In any team sport, a team has to accomplish a specific objective to score points. In basketball, for example, one has to put the ball in the basket in order to score. Basketball, however, might be the only team sport in which the rules allow points to be awarded in the event a team does not achieve the objective.
(All you Baltimore Ravens who want to use this video as an argument, please sit down. We’re talking about hard-coded rules, not judgment calls, and if this World Cup has proven anything, it’s that judgment calls work both ways, often to devastating effect.)
Of course, a basketball player has to break a specific rule — in this case, goal tending — in order for the other team to be awarded the points. This rule exists in part to allow a more offensive game and to give both teams a fair opportunity to score.
Football codes don’t have a rule like this. If a defender illegally stops a player from scoring, the player and team are penalized, but points are not awarded. The onus is still on the offensive team to score. Period. That is simply how football works.
Let me set out an example for you:
The Ravens are leading the New England Patriots by 4 with just a few seconds left on the clock. The Pats are on the Ravens’ 8-yard line and have one play left. Brady drops back, sees Randy Moss open in the end zone and passes to him. Ed Reed, meanwhile, realizes he’s caught out of position, and he can’t make a play on the ball. So Reed grabs Moss and pulls him away from the pass as time expires.
The ref throws the flag. Of course, he does. That’s pass interference. Ed Reed prevented the touchdown illegally. The touchdown, however, is not awarded automatically. By rule, the ball is placed on the 1-yard line, and the Pats will get one more play, since the game cannot end on a defensive penalty. However, the Pats still have to score the touchdown. If the Ravens stuff them on the last play, the game is over, the Ravens win.
Did Ed Reed break a rule in order to help his team win? Yes. He committed pass interference and was penalized for it. The rules of the game, however, allow for this, just as the rules of basketball allow a team to foul its opponent constantly at the end of the game in order to get the ball back and try to erase a deficit. Points aren’t awarded for fouls, though; you have to make your free throws. Thus, if you know a team struggles at the free throw line, tactical fouling becomes a legitimate strategy in order to win.
Which brings us to Luis Suarez, who caused something of an uproar yesterday.
With Uruguay and Ghana tied at 1-1 in the 121st minute, the Uruguayan striker illegally stopped Ghana from scoring a goal by slapping it away. He’s not the goalkeeper, so he can’t do that. Like Ed Reed in our example above, Suarez was properly penalized as the rules stipulated — he was shown a straight red card and sent off. By those same rules, however, the goal is not given automatically. Ghana still has to put the ball in the net.
They did not. Asamoah Gyan missed the ensuing penalty kick, and extra time ended at 1-1. Uruguay won the game on penalties and advanced to the semifinals.
Some have reacted with outrage to what Suarez did. They claim he’s a filthy cheat, just like Thierry Henry, and that he should be ashamed of himself. They also claim that Uruguay should not be in the semifinals because of this.
Here’s the thing, though — unlike that France v. Ireland game, the laws of the game worked exactly as written here. Suarez was properly punished for his handball (red card and suspension), just as Reed was penalized for his pass interference in our example above. This was, in essence, a tactical foul — a deliberate breaking of a rule in order to help your team try and win a game.
So really, if you have no issue with basketball players fouling at the end of a game in order to try and win it, you shouldn’t have any issue with what Luis Suarez did here. Tactical fouling exists to give your team an opportunity to win when no other option is available. So you commit those fouls, because you want to win. Is it cynical? Yes. Is it cheating? No. You do what you have to do within the rules of the game in order to win the game.
Perhaps because of Henry’s handball is so fresh in our minds, Suarez’ handball is skewing our sense of justice. The difference is that in the case of Henry, justice was not served. France was allowed to commit a clear violation due to officiating incompetence, and Ireland was given no recourse. This is why the NFL has instant replay — to give teams recourse in case the officials appear to make the wrong decision.
There were no wrong decisions at the end of the Uruguay v. Ghana game. Suarez accepted his punishment as the rules stipulated. There was simply the tactical foul and, sadly for Ghana, Gyan’s blown penalty kick. Had Gyan converted, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this. Ghana had the opportunity to win the game after the penalty was committed, and there’s nothing really unjust about that.
Tactical fouling is simply part of football, as it is part of nearly every sport. This is how it should be, too. We should not get into the habit of simply awarding one team the game every time the other team breaks the rules, or else we open our games up to all sorts of ugly unintended consequences. Victory needs to be earned in our games.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Brian // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I agree. What blows my mind is when people say that what Suarez did was disgusting, but every player would have done it. How is it even fun to watch a game if your moral standards are so exacting that you think every player — basically human nature — is inwardly reprehensible? If you want to eliminate tactical fouling, create rules that don’t allow for it (there’s almost none, for instance, in tennis); don’t expect players to be idealized knights of honor.
2 Max O // Jul 3, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Saw this linked from RoP, really well written article, totally agree with it.
3 Joseph L // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:42 pm
To add.
I agree with your comment at the end of the article that states, “We should not get into the habit of simply awarding one team the game every time the other team breaks the rules…Victory needs to be earned in our games”.
This made me think about your earlier comment on NFL’s instant replay.
I feel that any officials call (be it incompetent or not) is tied to tactical fouling, and as you pointed out, is a part of the game. So, why degrade the referees choice with second guessing? Plus, it is completely against the nature of the football codes (except American football) where play is rarely stopped and restarted repetitively. To institute any type of scrutiny ruins the simplicity of the beautiful game.
Plus, remember that the officials make 100′s of decisions during each match. A team shouldn’t have to rely on one call by a referee to help them squeeze by into a win. Heck, if they are any kind of team, they will learn from the deficit and convert the game into an equalizer or win.
Thank you for the great article.
4 Brian F // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:52 pm
In rugby union, the official can award a penalty try if there is a clear chance at scoring opportunity and the defender’s misconduct prevents it. I don’t see it happen very often, but it is in the laws of rugby union.
5 Louis T // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:50 am
Uhm. Flawed.
Palpably unfair act, search it up.
The palpably unfair act rule gives the referee full discretion to decide what should happen when such events occur, up to and including awarding one team a score.
Renders your entire article, wrong.
6 Dave // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:01 am
Louis: The only time I’ve heard of that rule being used was when a player on the sidelines tackled the ball carrier 20-yards away from any other player on the field and on his way to the end zone. It would *never* be applied in any situation resembling the Ravens-Patriots example I gave here, because there’s still the possibility that the receiver could drop the ball.
Nice try, though.
7 Dan // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:16 am
While there is a place in rugby union for a penalty try, and may be a rule for American football allowing the officials to grant a score, Law X of soccer states:
“A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between
the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the
Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the
goal.”
That’s it. That’s the only way you can score. Suarez prevented Ghana from doing this, and he paid the price. Yes, it was a heart-wrenching loss, cruel in so many ways. But that’s how it goes. My guess is that it had crossed his mind before the corner kick that he would use any means necessary to keep the ball out of the goal – until the ball crosses the line, the game is still tied, and Uruguay still has a chance.
Not the most dignified way to stay in the tournament, but certainly fair, within the laws of the game, and effective.
8 Simon // Jul 5, 2010 at 5:29 am
Dan: The same argument could be applied to Rugby that a try is only scored when the ball is grounded on or over the line but this doesn’t deny the ref the option to award a penalty try nor should it deny the ref the option to award a penalty goal
9 RAFA // Jul 5, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I agree. Other sporst have different rules, and football is very clear and easy to understand. Players cheat all the time (fouls, handballs etc.) and it’s all part of the game, rules regulate all that. To talk about cheating we would need to go deeper, and probably review some world cups before. Regarding this game I must say that it began with a wrongly called free kick and seconds later a pretty evident offside position of two ghanaian players. So again, cheating? oh no, that’s an entire different concept!
10 Jeff // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I think it’s intuitive for fans of American sports like NFL or basketball to be okay with times where breaking the rules and getting caught actually benefits a team. This is because that happens quite often in those sports. I think the NFL scenario you described happens at least once a game in some form, and the announcers will generally talk about how the team took a “good” interference penalty to prevent a sure touchdown/big gain. (One might add holding to prevent a sack; first and 20 is generally better than second and 17.)
Most often, though, soccer fans talk about teams benefiting from players cheating and not being caught (see: diving, Neuer pretending the ball never crossed the goal line). That’s because tactical fouling almost never happens in soccer – in fact, I think Suarez found the one instance where a tactical foul actually does the team some good. This probably confuses soccer fans.
11 Is The Golden Boot David Villa’s To Lose? // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
[...] to it in the sport in question. He is neither an angel or a demon. Suarez was merely practicing the art of the tactical foul. We see it all the time with pass interferences to limit a big passing play or touchdown and the [...]
12 Chaz // Jul 9, 2010 at 1:32 am
Your analogy is faulty as far as Ed Reed grabbing Randy Moss’s jersey goes
…We football fans accept this type of penalty because there is no GUARENTEE that Moss would have caught the pass, stayed in bounds, etc…If he does manage to make the catch…the penalty is declined…moot
What Suarez did is almost EXACTLY like goaltending in basketball, although in basketball it is never clear whether a shot ball would have definitely gone through the hoop…
Goaltending is when a defender touches the ball on its way down towards the basket…
Suarez did something like … a basketball player who punches a ball that has gone partially through the hoop from underneath the hoop!!
…An amazing glitch in the laws of soccer, at least let that kind of penalty shot be taken without a goaltender…Truly unfair to poor Ghana…that goal was indeed “earned”…
13 Steve // Jul 11, 2010 at 6:24 am
It’s old news now but the thrust of the article seems to be that, since the rules of the game were applied correctly, Suarez was not cheating and justice was done.
Well, firstly, that just depends on your definition of cheating. If you break the law but get punished by being sent to jail, you’re still a criminal.
As to whether justice was done… the problem is that while the laws of the game were applied, the laws of the game are flawed. In an ideal world, the punishment for any infringement would be sufficient to discourage players from ever committing it.
Of course, in reality people do commit murder, even in countries which use the death penalty, and no punishment would stop someone in Suarez’s position because there’s always a chance he will get away with it altogether.
14 Varilla // Jul 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm
If Suárez cheated, any other foul or infraction is a cheat too. If a player is almost to score and he is tackled, it’s also a red card’s foul for the agressor for stops the rival’s goal… and it is a cheat?
Suarez did not cheat, he foules.