Did Luis Suarez cheat?
Uruguay win 4 – 2 on penalties.
For those of you who didn’t watch the match, in the 120th minute, literally the last few seconds of the 30 minutes of extra time in the match, Ghana had a series of shots on goal, three if memory serves me correctly (and it seldom does). The first two shots were parried by the Uruguayan keeper and a defender on the line, legitimately. The third, a header, was deliberately punched away — by Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan striker. In other words, one of the ten guys in blue and black who technically can not touch the ball with his hands. Unlike the 2002 Quarter Final match between the USA and Germany, the ref spotted the foul, red carded Suarez, and awarded Ghana a penalty.
Ghana make this penalty, the match is effectively over, and Ghana go through to the Semi Finals.
I’m not certain that Suarez considered the various probabilities in his decision tree, but he clearly, deliberately punched the ball clear, so he did make some sort of split second decision, on purpose.
So, did he cheat?
No. He did the rational thing. It was perhaps not the sporting, moral, or ethical choice, and definitely the cynical choice, but given the nature of the match, he made the correct decision.
If he doesn’t act, the ball goes in, and Uruguay are out. Plain and simple. If he acts, there’s a small chance that he does not get spotted by the referee (again, see USA v Germany 2002). If he does get spotted and correctly sent off, there’s a chance that Ghana miss the penalty. The odds of both of those events occurring in that order are slim, but as luck would have it, did indeed occur. Suarez didn’t cheat, he operated within the rules of the game. Odds are Ghana would have converted the penalty, and we wouldn’t be discussing this. However, they didn’t, and continued to miss a couple more during the shootout.
The solution to this is plain (as plain as the solution to the Lampard disallowed goal in England v Germany): FIFA need to change the rule. When it’s plain as day that the goal would have scored in the absence of this deliberate hand ball, they should go ahead and count the goal. Goals scored are disallowed for any number of reasons; why not allow a goal that hasn’t crossed the line?
Discuss.
Unlock the key of your success for JN0-660 dumps & Pass4sure 642-642 by using our latest 640-816 and 220-701 prep resources and SY0-201.
Absolutely. It’s not cheating to commit a foul and accept the penalty for it. That’s just sound tactical thinking when the cost of the penalty is less than the cost of not committing the foul.
Agree 100%. A comparable play would be when a cornerback gets beat and commits pass interference rather than allowing a game winning touchdown pass.
In gridiron football, if a player with the ball is breaking free down the sideline and someone comes off the opposing bench and tackles him, the referee, if he believes that the player has an unimpeded path to the end zone can award the touchdown.
Dave, in the case of what Suarez did, not only should they count the goal, but they should also grant the PK and send the player off. This is the type of behavior FIFA should really want to discourage.
Yes, they should count the goal. It’s an unwritten rule of soccer that you should not be able to secure an advantage by playing a handball.
The written rules, however, conflict, and until they change, following them is simply not cheating or even unethical.
I agree, the rules should change. An end-of-game red card should extend the game to 15 minutes after the red card (to give a chance to capitalize on the numerical advantage), AND all red cards should mean that the offending team gets only 4 shots in the first round if the game goes to a shoot-out. The point is to make it clear that overt red-card fouls are never “just part of the game”, without breaking the principle that only actual scored goals count. These changes would be no more radical than the “sudden death” changes we’ve seen in recent decades.
Oh, and on the internet, thread-hijacking should get you banned for life. :)
Also comparable, the last minute and 45 seconds of any NBA game. The losing team “has to foul.”
Speaking as someone who’s not much of a sports fan and who’s only seen a limited amount of basketball, usually the last quarter of an important game, it was very much my impression that deliberate fouls are a huge part of the game – that players foul the guy with the ball because they are certain he will score if not fouled, for two points, and will miss some not inconsiderable percentage of the two one-point free throws he’s awarded for being fouled.
Also, one fouls to prevent the opposing team from consuming time.
wellit really digstinng what suarez did how can u touch the bal with ur hand are a goalie th elast time i checked it was called football not handball an dplus of course asomah gyan missed that penaltyy he was rushing to much i personally think ghana should be rewarded thtat goall cuz wat suarez did is bull he may be a hero in his countr but he let the hopes of africans sad…
“cornerback”?? “touchdown”??
Well, the rational thing would be to hit the ball with your face. But regardless…..
There are a million reasons why this is a bad idea, Dave, but since I need to finally get some work done today, I’ll leave it at this: It’s a game. And at some point, winners have to win. Gyan was given the PK to end the match — a chance to win. If you fail to convert your chances, you don’t deserve to move on.
Hitting the ball with his face / head: the two replays I saw, I’m not sure he could have got up there in time / at all, but I might be wrong, and it may have been a delayed reaction on the part of Suarez. He will pay the price, however — that’s his World Cup done. The red card should also equate into a two or three match international ban.
Is that “should” as “in a just world” or “should” as “likely to happen”?
The latter. There is an automatic ban for non subjective calls, and this was an objective straight red, I just don’t recall specifically for how many matches the ban lasts.
I’m pretty sure he’s only out for the semifinal.
It is a minimum of one match, with the potential for a longer sanction. This will actually be an interesting exercise in applying FIFA philosophy to Dave’s question.
By this logic, there is no such thing as cheating in any activity that has sanctions. Doping in the Tour de France? That’s not cheating, that’s just a cynical choice to play the odds for a lesser cyclist. Maybe you’ll dope and not get caught? And if you do get caught, you take your sanction and move on, right?
Odd definition of cheating you got there. I prefer to look at it as Suarez cheated, and in this case cheating was profitable. It was intentional and against the rules and the spirit of the sport.
Uh, no. It’s not cheating only if it’s done openly and the penalty is accepted. So, if you are at the starting line of the Tour and visibly accepting a transfusion of blood, sure that wouldn’t be cheating, but that’s not how people dope.
So what was Maradonna’s “Hand of God”? It was done openly, so I guess it was just a strategic decision? What about Tyson’s ear bite of Holyfield? That was pretty open, and Tyson accepted the penalty, so it’s all just sport, right?
Right. There’s nothing at all different about a handball in soccer and biting another man’s ear off. Job well done.
Tell me what the difference is, then. Both were open violations of written rules with essentially the same clear sanctions (ejection from the contest) that were accepted by the violator. So, tell me by what standard can I differentiate between Tyson’s “cheating” and Suarez’ “strategic decision”?
If you can’t differentiate between using your hand on a ball when you shouldn’t, and physically trying to maim a human being, then you’re in trouble.
It’s just complete hyperbole. Jaywalkers and axe murderers both break laws, but if we were debating what constitutes a “lawbreaker” such a comparison would be laughed at.
In regards to doping, the players are trying to get away with the rules they have broken. Suarez did not even try to argue the call or make it look like he headed it. Maradona- Yes i would probably consider that cheating since he disgusied it as best as he could and Mike Tyson just didn’t give a fuck if people saw what he did or not.
Some types of competing are “on the game-board” even if they involve a foul. Many time rational players will be forced to consider fouling in the face of a worse result… NBA, NFL, soccer, NFL, tons of examples. Brockington is really probing whether the foul here is proportionate.
The Tyson/Holyfield example is terrible because it is neither: on the game-board OR a rational way to improve his chances. Are you honestly arguing that Tyson calculated the value of the ear bite and if the penalty was perhaps a bit more severe he wouldn’t've done it? Pshaw.
Hitting the ball with his head did not appear possible in time he had to react. You’re right, calling it cynical is fine, throwing around the word “cheat” like this is annoying. Plus, fouling and handballing to stop certain goals or good chances is only really condemned when the stakes are so big. Frank Lampard and Gilberto Silva are both called “clever foulers” by commentators for fouling and stopping play when opposing team has momentum, and that is meant as a compliment!
Yeah I agree….there’s definitely such a thing as strategic fouling, and it’s seen in nearly every sport (basketball, hockey….). I don’t really see the difference between a handball at the line and bringing down a striker who’s unimpeded to the goal. In both cases, the aggrieved team is given the opportunity to right the wrong via free kick — as it should be.
But in the end, you have to earn it.
But in this case, Ghana had earned it. It can be proven that absent this infraction, Ghana absolutely would have scored. That is a very specific scenario. This was not a breakaway where a shot could be missed or a goalie could make a great save. This was a goal that was prevented by breaking the most fundamental rule in the game.
Which is exactly where Dave’s rule change recommendation came from.
Same thing as in basketball when your man gets a step past you driving for the basket. You grab him and instead of the uncontested layup, a 98% certainty, he has to shoot two free throws, a 70 to 90% certainty. Its a smart play and not cheating.
The ref doesn’t give him the two points because he would have scored anyway. Same situation here. You don’t know for sure that the ball would have gone into the net except for the hand ball. It might have sailed wide (didn’t see the game so can’t say for sure this was a possibility) or the keeper might have reached back or dove and made a spectacular play. I think its a bad idea, especially in a game like soccer where one goal is usually the decider, to award a goal to a team where the goal didn’t go in the net. (Basketball only does this for goaltending. There is no automatic goal awarded in hockey. If an offensive player is taken down from behind when he’s already beaten the defense man and the goalie, he gets a penalty shot, not an automatic goal).
Er…perhaps you should watch the play before talking out of your ass.
I’ve now looked at it and it clearly would have gone in. However I still think that the principal applies. You shouldn’t award automatic goals – goals should be awarded only after the ball crosses the line. Even though this would have scored here, I don’t want a situation where the ref makes a decision as to what would have happened and starts awarding goals because, for one thing, the ref will inevitably screw it up on one occasion or more. Awarding a penalty kick is the proper solution.
That’s a reasonable point, it was more the “who knows if that would have gone in? Maybe it would’ve gone wide” that I was objecting to. The only comparable occasion in sport when points are awarded for something that would have happened is goaltending in basketball, I think. Pass interference treats the interfered with pass as caught, but doesn’t give out points.
The rule applies in tennis; if a ball is sailing out but the player (on the receiving end) hits it, the point is awarded to the opposing player. It makes sense because many balls can’t be interpreted (while still airborne) as definitely in or definiley out. The rule removes uncertainty and just makes the game that much more objective
It’s an incorrect analogy. In basketball, there is a call for obstructing a sure hoop after the ball is in the air and is “inevitably” going in — goaltending. Two points are awarded. This is the correct analogy.
Oh, come on – he’s speaking in general here. This proposed rule opens a giant can of worms for the officials – while it may be true that in THIS play, the ball clearly would have gone in, that’s not going to be true most of the time. In general, the situation is going to be ambiguous, which means you’re just setting up a situation in which bad calls become more likely, and with great consequence. I really can’t understand why soccer can’t live with the same sort of penalty shot/free throw regime that most other sports use.
There are actually automatic goals in hockey, if you interfere with a player who has a breakaway toward an empty net.
I’m pretty sure that results in a penalty shot, not a goal.
Good for you. I, on the other hand, actually looked it up, so I’ll take my word for it.
The “pretty sure” caveat is a rather clear implication that I wasn’t positive about this one. Yes, I was wrong about there being automatic goals in that situation.
However, for at least one highly visible level of hockey, the situation you described does not result in an automatic goal, unless one key condition is met. The NHL awards automatic goals in a breakaway situation only if the goaltender has been removed from the ice. Otherwise, it’s a penalty shot. Automatic goals are also allowed if the net is displaced and the referee feels it was an obvious scoring opportunity, or if the keeper stops a potential goal by throwing his stick or an object at the player. (NHL rule 26 describes the automatic goal conditions.)
Other levels of hockey, at least those governed by USA Hockey’s rules, seem to be more liberal in when an automatic goal can be awarded.
Yes … hence I stipulated an “empty net” in my original comment. In other words, precisely the situation I described leads to an automatic goal.
Sorry, missed the “empty net.” Sloppy reading on my part.
Wow, what a dick response.
I’m comfortable with it. I made a statement of fact, which SJ for some reason decided to dispute without taking the requisite 45 seconds or so needed to look it up. Which, when you think about it, is pretty dickish.
No, not in that situation. It is a goal.
“Basketball only does this for goaltending.”
How did the word ‘only’ slip into that sentence? Let me fix that for you:
“Basketball
onlyhowever does this for goaltending.”A penalty kick should be a nearly automatic proposition for the shooter. Ghana had every chance to capitalize on the foul, and they didn’t. Goals still have to be earned, not given.
While I definitely think that Fifa need to institute replay or technology to judge goals (like Lampard’s), it needs to be things that actually happened, not things that would have happened. I hate slippery slope stuff, but are we going to start awarding goals for a foul on the keeper? For a breakaway player being taken down from behind? For a player with a clear line to the goal who’s fouled while trying to head the ball in from a corner?
As you said, Suarez operated within the rules of the game. The consequences of the action were executed as they should be. Awarding goals for things that occur within the rules seems very, very contrary to the spirit, let alone the letter, of the rules of the game.
How is it not cheating? Suarez deliberately violated the rules of the game — that is the very definition of cheating in a game. That does not mean Ghana was robbed of the victory but whether or not it was rational is irrelevant to the fact of the cheating. Frankly, I’m disappointed that anyone writing for this blog would say this. It’s attitudes like this that lead to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the financial crisi and all manner of “rational” rule breaking. BP was ratioanlly cutting corner, there were sanctions in place if they were caught, but they still cheated
So the federal government agencies in charge of making and enforcing those rules, rather than been in the pocket to the oil lobby, should, oh, i don’t know, maybe implemented stronger rules and stronger penalties?
I’m just saying.
Obviously I was unclear as you would never intentionally misrepresent an argument. I’m just saying.
The point is that deciding it was rational and hence not cheating is the same type thinking that led BP to cut corners prior to the Gulf spill and to the bank meltdown. The remedy would be to not always equate rational with good or saying it’s rational and hence not cheating. It’s another incarnation of the invasion of crappy economics thinking that has been destroying the world since at least 1980.
Rational behavior can still be cheating. they aren’t antonyms.
Now in this specific case, every soccer player (except maybe Paolo DiCanio)would do the same thing as there was very close to zero downside for the action. Ghana did not get robbed; I would say even were the call not to have been made they would not have been robbed (assuming the referee was not bribed).
I’m not sure how I misrepresented your argument. However, I do believe that it’s naive to expect individuals and organizations to behave against their own interests when a combination of the rules and sanctions allow for it. Change the rules and penalties; don’t assume people will behave altruistically.
Also, I did *not* say that his action was “good”, or behaving rationally is “good”. Hell, I strongly implied that it was neither sporting, moral, nor ethical, and indeed stated that it was cynical. But also, it’s *understandable* given the combination of the circumstances, rules, and sanctions for violation.
While I have you, I also didn’t realize that we at LGM had an ontological code of conduct to which we all must adhere. I never got that memo. Disappointed that “anybody writing for this blog would say such a thing?” Really.
yes really. You said it wasn’t cheating which certainly implies that it was not immoral and unethical.
I apologize for thinking you might be a better writer and person than Megan McArdle. I will adjust my interpretation of your writing accordingly
So if you intentionally grab your opponent in basketball after he gets a step by you or if you elbow your opponent off the puck, its cheating? Nonsense. Every violation of a sport rule isn’t cheating. I see a big difference between using performance enhancing drugs or using a corked bat – circumstances where you are trying to keep your acts hidden -and violating a rule knowing what the consequences are and expecting to suffer those consequences. The first is cheating, the second isn’t
Yup. People who call this cheating are making the exact same mistake as people who cry for the banks when a homeowner strategically defaults.
In any event, after all the floppers who fake or exaggerate fouls by the opposition expecting to get away with it, complaining about someone committing a foul expecting and accepting the penalty therefore is absurd in the highest degree. If this was cheating then the entire event of the World Cup consists of practically nothing but cheaters.
So it’s only cheating if you DON’T get caught? Or, excuse me, try not to get caught? The logical twists just get weirder.
At the risk of getting all lawyerly and parsing words too finely, what exactly is cheating? Suarez clearly and deliberately violated the rules, certainly (although I suspect there was more than a smidge of reflex involved). That happens dozens of times throughout a match. Are all of those instances cheating? Or are they simply fouls?
To be honest, I don’t have the answer. It’s a Potter Stewart call. I think in this particular instance, a good argument can be made either way.
I also think whether it was cheating or a foul is irrelevant. He was caught, and the consequences the rules spell out were administered. Much like in the real-life parallels you’re attempting to draw, you can only punish so far as the rules/laws allow. Everything else is peripheral in terms of the consequences the system can hand out.
Actually, no; he didn’t violate the rules. The rules say a deliberate handball to prevent a goal results in a red card and a suspension. He committed a deliberate handball to prevent a goal and accepted a red card and suspension. That is the rule, and he followed it. That’s no more violating the rules than kicking the ball into the opposing net and accepting a goal is.
The problem is that the rule doesn’t offer much of a penalty for a handball committed at the end of a match to prevent a tying or winning goal. That’s a problem with the rule, not a reason to say that Suarez cheated.
It’s not even as if Suarez tried to take advantage of a gap or an ambiguity in the rules. The rule is explicit, he accepted the consequences of his act according to the rule, and he didn’t do anything to endanger anyone else. That’s never cheating.
Well, I thought you were right, at first, but from the Laws of the Game:
The penalty needs to be tougher, but the fact that Suarez’ action was “unacceptable and unfair” is right there in the Laws. It ceases being a calculated reading of the rules when the Laws editorialize that way, IMO.
Yes, the two situations are somewhat analogous, but it’s what the rules dictate when such things happen that separates them.
soccer: hand ball in area -> PK, which has very high probability of succeeding and because of the importance of a single goal, making your team lose.
oil spill: max penalty = $75million. drop in the bucket, so just add to cost of doing business and reduce the Christmas bonuses of the rank and file.
Yes, it is rational rule breaking. The end problem is that the penalties for breaking the rules in one of these situations is completely divorced from the opportunity costs available for breaking said rule.
Shygetz above said Dave is arguing that there is no such thing as cheating by his definition. If there are rules, there can be cheating by its very definition. To minimize it, increase the costs for breaking a rule.
Thank you. Which is exactly what I was getting at when perhaps flippantly suggesting that FIFA should change the rule, i.e. the penalty.
Yes, it is cheating when an NBA player grabs another plsyer in an attempt to keep him from scoring. That is why they blow the whistle and call a foul.
We disagree. I see a big distinction between a strategic intentional foul and cheating. By your definition, every player in the NBA and in college basketball is a cheater which means that the term is meaningless
I guess I don’t get your point. Strategic intentionally fouling is to me the very definition of cheating. You are intentionally breaking the rules without regard to the penalties involved to try to gain an advantage in the game, but that isn’t cheating. So what is cheating? Why was the intentional foul rule implemented? Wasn’t that at least partially because of the cheating involved?
Maybe basketball has changed since I watched it alot and refereed it, but most (probably the vast majority of) fouls were not intentional violations of the rules, but unintentional violations. there was a loose ball and another player got there first and a collision happened
Most fouls are unintentional in basketball but in every college or pro game, there’s at least a half dozen strategic, intentional fouls. Plus there’s whole strategies like Hack-a-Shaq based on intentional foulding. When Don Nelson was telling his whole team to grab Shaq every time he touched the ball, knowing that he was only a 50% free throw shooter, the strategy was debated but no one called it cheating.
I don’t watch a lot of basketball so correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of an intentional foul carrying a harsher penalty. I think you might be referring to the flagrant foul rule, which applies to particularly violent fouls.
“Why was the intentional foul rule implemented? Wasn’t that at least partially because of the cheating involved?”
No. The intentional foul rule was created to eliminate some of the danger involved in a hard foul and to not create an advantage for certain types of fouling. If the ref calls a flagrant foul, its two shots and possession but it requires a finding of unnecessary conduct. If your man gets past you and you grab him without trying to hurt him and are able to do so, then its not an intentional (flagrant) foul
It’s also because intentional fouling leads to fights because the other player thinks it’s cheating.
But I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree since i guarantee i will never come around to your point of view, and you clearly below have not budged an inch
At the end of every basketball game that’s remotely close, the trailing team starts fouling the other team to force them into free throws. Everyone knows these fouls are intentional. Announcers talk about how the team needs to start fouling so they can stop the clock and hope that the other team misses one or both free trows.
The trailing team is deliberately and with full intent breaking the rules of the game that prohibit making contact with another player. Are they cheating? If so, every coach in the game is guilty of encouraging his or her players to cheat.
Deliberate action is not in and of itself evidence of cheating. Nor is violation of the rules in and of itself cheating. This is at least one instance where it is, in fact, actively encouraged as a viable strategy.
Contrary to BillCinSD’s inexpert, bare assertions, in every sport where these types of decisions are possible, committing a foul NEVER earns one a reputation for being a dirty player. If you are losing by 2 points in the NBA you foul to stop the clock; if the WR has a step, you grab the jersy to save the TD. Known gambits.
No participant ever calls this cheating… not the players, not the coaches, not the analysts. Just the opposite! They acknowledge it as the proper decision. “Smart play by the cornerback!” And there is plenty of post-game air time to fill! Maybe they are ALL wrong and are just too close to the sport to appreciate what should be some Platonic essence of it?
wow I must have been imagining that during my 40 years of studying sports. Certainly not all players doing this sort of thing get that reputation, but if you think that it never results in this reputation. So inexpert bare assertions seem to me to be more your thing than mine
this line of thinking implies that commitng a foul is cheating. that is not true or reasonable
I can’t say for certain, but it really does seem like soccer has very different attitudes about this kind of thing than basketball (and probably hockey, but I don’t know hockey well enough to say). In basketball, fouling is a universally accepted aspect of the game. In soccer, at the very least, there is a great deal of controversy over the idea that it’s okay to deliberately break the rules with the intention of taking the penalty because that improves your chances.
As such, I don’t think it makes much sense to compare this with similar kinds of things in other sports. In other sports, nobody would even think to call something comparable to what Suarez did “cheating”, but in soccer people evidently do. The mores of the games are different, so I’m not sure these comparisons are useful.
That being said, it seems like the obvious comparison is to goaltending in basketball – and in goaltending, the points are awarded; no free throws.
No, that’s the completely wrong parallel, because the parallel is necessarily tied to the penalty. The appropriate parallel is the awarding of free throws.
Basketball goaltending has a ball position definition. How would you decide a hand blocked soccer ball was going to go in? By how far the kicking player was from the goal? By a Hawk-Eye system that computes the probable path of the ball?
But in basketball, goaltending is an automatic two points without any finding by the ref that the shot would have gone certainly gone in. If you hit the ball as a defender once the ball is in a downward arc, its goaltending and two points are awarded.
You could say that an intentional defensive handball in the goal area is an automatic goal, I guess, if you want to make it analogous to goaltending.
As such, I don’t think it makes much sense to compare this with similar kinds of things in other sports. In other sports, nobody would even think to call something comparable to what Suarez did “cheating”, but in soccer people evidently do. The mores of the games are different, so I’m not sure these comparisons are useful.
I dont know the culture of soccer so maybe this is considered cheating in it. I do know the culture of basketball, hockey, and baseball
and committing an intentional, strategic foul in those sports is simply not called or considered cheating. Whereas, for example, using a corked bat in baseball is called cheating. But soccer might have a different ethos (just like golf where the failure to call a penalty on yourself is definitely cheating but the failure to call a foul on yourself in baseketball, baseball and hockey (and probably soccer) is definitely not called cheating.
Soccer is kind of weird, in that it seems like it’s moving from a more “gentlemanly” golf-life attitude to one closer to basketball, but there’s still tons of resistance to it. There may also be regional variations – I know that, for instance, Latin Americans and Italians tend to be enthusiastic divers, while English people generally call diving “cheating”.
I don’t follow soccer, so this very well could be the case. Ghana might very well have a legitimate gripe if the norms of the sport were broken.
A good comparison would be baseball, in which a completely legal play is sometimes considered “unsporting”, like bunting for a base hit to break up a no-hitter. Guys that do that can expect some 95 mph chin music next time up.
Come to think of it, if you bunt for a base hit to break up a no-hitter, the “unwritten rules” of the game call for the opposing team to intentionally bean you at some point in the future. Is there any other situation in sports that calls for an intentional rule-breaking in retaliation for a frowned upon but legal play? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
NHL. If you commit a very hard but legal foul on the top scoring offensive player on the other team, then that team’s enforcer will find a way to level you later in the game, usually illegally. Think Wayne Gretzsky and Marty McSorley.
[...] black who technically can not touch the ball with his hands. Unlike the 2002 Quarter Final match Read more This entry was posted in trends. Bookmark the permalink. ← Ways in Which You Can Save [...]
This looks like a tautology. Essentially, this boils down to PEDs are not an accepted part of the game, but intentionally fouling is an accepted part of the game. Why are PEDs not an accepted part of the game? Because using them is cheating.
I don’t understand the “hidden/open” distinction. Because Artest is clever at hiding his grabs and pushes, he’s cheating, but because Bynum’s a clumsy defender, he’s not? Hard to see.
More to the PED point, if somebody used an untestable PED and was relatively open about it, essentially daring a sporting body to prove it, I doubt we’d say he “wasn’t cheating.” Nobody says McGwire wasn’t cheating because he openly used Andro.
Actually when McGuire was just using Andro, most people didn’t think it was cheating because at that time Andro was legal. There was discussion that he wasn’t setting a good example to kids but I definitely don’t think there was consensus that he was cheating. It was only after Andro was banned and it was discovered that he was using it and other substances after the ban that people believed he was cheating.
A more similar situation is in college football, where a fubar’d defensive reaction leaves an outmatched defensive back alone with a big or fast reciever. The defensive back then fouls the reciever, giving up 15 yards instead of a touchdown.
In soccer, for this case, I’d vaccilate just a little bit. It’s really hard to create scoring chances in a soccer game. Also, this was one of those super-blatant and cynical fouls that in general, is usually countered in individual fashion, and this handball happened for precisely the same reason goal-tending in basketball is an automatic score rather than free throw shots. Otherwise, peeps would be making the cynical move each and every time. Basketball having so many scoring opportunities make this much clearer than in soccer. Penalty shots for agressive tackling near the goal is one thing (like body checking someone on the way to the basket being a foul). Penalty shot for a *handball* for what is otherwise an easy goal is something else all together. I *do* think the rule will change as a result. It was still a big athletic moment to think fast enough to use your hands in such a fuckup.
The rule may change, but not quickly. If you think it will happen fast, you don’t know Sepp Blatter (sexist, resistant to change, and head of FIFA).
[...] black who technically can not touch the ball with his hands. Unlike the 2002 Quarter Final match Read more AKPC_IDS += "244,";Popularity: unranked [?]SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Suarez | Did Luis Suarez [...]
Guys,
If Football is the most popular sport in the entire world then lemme tell all of u! Tonite SPORT is DEAD!
AND LONG LIFE TO TREACHERY AND POOR YOUNGTERS WHEN THEIR ELDERDS’ S ” WINNING BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY”!!!
No he didnt cheat.
Ghana had the chance to score but they missed the penalty
He cheated. Rules are there to punish cheating so even if you accept the punishment you’re still a cheat.
Whhops my bad. Mistakenly copied the entire thread in my reply. Stupid internet. Meant to say:
Reply
ap says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:29 pm
He cheated. Rules are there to punish cheating so even if you accept the punishment you’re still a cheat.
So by your definition, all violation of rules, even non-intentional ones, are cheating? Or are you limiting cheating to intentional rule violations? And, if so, is it cheating, at the end of a basketball game when your team is leading by three points, to grab the guy on the other team who receives the ball within the arc preventing him from shooting (and preventing him from getting outside the arc and throwing up a three pointer) which gives him only two free shows and thus guarantees your team the win?
In rugby union a penalty try can be awarded where a defensive player intentionally fouls an attacking player where it is reasonably evident that a try would have been scored but for the foul [that's my precis of the thing not the definition so don't rely on it next time you play]. it is commonly awarded even at international levels. but generally the situation is evident to everyone on field and off.
in football to try to apply a rule like this would be impossible. most times it is not evident that a goal will be scored until the last kick/head of the ball towards the net. At that point the ref would need to be aware of exactly where the ball will go and to be able to see it being fouled. otherwise how could he say what might happen.
plus can you imagine the player and crowd riots where the ref’s decision would result in a goal, not just a penalty? People would die.
For me cheating is not the professional fouling evident in the Ghana-Uruguay match. Cheating is more underhanded than that. I think it is epitomized by the lying involved in what they quaintly call ‘simulation’. But I would say that cause I’m an Aussie :)
I vaguely remember that the original Laws of the Game did not have a provision for red carding intentional fouls when there are obvious goal scoring opportunities, which lead to many so-called “professional fouls”. Then they implemented the automatic red card for such situations. It helps, but in a situation like this one, the opportunity cost is not comparable to the reward.
How about sanctions by the governing body on the individual, which in this case would be FIFA itself?
The normal term is “professional foul.” Stoppard even used it as the title of a play.
The rule is fine as it stands. The fouled team not only has a chance to score with a good probability of success, but the fouling team has to play a man down the rest of the match and the fouler misses the next matches (which could have a big impact). These are severe repercussions in the vast majority of cases. Changing the rules to accommodate rare edge cases because Ghana missed a penalty is kinda ridiculous. If they had made the penalty no one would be having this discussion.
I think cheating implies some level of deceit.
Another way to look at this situation: there is a term for the deliberate failure to secure an advantage allowed to you by the rules where such failure costs your team the match. That is commonly known as “throwing the match.”
The rules in this case specifically allowed Suarez to secure an advantage for his team by committing a deliberate handball, and the failure to secure that advantage would have resulted in the immediate loss of the match. Failure to throw the match is not cheating.
Should the rules be changed? Of course. A deliberate handball to prevent a game tying or go ahead goal in, say, the last ten minutes of regulation or in extra time should result in a red card and an automatic goal. That’s not, however, what the rules say. As the rules are written, Suarez would have been throwing the match had he not committed that handball.
Wow, that’s utter nonsense.
How so? How is it not throwing a match to deliberately lose when you have a chance to play by the rules and win?
He should have attempted to head the ball or block it with his chest, thereby trying to block the shot in a legal manner. If he could not, then he misses it. If he can, then he wins. Either way, he is operating within the rules. What he did is a disgraceful, disgusting, and inappropriate violation of the rules that is, in no way, sanctioned by the rules of the game or any ethical standard.
It’s throwing a match to not deliberately violate the most fundamental rule of the sport? Seriously?
Cheating? Definitely unsportsmanlike but so is diving and playing hurt to waste the clock which Ghana did plenty of at the end o the Usa game. I was rooting for Uruguay but after this play I wanted Ghana to win
Ok, this is getting weird.
Here is the definition of “cheat,” courtesy of Dictionary.com
cheat [cheet] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2.
to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3.
to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4.
to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5.
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6.
to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7.
Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
As you can, see most of the definitions of “cheat” involve some element of fraud or deception. Suarez broke a rule but did not try and deceive anyone. He admitted his discretion, got punished with the red card, got sent off, and will not play in the semi-final match (and he is one of Uruguay’s best players). Ghana got a penalty kick which they were unable to convert. This is not cheating. This is exactly like fouling in basketball so someone has to shoot free throws, or a cornerback interfering with a wide receiver to prevent an open touchdown. There is no element of deception. They are breaking a rule rather than allow an easier score.
Compare this with “the hand of Gaul,” where Thierry Henry touched the ball with his hands (twice) and scored the winning goal. But failed to fess up until later. That’s cheating.
What if the ref had missed it? Do you think Suarez would have admitted his infraction if the ref hadn’t called him on it? He didn’t make any active effort to deceive, but he didn’t “admit his discretion [sic]” in any meaningful way.
So it’s not cheating, but it is unsportsmanlike, immoral, unethical, and cynical? At some point, I think you’re drawing a distinction without much difference.
It’s funny how people debate whether Suarez deserves harsher punishments than just a red card, penalty kick and suspension from next match. If gyan scored on the penalty given away by Suarez and Ghana wins, people would just view Suarez as stupid for using hands and dismiss this issue without considering that stronger punishment should be imposed on him. This debate wouldn’t be as huge as now if Uruguay lost and that’s the nature of human beings.
[...] agree and disagree with Dave Brockington here: yes, Suarez did cheat and he got caught (he wouldn’t have been sent off otherwise) and yes [...]
To say this is not cheating is strange. The rules do not say that it is OK to block a goal with your hands, but then the player must leave the game and the other team gets a penalty kick. No. They say that it is against the rules to do so. The sanctions are meant to enforce the rules, but it is still a violation of the rules, and purposely violating the rules to win is cheating.
When it’s plain as day that the goal would have scored in the absence of this deliberate hand ball, they should go ahead and count the goal.
I presume this bit is a joke. It is hard enough for the referee to tell when a goal should be disallowed, but at least in that case he is dealing with the world of events that actually happened.
You think referees should award goals based on what they think was going to happen? Today, a handball on the goal-line. Tomorrow, a handball two feet from the line. Next week, a trip in the penalty area. Madness.
It was a bit flip, yes, but I wanted to generate some discussion about rules and sanctions for violation. The sanctions in this case allowed for a small probability that Suarez’s action would reward his team. Rules are broken when the probabilistic benefits outweigh the costs, potential or otherwise, and given that, in this case, it is clear to me that Suarez chose the correct course of action.
As for my proposed ‘solution’, yes it is, as commenter SJ opined above, a ‘slippery slope’ which would create more problems than it solves.
Endless arguing will result unless you agree on a definition.
You could define cheating as deliberately breaking the rules of the game in order to gain an advantage.
That’s a workable definition in some sports. In others, not.
What I find just as troubling as the foul itself are most of your reactions to it. There is cold talk of rationality centered around mathematical calculation, yet utter ignorance of morality, ethics, and sportsmanship. These latter characteristics should be and once were of greater importance than the result of a game, but appear to have been lost in football. I should also remind you all that they are an integral part of other major sports such as rugby and cricket; in the former where players do not contest a single refereeing decision, and particularly in the latter where the batsmen “walk” (declare themselves out without waiting for the umpire’s decision) when they know they are out according to the rules of the game. Football has historically been termed “the beautiful game”. Winning through intentional foul play and without dignity is not beautiful. It seems most of you have lost your moral compass in your private profit calculations. Have we thrown social profit to the wind?
And what I find troubling is this Puritanical, tight assed attitude that every rule violation is “cheating” and some sign that we have lost our moral compass. I don’t know whether the soccer culture considers what Suarez does to have been cheating. In the sports I have played and watched most of my life -baseball, basketball and hockey – it clearly would not. As I said before, whole strategies have been based on rule violation-the Hack-a-Shaq strategy of Don Nelson- and nobody claimed this was cheating (although the effectiveness of the strategy was questioned). And deliberate breaking of the rule and accepting the sanction for it is nothing new.
Let me pose again this hypothetical – your team is up three points in basketball with four seconds to go and the other team has the ball out in its own end. The passer can’t find a man free outside the three point line so he passes to your man inside the arc. You immediately wrap the guy up in your arms preventing him from dribbling outside the arc and hoisting a three pointer. He gets two free shots, makes them both, their team is still one point down, you take the ball out and win the game. What you did is clearly a rule violation and it was clearly intentional. You call this cheating? If so, I hope no one ever picks you for his team since you clearly can’t play team basketball.
Well put, Jake.
Rules, laws .. they are all just ‘suggestions’ to these people.
Well then stick to Basketball Anonymous wanker because clearly you will never get Rugby or Cricket.
And the 1950′s were all about Mom and apple pie.
Cheating: Deliberately using underhanded or disallowed methods or tactics in a game or contest to alter the outcome of the game or contest.
Suarez is a cheat. He is on the Uruguayan team, therefore they are all cheats. End of Story.
No, let’s not end the story at this arbitrary point, let’s extend this to the entire country of Uruguay. Revoke their two WC titles in the process. While we’re at it, the entire continent of South America are cheaters because of Luis Suarez. Well done Luis!
Maybe even make Uruguay back into a Spanish possession. Spain could use Forlan and a couple of the defenders against Germany
Suarez may not have technically “cheated”, in that the rules allowed him to intentionally punch the ball with his hands, suffer the penalty of missing the next game as a result, and, most importantly, keep a certain (and game-winning) goal from being scored. However, what Suarez did sure was sleazy and underhanded, and when the rules of a sport enable abject sleaziness to effectively decide a game, then you need to change the rules, or institute new ones.
And to see Suarez celebrate the way he did after the game makes me hope that the Dutch beat Uruguay like a red-headed stepchild.
It’s quite wrong to say that the rules allow you to punch the ball and take a penalty. They forbid you to punch the ball and then you are penalized. I would have done the same thing, but it was obviously cheating.
In other news, who can stop the Germans?
I don’t see the argument for why this isn’t cheating. Because it’s rational? Why can’t cheating be rational? Because there’s a set punishment for doing it? Since casinos have set punishments for people caught violating the rules that isn’t cheating?
I forgot to mention that not all cheating must be equal. There’s reasonable cheating (like this ) compared to unreasonable cheating (Tyson’s criminal actions), Complex (Bill Belichick’s cameras) to simple (sign-stealing in baseball), and serious vs. unserious.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t all fall under the header of “cheating”
So under your definition, any intentional violation of the rules is cheating even if it is calculated, rational and, in the case of fouling a shooter at the end of the game who is inside the arc to prevent a three point shot, essential to winning the game? I disagree. Using a definition that broad simply makes a mockery of the way we commonly use to term (to indicate disapproval). In many sports, including almost all of the sports that I have played and follow, certain intentional violations are part and parcel of the game and not at all considered cheating.
Since you approve of an action, it isn’t cheating. Calculated, rational, and essential to victory? So it’s okay to use mark cards against the world’s greatest poker players if I calculate the risk?
If it just goes to popular/personal sentiment, there isn’t much to discuss. The former is too malleable and the latter is certainly a dead end. I for one, dislike basketball games to comes down to fouling contests.
Its the way the game is played and nobody in basketball considers intentional fouls to be cheating. I also dislike basketball games that come down to fouling contests but the fact that I dislike it is because it is boring, not because it is cheating. And its not because I approve of an action that is not cheating – its because everybody who plays the game doesn’t consider it to be cheating.
You are taking the position that EVERY rule violation is cheating and I very strenously disagree. In many sports -and especially in the ones I play and watch – most intentional rule violations are part of the game.
So it is about popular sentiment. Thank you, that’s all I really wanted to know. If an “intentional rule violation” isn’t cheating, I’m not sure how to properly define the world when it comes to sports and games.
I do wish to state some “intentional rule violations” are universally accepted because they are minor matters (with minor punishments) comparable to jaywalking (illegal, but not something anyone would think less of you for doing) or because it’s just so impossible to prove (flopping is incredibly unpopular with the fans in soccer and basketball, but there’s no easy way to punish it).
No, its not popular sentiment at all. Read what I wrote. In some sports, basketball being the most obvious example, intentional rule violations AREN’T cheating because cheating implies disapproval and nobody disapproves of certain intentional rule violation. If you tell me that your use of the word cheating doesn’t imply disapproval, then I don’t have a problem with calling an intentional foul cheating. But since you are clearly implying if not stating that any intentional rule violation is wrong and worthy of criticism, then you’re just wrong. Intentionally fouling a shooter in basketball to gain a strategic advantage is NOT cheating
I’m not following you at all. It’s not popular sentiment, it’s people disapproving? How is that different? That’s not even a distinction, it’s saying the same thing in different words.
I think I can follow you reasoning, it’s something like this:
A) Cheating is bad
B) Intentional fouling is not bad
C) Intentional fouling is an intentional violation of the rules.
D) Therefore not all intentional violations of the rules are bad.
E) Therefore not all intentional violations of the rules are cheating.
I’m calling B a bandwagon fallacy.
I, for one, fell in the perfect world everyone would follow the rules to the letter.
I do not, however, think players who cheat are bad people. Just I don’t dislike jaywalkers. Or jaywalking not illegal since so many people do it and no one cares?
Okay I give up. Your brilliant logical argument has destroyed my pathetic attempt to justify the tactics used in every basketball game and which not a single participant in those games considers to be cheating. But let me give it one more chance – cheating implies disapproval and nobody in basketball disapproves of an intentional foul committed for a strategic advantage. Therefore an intentional foul in basketball is not cheating. If you don’t believe that the use of the word cheating implies disapproval, then use a different word. If you want to say that Don Nelson’s team engaged in an intentional violation of the rules, I would agree. IF you say that Don Nelson’s team cheated, then I and everybody else who follows basketball would disagree. The word cheating is not an impartial word describing conduct. It conveys moral disapproval and no moral disapproval attaches to Nelson’s use of Hack-a-Shaq or fouling a shooter within the arc at the end of the game to protect a three point lead
Calm down, I’m just trying to state my opinion clearly while also learning yours. I simplify as much as possible to make it easier to follow- if I removed an important nuisance, just point it out.
You are using an appeal to popularity and that doesn’t seem to me to be good enough to make some action that is an intentional violation of the rules into something besides cheating.
On how ethical something like this is, I’ll point out to this post on Edge of the West: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/intentional-rule-violations/#more-14138
I actually wasn’t that uncalm. You still can’t understand that I am not making an appeal to popularity. I’m just trying to point out that the word cheating is not an impartial word which means violation of a rule. Cheating is understood as conduct which is disapproved of or which deserves moral condemnation. Suarez’ conduct may be cheating given the ethos of soccer (I take no position on that) but a strategic intentional foul in basketball is not considered by anybody in the sport or among its fans to be deserving of moral condemnation and is not disapproved. If you don’t mean to imply that an intentional foul in basketball deserves moral condemnation, then use a word other than cheating.
Sarcasm isn’t the most calm action.
You’ve defined cheating to further your argument. Which if fine, I guess. But I’m not going along with that logic. I watch basketball and I disagree- this undermines your argument that I hope it show why I consider it a silly line of argument. I again point to the link I gave, I feel intentional fouls goes against the spirit of the sport.
Is jay walking legal because there isn’t a lot moral condemnation against it?
But this is not basketball, Richard.
In basketball, points are scored constantly, and basketball is not only NBA style basketball. Matches in Europe are not such drug-out affairs at the end with a bunch of millionaires cynically playing the system.
Regardless of what you’d like us to believe, intentionally breaking the rules – with or without strategic intent – is cheating.
He cheated. He broke the rule. In soccer, players are not allowed to use their hands. Rationalizing cheating is not a good thing. It’s what comes from people being too obsessed with winning.
I withdraw my comment. I don’t know enough to comment.
[...] and Ghanian virtue. The match’s ending is interesting because it went down more or less like this: For those of you who didn’t watch the match, in the 120th minute, literally the last few seconds [...]
It needs a sterner penalty. In Ice Hockey, if a goaltender throws his stick to deflect the puck, or any player does so in the goal crease, it’s a goal. It doesn’t matter that the puck wouldn’t have gone in anyway. It’s not a judgment call. Stick leaves hand = goal. That penalty has been so effective that in 40-odd years of watching hockey, I’ve only seen that call made once. THAT needs to be the penalty for a hand ball in the goal box.
That’s only sort of true about hockey (though I agree about FIFA needing to rethink its rules about goal-line handballs). The only time it is an automatic goal in hockey is if the goaltender has been pulled in favor of an extra skater. In fact, I can clearly remember Joe Sakic scoring a penalty shot goal against St. Louis when their goalie threw his stick in the Western Conference Finals in 2001. Maybe I am reading rule 53.7 incorrectly, but I don’t think that has changed.
Yes, exactly. And it’s not a slippery slope. It’s a very clear, bright line rule that would be fairly easy to enforce, and which would pretty much eliminate goal box handballs.
No way. That would just make the arms of all defenders in the goal box extra surrogate goals.
Cheating has to be more than just “rule violation”, or else we’d have an asterisk next to every basketball player in the HoF. I don’t even think it’s a matter of intending to deceive the officials: every baseball catcher frames the box, paints corners, pulls and freezes, all in an attempt to to deceive the ump. This isn’t cheating, it’s taught at the little league level. I apparently don’t know enough about soccer culture, because when I first saw the Suarez handball my first thought was, “brilliant play”.
One possible point where the analogy fails between the Suarez foul and the fouling strategies used in basketball is that I am not sure anyone even thinks of fouls in basketball as being rule violations. Much is made of a player’s number of “fouls to give” (i.e. “Doc should put Wallace in, after all, he still has 5 fouls to give.”), as if they were timeouts to call or something. There is no real equivalent “cards to give” in football. It does seem a bit closer to cheating (but why?) to say, “I hope Suarez gets back to the box in time, after all, he still has a red card to give.”
While Suarez clearly regards himself as some kind of hero, and his misguided true believers in Uruguay feel likewise, fair-minded fans everywhere else know the truth: He robbed Ghana of a well-deserved victory with extremely unsportsmanlike play. There is no honor in such a victory. In basketball, if “goal tending” occurs during a shot, the shooter is automatically awarded the points. FIFA needs to change its rules. It it does not, it rewards unsporting behavior. American fans have trouble getting behind soccer not just because of the lack of scoring, but all the fake “injuries”, the arbitrary “offside” and goal calls that change game outcomes, FIFA’s refusal to utilize available technology, etc. Suarez’s behavior simply becomes one more obstacle to appreciating this sport, which is too bad. Because even with all its problems, it’s a sport worth appreciating.
American fans have trouble getting behind soccer because historical contingency resulted in soccer never becoming very popular here, and in other sports taking up the role that soccer takes in other countries.
The idea that there is something inherent in soccer that American fans can’t get behind is ridiculous.
Co-signed.
‘all the fake “injuries”’
Soccer flopping is part of the same continuum as that in the NBA;
‘the arbitrary “offside” and goal calls that change game outcomes’
Pass interference? Phantom holding calls and non-calls? NFL;
‘FIFA’s refusal to utilize available technology, etc.’
Sepp Blatter = Bud Selig.
I’m still waiting for someone to show me a *convincing* reason a certain subset of Americans hate soccer so much that doesn’t finally come to rest on the word “foreign.”
If I may: stoppage time.
We Mericans need things timed to the millisecond. We need to be able to go to instant replay and pause the action and argue if the ball left his hand or the puck crossed the line before the clock ticked down from 0.1 to 0.0.
This wishy-washy soccer-timing just won’t fly.
Ugh, why don’t we all move to France and become socialists while we’re at it.
For soccer to become truly Merican, they’d have to move to a system more like hockey, where the clock stops when play stops, or create a “stoppage clock,” timed at least down to the second, which would be displayed counting up from zero as stoppage time is accrued. Then at the end of regulation, the time would just run off the stoppage clock, and everyone could see exactly how much time is left.
Ahh… precision, objectivity, apple pie!
Eli starts with the observation that additional referees, instant replays and more would ruin the flow of the beautiful game. The cynicism that has crept in comes from a moral calculus that undervalues cheating and sharp practice. The real issue is not how to make the game “fairer”, but rather how to tip the balance so that players don’t take advantage.
His answer is imposed long bans, even lifetime bans, on players who do what Luis Suarez did, and insist that they not be paid during their bans. Such bans would be imposed post game and the tribunals could use replay video, referee’s reports and more. If Luis Suarez had to balance losing the game against losing his career, he might not have punched the ball off the line.
well I think this would work about as well as the death penalty, but I agree with your first paragraph.
Every player in the World Cup would have cheated exactly like Suarez did, regardless of extra sanctions. Just like diving, especially in the box (and diving is often described as cheating). The reward is so much greater than any penalty that could be given that it is rational or maybe professional cheating
This is actually a rather elegant solution to the problem posed by the original post. The problem, of course, was that the rules of soccer essentially make committing a handball on what would otherwise be a clear goal a no-lose play. The rational solution, awarding an automatic goal in this situation, is considered not viable due to the peculiarities and norms of soccer such that having a single referee make that call would overly rely on a judgment call and instituting in-game video replay is considered antithetical to the fundamental character of the game.
Determining whether or not something is cheating is ultimately a subjective, qualitative call based on what one perceives the rules of the game to be. The debate occupying half the comments is really pretty asinine. Ultimately, the question is: Do the actions of the players, operating with a given a system of incentives (rules), lead to a desired outcome? And if not, can a change in those rules be made without compromising the fundamental character of the game? I think most people are of the mind that Ghana `ought` to have won that match, there just seems to be a lot of differing opinions with regards to what sort of mechanism to implement without compromising the norms and character of the game.
Using post-game video replay to review blatantly unsportsmanlike behavior, with the aim of punishing individual players, has the advantage of being able to render nuanced decisions that a single referee in the heat of the moment has no chance of consistently and accurately calling. I think that this mechanism as proposed by Eli would go far in the right direction of fixing what is presently a less than optimal system of incentives.
“the rules of soccer essentially make committing a handball on what would otherwise be a clear goal a no-lose play.”
This is simply not true. It’s not true for the player that does it and it’s not true for the team as a whole in normal circumstances. It isn’t even true in this circumstance. Not only is Suarez’s Cup over, but Uruguay must now play without arguably their best striker.
People seem to be badly over-reacting to an extremely rare edge-case. Changing the rules according to a 1% doctrine is an incredibly bad idea. None of the proposed rules would appear to be effective anyway. It’s laughable to suggest that the refs would be able to determine what was going to happen when they often struggle with what actually happened. It’s ridiculous to suggest that it would be possible to ban players for life. Maybe FIFA could get rid of them, but Suarez plays for Ajax and the Dutch Football Association are under no obligation to them.
Anyway, Uruguay didn’t win because Suarez stopped that goal, Ghana lost because Asamoah Gyan missed the penatly.
“This is simply not true. It’s not true for the player that does it and it’s not true for the team as a whole in normal circumstances. It isn’t even true in this circumstance. Not only is Suarez’s Cup over, but Uruguay must now play without arguably their best striker”
I don’t see how being denied of their players in a semifinal is in any conceivable way a worse option than Uruguay being knocked out in the quarterfinal.
“None of the proposed rules would appear to be effective anyway. It’s laughable to suggest that the refs would be able to determine what was going to happen when they often struggle with what actually happened”
If you had bothered to read Eli’s suggestion that I was responding to, you would have realized that this is not at all what he was proposing. The idea would not be for refs to huddle over a screen in game and render a decision there. The goal would have still counted in such a situation, however a FIFA-appointed body would have the wherewithal to suspend Suarez for an extended about of time from international play for the sheer unsportsmanship that he displayed; the clear and enunciated threat of such punishment hopefully dissuading him from making that play in the first place
The idea being to increase the cost of cheating. It may not stop all cheating, but it will stop a bunch. Right now football is the libertarian’s dream
I have an opinion on the “cheating” question, but it’s a red herring.
Suffice it to say that the game would be better if this could be avoided. Still, I think that “automatic goals” are not the answer. It seems too anti-soccer. And besides, there’s no way TV would allow for points without the ball in the net.
Personally, I’d make a rule that ensures a red card will have in-game consequences. For instance, you could make sure the game continues for at least 15 minutes after any red card, giving a team a chance to capitalize on the numerical advantage even for end-of-game red cards. Or, a team with a red card could get one shot fewer in the first round of the penalty shoot-out. (The 5th shot “belonged” to the red-carded player). Unlike automatic goals, these rules changes would be no more radical than other changes over the past 25 years.
These suggestions would help deal cleanly with other situations where a red-card foul could become rational near the end of the game. You don’t want to make special rules for every possible case.
Speaking as a soccer referee, Suarez’s play was a smart play within the rules and the culture of the game.
Smart tactical fouls and more importantly for this discussion, professional fouls are a part of the accepted culture of the game. I’ve given dozens of cautions and a few send-offs for smart tactical fouls where the defender made the decision that only one of the attacker(s) or the ball would go pass them. And when the foul is done (relatively) cleanly without a clear intent to injure, no one is pissed at the fouler. Players and coaches get pissed at pointless, cynical and potentially injurious fouls.
A hard tackle from behind that rolls up the Achilles in the mid-field will provoke a much harsher reaction from the fouled team and the referee than a bear hug from behind that displaces the attacker at the 22 yard line.
And this is at the level of U-15, U-16, U-17, U-19 teams where a number of the players are on Division 1 and 2 scholarship scouting lists, ODP teams, and U-17, U-19 and/or U-23 national pools.
Once you ref medium (MLS) or high level (EPL, Serie A etc) professional, tactical fouls are accepted as part of the match. As a ref and as a player, as long as the fouler does not make an ass out of themselves denying the foul, it is an action with known consequences that any professional player is expected to take if they are in such a situation. The Suarez situation is a rare situation, but if he can’t come out for the header (he could not in time), his responsibility is to keep the ball out of the net for at least the next minute even at the cost of a red card and forcing his team to play down for the next 31 minutes.
His actions were within the culture of the game.
How about we adopt a system of tactical play and line up players like suarez or whatever his name is ( say three ) behind the goal line. In case there is a possiable goal they can make tactical and pro saves and then we can discuss possiable outcomes . The goal is to win the game and any cost right ? No wonder Americans are turned off by this game
I totally agree with Dave Anderson above. What Suarez did is not violent, and he was punished according to the rulebook. I really feel that no one would be arguing about this if Ghana had made the penalty — though the situation, and the wisdom of his foul, would be exactly the same.
Think of a player who injures one of the other team’s players, maybe its best player. They get a red card, and their team plays a man down for the rest of the match — but the other team still has to take advantage of it. No points are awarded, and the other team can still win. Basically, people are angry here because Ghana failed to take advantage of the penalty. Is that Suarez’s fault?
And finally, his foul was non-violent, and committed in a game. Cool down, cool down, far worse things happen on soccer pitches and no one claims a red card is insufficient.
Ya why should we not line up players on the goal line in case there is someone about to score ? Then when they touch the ball we can have some aregument as to why it ok. No wonder Americans dont loke football . The rules are so vague and the arguments why something is done so cheap
Nobody would have congratulated Suarez on his sportmanship if had allowed that goal. Nobody. At the World Cup, winning is the only thing that anybody cares about. You have to construct the rules to reward the type of behavior that you are interested in watching. And outside of fouls with intent to injure, I think penalties should be limited to World Cup play.
That being said, I have no problem with how the game played out. It was exciting and Ghana was given a perfectly fair chance given the high likelihood of converting a PK. Maybe awarding an automatic goal would have been better, but it is a close call, imop, because refs have a tendency to screw up those kinds of calls in closer cases. It is a question of how ugly it makes the game, and I don’t think it was very ugly.
This contrasts with diving which very nearly ruins the game for me. I never really want to see Italy play (unless it is to lose) and SA teams are also annoying some times. When that Italy player took a dive to draw the PK instead of trying to actually score against New Zealand- that is the worst thing that can happen in a soccer game under the current rules, imop. But it isn’t a fact-based thing. It’s just a question of what kind of game you want to watch. I think the Italians like it. Which says something about their culture, but there you go.
Suarez , there is a special place in the society for cheats like that . Or maybe we should just allow no rules in the game and have fans line up on the goal line in case someone is about to score .I think thats better .As long as we can justify the reason its all good.
I’m amazed… First of all, who was cheating was the referee with his preference for Ghana. Second the kick (starting of the play) was cheated. Third the play, thereafter was an off-side.
Please! Do you play soccer from time to time? How can you call this cheat? This was a fault, like a foul. To make a foul, is cheating?
All this is overreacting because it was after 120 min, and Ghana lost. But Ghana, have lost three times: 1) could have kicked better (and Suarez had no opportunity to stop it); 2) score the penalty; 3) win the series of penalty kicks.
Result: Uruguay win, and it is correct like that. Maybe, the rules should change (I’m not against that) but by the current rules, Suarez didn’t cheat at all!
I totally agree with you.
Contrary to what a lot of people think when you’re breaking a rule or law you have just committed a crime. Just because you paid for your crime doesn’t mean that makes you innocent and excuse you from the fact of what you did. It doesn’t matter the circumstances, the simple fact is suarez broke the rule and cheated to win. Breaking the rule is never a part of the game, it is as in this case should be frowned upon. It does not show class, or sportsmanship.
DEFINITION
Sportsmanship expresses an aspiration or ethos that the activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one’s competitors. Being a “good sport” involves being a “good winner” as well as being a “good loser”.
Let’s not talk about the outcome of the game because yes Uruguay won and that’s great for them. However, do we want to promote plays such as this and even to mention it as “god’s hand” is ridiculous. So now its not about following the rule anymore, but about doing whatever you can, even if that means breaking the rule, to win. If that’s true then I have nothing to further to say.