), SFA (Scotland), FAW (Wales) and the IFA (Northern Ireland), along with FIFA, the International Football Association Board deliberates over any changes to the rules of the game. I say deliberates, because it appears that, beyond trivial matters such as which undergarments players may wear (same colour as their kit, no endorsements of any kind) and what to do about advertisers who try to horn in on FIFA’s gold mine (arrest any group of sexy blondes in plain orange dresses you see, making sure to interrogate them thoroughly and sieze their passports), IFAB just gets together, has a few drinks and laughs at the Republic of Ireland.
What about on the field issues? Well, they’ve been debating whether to change the last man standing red card to yellow for almost 2 years, now. Instant replay technology was unanimously swept off the table in just a few hours. Given the partners which make up this august institution, you might expect that political infighting is keeping anything from getting done. It’s happened, here and there, but for the most part these fellows are a conservative lot and they seem to agree on one all-encompassing principle. Change is bad.
Which leads me to one conclusion. If it makes sense to alter or create a new rule, or improve the game in any way, IFAB isn’t interested.
Which rule do I want to change? I don’t believe a team should benefit, in the manner that Uruguay has, by advancing through intentional cheating to deny a goal. Yes, Asamoah Gyan missed the awarded pk but a penalty should not be given in that situation. What should be given is the goal that would have been scored otherwise.
If a defending position player, located on or near the goal line, deliberately uses his hand to stop what would otherwise be a certain goal, the offender should be shown a straight red card and the goal should be allowed. Notice that I have worded that carefully, using the word certain. There can be no question that Ghana would have scored at the death were it not for Luis Suarez’ 2 handed intervention.
Why, then, should a penalty be awarded? Penalty kicks are not guaranteed to score. They can be saved or, as in this instance, missed. Therefore, the offending team is actually being rewarded for cheating and the victim kicked while he is down.
The players don't write the rules but they should have more class than to celebrate a robbery in front of 80,000 victims.
If I offered you $100 in exchange for $83.10, would you take my money? I’m betting you would every time and happily. If the shoe were on the other foot, I’m thinking you wouldn’t be so eager. Given that, according to research, penalty kicks are converted 83.1% of the time, on average, that’s the exchange Ghana was forced to accept by the rules of the game.
Luis Suarez illegally prevented a sure defeat for his side in exchange for a roughly 1 in 6 chance to stay alive in the World Cup. The desperate gamble paid off. After the match, he was laughing and joking with his teammates. He won’t play in the semi-final but I’m reasonably sure he won’t be complaining. Anyone who loves the game should be, however.
So far in this competition, we’ve had refereeing mistakes affect 4 different goal scoring opportunities and now a loophole in the rules has been exposed in a 5th. Knee jerk reaction to infrequent occurrences is not always the best way to handle matters. On the other hand, 5 separate blunders in the space of 3 weeks doesn’t seem all that rare to me.
This evening in Soccer City, the better team lost. Uruguay celebrates, Africa mourns. Uruguay plays in the semi-final, Ghana goes home. Uruguay gets a bigger piece of the revenue pie for its ‘victory,’ the development of football in Africa suffers. Luis Suarez is a hero and likely receives a big payday by moving to a major club. Asamoah Gyan and John Mensah are branded failures for not being able to win the same match twice in one night.
Sepp Blatter shrugs his shoulders and says he’s sorry. FIFA will take the matter up after the tournament (transl., sweep it under the rug when no one is watching).
The powers that be in football have adopted the philosophy that life is sometimes unfair, in dealing with these issues. Life, of course, isn’t fair but the whole point of sport is the level playing field that allows the better team to win. I think it’s time that IFAB realized that the beautiful game is slightly askew and it’s their duty to do something about it.
Written by Martin Palazzotto
Tags: uruguay
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 3rd, 2010 and is filed under FIFA, Uruguay, World Cup. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Excellent piece, Martin. I sympathize with the key principle here: a ball that is clearly goalbound which is then prevented from crossing the line by a handball should count as a goal. But what about other illegal acts? If, say, a player who is about to tap the ball into an open goal is suddenly brought down by a foul before he makes contact with the ball, would that count as a goal or does the ref give a penalty? My concern here is that there could be situations that are not as obvious as the Ghana-Uruguay match, where the ref has to determine whether to award a goal or a penalty – and that, in turn, could lead to all sorts of contested decisions.
We know that there will always be players who cheat – and rules are designed to minimize the scope for cheating. So how would you codify a rule which essentially allows refs to award goals if certain conditions are met? I'm not expert enough to offer a formula, but other readers might be more qualified to do so.
I can't agree more! It seems (IS) so unfair that Suarez, who is known for tripping over grass when in the vicinity of an adversary, wins the game thanks to FOUL PLAY.
And FIFA is too much a greedy organization to actually enforce FAIR PLAY. They rather arrest beautiful ladies in orange than use technology to enforce the rules of the game. I vote for a large boycott of FIFA/IFAB/UEFA regulated football events!
Do I smell the taint of sarcasm in this comment, or am I just being paranoid?
Hi Ben,
Its nice to see you're keeping tabs on us from the dizzying heights of Huffpo!
In answer to your question of where to draw the line between an allowed goal and a penalty, I would make a small amendment to my original wording, so that it reads thus:
If a defending position player, located on or near the goal line, deliberately uses his hand to stop **a ball,** which would otherwise be a certain goal, the offender should be shown a straight red card and the goal should be allowed.
For a goal to be allowed, as the rules now stand, the entirety of the ball must completely cross the line. If that single action were changed by a handled ball, it is my opinion the goal should be awarded.
In your example, however, more than one action is required. The aggrieved player has yet to act on the ball. He must kick, head or otherwise legally direct the ball towards goal before the ball can cross the line. There is the possibility that he could fail to do this in some fashion. Under pressure, he might sky the ball, hit the post or miss the ball entirely. As long as those possibilities exist, only a penalty should be awarded.
If it is the ball, in its certain path goalward, that is interfered with illegally, however, then the goal should be awarded, as no other possibility but the violation would have stopped it.
Does that suffice?
Martin, I like your proposal. If it were up to me I would give the goal and the player gets a yellow card, thus avoiding a double punishment.
I found Ben's point about a deliberate foul interesting also. I remember a match back in 1998 between Newcastle and Man Utd. Utd were chasing the title at the time and I think were 1-0 up in the dying stages of the game. Then, Newcastle's Rob Lee breaks clear on the counter and gets to about 20-25 yards out. Up comes Ole Solskjaer and deliberately scythes him down with absolutely no intention of getting the ball. He started walking off before the ref showed the red card and was congratulated by fans and team mates as some kind of hero.
Newcastle only got a free-kick out of it. Utd got all the men back and formed a wall etc. Hardly a fair reward. What would be your take on dealing with that?
First, being North American, I am permitted (or at least have the audacity) to root for more than one club. In fancying both Toon and United, I find that your question poses something of a moral dilemma. Therefore, this answer will probably sound more like a cop out than it is.
I don't see how you can deal with such a situation any more equitably than the way it was handled at the time. The ref shoots down Ole-Gunnar (who until I read this, seemed a fairly likable guy) and gives Newcastle a free kick.
Yes, United have time to get men back and form a wall but the aggrieved Magpies also have the option of throwing men forward. No advantage is gained or lost there, although the resumed play is of a different nature than the one interrupted. In the end, Rob Lee (or a teammate, adv. Newcastle) get to take a free kick from a dangerous spot, with an unencumbered chance to score.
You may argue that Lee might have gone all the way to goal and beaten the keeper (Schmeicel?) to put the Geordies level but, then again, he may not have. He might have shot around or over the goalie, missing the net, he might have offered a last, heavy touch that the keeper, coming off his line, was able to smother, he may have shot directly at the netminder and had the ball saved or he may have even tripped over his own feet, in his enthusiasm.
All of those possibilities negate doing anything but giving the ball to the offended party at the spot of the foul with sufficient space around the ball to ensure that options are available and, at least, some of the advantage lost is regained. Granting a penalty for an offence committed so far from goal is not a fair punishment in light of all the variables that could have occurred had it not happened.
Remember, too, that from that point on, Newcastle were playing with a manpower advantage. You didnt say at the death, like in the Ghana match, so I'm assuming Toon had some time in which to work.
I only recommend giving a goal when the ball is diverted, in a nefarious manner, from what otherwise would have been a certain journey across the goal line.
[...] FIFA’s refusal to grow with the times and patch up the shabby officiating and the holes in the rule book. None of the officiating errors were the ultimate cause in any nation’s exit but who is to [...]