The Suarez Handball and the Debate Over Ethics In Sport
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 5, 2010 4:26 AM BST
Email
Print
Not surprisingly, the internet soccer community has been abuzz over Luis Suarez's handball that prevented a certain goal for Ghana and allowed the match to proceed to a penalty shootout from which Uruguay ultimately emerged victorious. Some believe that Suarez did the only thing he could have done. By handling to ball he was aware that he would award Ghana a penalty, be sent off and be forced to miss the semi-final should Uruguay advance, but seeing as how the alternative was almost certain defeat, he was left with little choice. Others believe that once the ball was headed towards goal that Suarez has an ethical responsibility to adhere to the rules of the game and that by knowingly handling the ball he was being disrespectful towards not only the game but the very concept of sportsmanship in general. To those opposed to Suarez's actions Uruguay's victory is tainted and to a not-insignificant number of them Suarez will most likely be thought of as a cheater for the duration of his career.
It's an interesting debate. For the record, I don't have much of a problem with what Suarez did (and I should point out that I was pulling for Ghana to advance.) Several people have compared this situation to the Thierry Henry handball that led to France defeating Ireland to earn a spot in the World Cup. I find this comparison very difficult to accept. For one, Henry was intentionally deceptive, a charge which I do not think anyone would level at Suarez. For another, I think there's a difference between handling the ball in order to prevent a goal, especially (and this is an important distinction in my view) when done in such a blatant fashion and handling the ball as a method of scoring a goal. Denying the opposition an obvious goal through the use of the hands is a penalty and an automatic red card. Using your hand in an effort to score a goal will, at worst, result in a yellow card. The penalty for Suarez's actions is far more severe, and by committing the act the odds of Ghana scoring in that situation were reduced by only ~25%. To me it's not meaningfully different than a professional foul, and I doubt many would call such an occurrence unethical and label the player committing the foul a cheater.
With that being said, I find the opposite side of the argument interesting. In my view the only unethical actions that can take place on the field are those that are reckless enough that the chance of inflicting injury on one's opponent is implicit and those that attempt to dramatically alter the course of the game through deception. I find Fernando Torres' dive against Chile several orders of magnitude more deplorable than Suarez's handball. Likewise Felipe Melo's rash tackle and spiking of Arjen Robben. I don't see Suarez's actions as unethical; it was blatant, he was punished and it ended up being a worthwhile gamble. Others disagree.And while there is always a risk in attempting to summarize an opposing argument, my interpretation of their opinion would be that knowingly violating the rules in a desperate attempt to stave off defeat is desperate, cynical and the very definition of poor sportsmanship. I wouldn't disagree that it's at least one of those, and I could probably be convinced that it's at least two.
In the end though, if the goal of the game is to win, I think you are within your rights to do whatever is in your power to achieve that goal so long as you are not doing so through deception or the use of dangerous force. I would not be opposed to a rule change in that situation that allows the referee the power to grant the attacking team a goal, but considering that we are speaking of FIFA such a radical step seems unlikely. That being the case, I would want players on the teams that I support to make the exact same decision that Suarez made and I would not begrudge an opponent for doing the same.
In the end, it's a shame it had to happen. Even before the controversial ending this was the most exciting match of this World Cup and it's a shame that it is sullied in the eyes of some. I would have preferred the ball find the back of the net (for several reasons) and, failing that, I would have preferred Gyan convert the penalty (for similar reasons.) It wouldn't be the World Cup without a bit of controversy though, and given the choice I'd prefer something like this to yet another reminder of the insanity of FIFA's opposition to technology as refereeing aids.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Perfectly legitimate
Quite honestly, I was a little taken aback at how many people felt Suarez “cheated.” Sure, he intentionally broke the rules, but breaking the rules and cheating are entirely different things. Like you said, the key is the attempt to get away with it. Suarez did the one and only thing I would expect an athlete to do in that situation. I know soccer is different in other sports in the sportsmanship sense, but this kind of thing happens with some regularity in hockey. I actually applaud Suarez for doing this. He was and will continue to be punished but that is far preferable to going home, I say.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
The question of the penalty being a ~25% less chance to score
is interesting to me, because it seems that a lot of questions of ethics in football, questions of right or wrong, are really questions of degree rather than type. If Suarez had done exactly what he did at the penalty spot, or at the top of the 18, or 25 yards out, even if the ball was clearly headed into the net, would the outcry be the same, I wonder?
Why isn't this showing up on the front page?
I very nearly missed it. Regardless, nice write up Aaron. I’ve been mulling it over too, and I find that I agree with you. It’s just the same (in my book) as a team that is down by 1 or 2 in basketball fouling in the hopes of the other team missing and the fouling team regaining possession. It’s within the rules, so why wouldn’t you do it?
It should be now.
SBN has been having some issues with scheduled posts.
by Kirsten Schlewitz on Jul 4, 2010 4:44 PM BST up reply actions
I'm still not seeing it on front page
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 4, 2010 8:17 PM BST up reply actions
A question -
Why isn’t the rule that if a position player makes a handball on the goal line that results in a straight red, as Suarez did, the goal simply counts? I feel like that would remove a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth over this kind of clear-cut call.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jul 4, 2010 11:33 PM BST reply actions
It's two-fold for me
It creates a situation where a goal is allowed without the ball ever crossing the line, something that doesn’t happen now. It also leaves it to the ref to decide whether they think the ball would’ve gone in when awarding the goal. Like it or not, the rule is uniform now and the only judgment is whether it was a handball or not. If it happened in the box, it’s always a penalty.
It feels cheap to have the ref award a goal where there technically wasn’t one. Bury the penalty and that’s the end of it.
In my opinion you can easily compare it to Henry’s handball. I don’t understand how you can claim Henry was ‘intentionally deceptive’ and yet claim Suarez was not. To me, either both were, or both were not. Open to hear your explanation on that one.
As well, I think it is extremely important to note that Henry did not handle the ball to score a goal, but to simply keep the ball in play. That is a huge distinction as you can argue that handling the ball to keep it in play is less meaningful that handling the ball on the goal line and thus preventing a goal. Henry still had to pass with his feet, and Gallas still had to turn the ball into the net. With defenders and a keeper still all within the area to prevent it. No one could’ve prevented Saurez from handling a sure goal off the line.
Both Henry and Saurez used an illegal part of their body to help their team win. That is the fact of the matter. People cheat in various ways all the time in the game of soccer, and to start crying about the moral fabric of the game is a cop-out to me. Ethical responisibility to the game? Honestly now, who actually has that? There is not a single player out there who sits there and cheers for their team and does not applaud the use of timingly fouls by players on the club they are supporting. That alone nullifies the use of ‘ethical responsibility.’
I applaud Saurez for doing whatever necessary to help his team win.
Gyan should’ve potted the PK and this would all never happen. (and how I wished Ghana had won!)
The only comparison would be the use of the hand.
Suarez did what he did knowing that it would result in a penalty to Ghana and his being sent off. Henry did that he did knowing that he was likely to get away with it and that if it were seen the only real repercussion would be a free kick for Ireland. Doing something that violates the rules and knowing the consequences is significantly more honorable than outrightly cheating. Also, I am skeptical that the absolutes in which you speak reflect reality.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 5, 2010 10:32 AM BST up reply actions
How did Henry know he was likely to get away with it? Handballs are called very often in the game of football, and usually caught quite well in my opinion. I feel that ref’s call hanballs more than I can see them on my tv screen. They both attempted to use their hand to help their team win. The only difference is that Saurez was caught and their team still managed to win because of it, and the Henry incident was not seen by the ref. How can one attempt to cheat be more honorable than other attempt to cheat, just because the Ref happened to see one, and not the other?
And please expand on the ‘absolutes in which you speack reflect reality’
There's absolutely no way Suarez was going to get away with the handball and he knew it.
Based on Henry’s position, the position of the referee and the manner in which Henry handled the ball it’s pretty clear to me that he was attempting to shield his actions from the referee. And again, Suarez knew the consequences of his actions were to be far more severe than Henry.
And I was referring to this bit:
Ethical responisibility to the game? Honestly now, who actually has that? There is not a single player out there who sits there and cheers for their team and does not applaud the use of timingly fouls by players on the club they are supporting. That alone nullifies the use of ‘ethical responsibility.’
I think it’s a bit cynical to insinuate that all soccer players cheat and applaud cheating by their teammates or that supporters applaud cheating by the players on the team they support. If that’s not the point you were attempting to make I apologize, but otherwise I have a hard time believing that it’s true.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 5, 2010 8:15 PM BST up reply actions
I can agree that Saurez figured he would be caught, but by his reaction to the red card, it sure looked like he was surprised. the ‘who, me?’ look was priceless.
The whole knowing Henry trying not to get caught thing seems immaterial to me. Players that dive, and players that try get away with any illegal activity on the pitch are hoping they are going to get away with it. So to make a villian out of Henry for that seems disingenious to me.
You really don’t think players are told to intentionally foul and time waste? You hear about it in the media all the time, managers and players always talk about having to play physical and foul teams like Arsenal. ‘Get stuck in!’ they say. ‘They don’t like it when you kick them’ is another one. It is blatant cheating, and yet it is widely accepted and applauded. And when someone like Arsene Wenger speaks out about it, they call him whining, and not accepting the culture of the game.
As much as I love watching the beautiful football and think it should be played by everyone, I cannot deny that sometimes a timely foul is exactly what a player should do, even if it is cheating. Indeed, I think Arsenal themselves should commit themselves into a few more fouls and that it would enhance their results as a result.
It's a matter of degree.
Physical play is one thing, and there are rules in place to keep it in check. As an MLS fan I wish they were more stringently enforced at times, as it can be a great detriment to the quality of play, but so long as things are called evenly I can accept it. Handling the ball is in a different class of rule violation. Fouls are in general at the discretion of the referee but in no case is the handling of the ball by an outfield player within the rules. And yes, I am aware of Suarez’s reaction, but I still do not believe for a second that he thought he was going to get away with what he did. And if he did think that, well, he’s incredibly dumb and that’s whole different discussion.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 5, 2010 11:02 PM BST up reply actions
Bingo.
a rule change in that situation that allows the referee the power to grant the attacking team a goal
To be honest though I'm not even sure if I am comfortable with that.
Giving the referees the power to award goals when they do not occur makes me slightly uneasy and I think the sending-off/PK are sufficient. It sucks for Ghana that it happened when it did and they were unable to take advantage of Uruguay being down to ten men, there’s really no way to make the game completely fair 100% of the time and I think that giving the referees that level of power would create all sorts of other problems.
Basically, I want what happens on the field as a result of the actions of the players to determine the outcome to as great a degree as possible. I’m not sure if changing the rule in this instance would be in service of that ideal.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 5, 2010 8:32 PM BST up reply actions
There is nothing wrong with the rule as it stands
by Graham MacAree on Jul 6, 2010 3:47 AM BST up reply actions
So let's award goals for last man violations as well.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 6, 2010 3:36 PM BST up reply actions
My favourite part of this is that is pisses people like you off
by Graham MacAree on Jul 6, 2010 5:58 PM BST up reply actions
I don't understand how this is cheating
it’s like saying intentionally committing pass interference in American football is cheating by denying the opposition a touchdown. If your choices are receiving a severe penalty or losing a match, you accept the penalty and continue to give your side a chance to win the game.
I actually agree
We need video technology for me to be entirely comfortable with the ‘ref awarding a goal’ change. Seeing as we don’t have it I’m perfectly happy with the current rule.
Dumbest argument ever
Fouling Shaq on a layup isn’t cheating in basketball. Handball on the goal line isn’t either.
And if Shaq goes for a layup, and instead of fouling him or blocking the shot
you wait for it to kiss off the glass and grab it as it’s going into the hoop…it’s goaltending, and the ref counts the 2, even though the ball never made it through the hoop.
Suarez didn’t foul someone who was about to try to hit a game-winning shot. The game-winning shot had already been taken, and he goaltended it, in violation of the rules. The analogy to basketball supports counting the goal in this case.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Nothing up my sleeve....
Whether an action is cheating is based on intent, not the likelihood of getting caught . Intentionally breaking the rules is cheating regardless of the deceptive quality. Sometimes rules are broken, players are fouled or a handball occurs, unintentionally. Suarez’s handball was obviously intentional. Therefore, it was cheating. Henry’s handball was most likely cheating ( I still have yet to see video of it. Yeah, I know, I’m the only one on the planet). Diving is cheating. Professional fouls are cheating.
I can understand why Suarez did what he did. The play happened very fast. He didn’t have time to consider the ethics of it. I may have even done the same thing under similar circumstances. I don’t know. But it was intentional and it was cheating. I can even understand that it, unfortunately, is accepted and even encouraged by many. What I don’t understand is people applauding someone cheating, regardless of the reason. I find it rather despicable.
Yes, I want to win. But having to resort to cheating to do so makes it a rather hollow victory, in my humble opinion.
For the record, I do think the penalty for the action under the rules is sufficient. Fair? Perhaps not. Just sufficient.
by DissidentAggressor on Jul 10, 2010 2:52 AM BST reply actions
I don't think the people that have applauded his actions would consider what he did to be cheating.
That’s the divider.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 10, 2010 7:00 PM BST up reply actions
The divider, I think, is that some of us have a warped definition of what is cheating and what is not. Of course, that “some of us” could very well include me. I tend to draw the line very close and very bold. But hey, a good debate helps pass the time.
by DissidentAggressor on Jul 13, 2010 5:51 AM BST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on 7500 To Holte
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
