World Cup 2010

mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
crackerjack said:
I'd favour football's own Morality Police reviewing matches and dishing out retrospective punishments for playacting.
Click to expand...

That would be nice. I would also like refs to be wired up and any dissenting players to be given match bans and ordered to put £5000 into a swear box.

Some thoughts:

Degrees of cheating

1) doing something unethical that the laws of the game account for, knowing that one won't get away with it
2) doing something unethical that the laws of the game account for, knowing that one might get away with it
3) doing something unethical that the laws of the game account for, knowing that one will get away with it
4) doing something unethical that the laws of the game do not anticipate, knowing that one will be found out but cannot be punished
5) doing something unethical that the laws of the game do not anticipate, knowing that one will get away with it

Suarez' was a 1), which isn't as underhand as the others, but is still unethical.

A murder committed in full view of the police is not less immoral than one done privately. Knowing that one will be punished before committing the crime and still committing it does not absolve oneself of one's sins. Punishment cannot, in most cases, be said to redress one's crime.

The problem is that, whereas in everyday life, extra-legal punishment in the shape of societal judgement - the 'stain' on one's 'character' - might have a real, negative, bearing on the opportunities that one will be able to profit from in the future; in football, as cheating is usually not only selfishly beneficial but also beneficial to one's group, being seen to be intrinsically unethical is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if most of one's misdemeanours are types 2-5, it's a good thing.

Introducing a harsher punishment for a goal-line handball may not change outcomes at all. This is because the burden of proof would have to be correspondingly greater - the ref would have to feel more secure in the belief that a) a handball occurred and b) there would have been a goal if it had not had. As things stand, the less than certain probability of a penalty being scored allows the ref to act on weaker grounds. A rule change will also lead to greater post-match controversy as borderline claims that are currently acknowledged will have to be dismissed.

Current law: 100 justified claims lead to 90 satisfied claims (penalties) lead to 70 goals
Stricter law: 100 justified claims lead to 70 satisfied claims (goals)
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Also worth remembering ordinarily the offending team would be punished twice – first with the penalty, secondly with the red card. The latter was mostly irrelevant here cos it was the last kick, so it was only Suarez's penalty-taking that they missed. In arguing for greater punishment people are effectively demanding a sliding scale of sentencing with reduces the penalty for time served in the 'early bath'.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
don_quixote said:
cant see penalty goals without video evidence for corruption reasons.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah, the stakes are far too high. Automatic goal rules in other sports (like basketball's goal-tending rule) have been invoked, but scoring events in football are too rare and too important, I reckon.

I'm trying to think more about the idea of referee confidence-in-making-a-correct-decision levels and overall justice, in terms of probabilities, but am struggling somewhat for the moment. :confused:
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
don_quixote said:
so marion jones isn't a cheat because she got caught?
Click to expand...

mixed_biscuits said:
A murder committed in full view of the police is not less immoral than one done privately. Knowing that one will be punished before committing the crime and still committing it does not absolve oneself of one's sins. Punishment cannot, in most cases, be said to redress one's crime.
Click to expand...

putting aside the fact that it was premeditated, v. Suarez's spur of the moment, Marion Jones was trying to conceal what she was doing, which is the crucial difference. to continue the belabored murder analogy, you could say it was like manslaughter v. first-degree murder. yes, very few legal punishments actually redress the crime, if that was even their original intent in the first place, but we're not talking about justice (which, as you likely know, is in short supply in football), simply the letter of the law.

as to the argument that harsher penalties might not work - well, sure. that's a possibility with any change. the only way to see if it works, tho, is to try it out. if you don't want to do that, alright, but in that case don't complain when someone takes advantage of the rules as now written; you can't have it both ways. the idea that players should, of their own accord, honor silly rules when the incentives are overwhelmingly against them doing so, & when there's no guarantee that the competition will do so as well, is absurd. see: baseball & steroids, ca. late 1980s-middle 2000s, wherein the real villain was Major League Baseball, for refusing to step in & take charge.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
padraig (u.s.) said:
we're not talking about justice (which, as you likely know, is in short supply in football), simply the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

But the law is there in football solely to help bring about justice, where 'justice' means right play and, in the absence of right play, the right result; it just does it badly.

padraig (u.s.) said:
the idea that players should, of their own accord, honor silly rules when the incentives are overwhelmingly against them doing so, & when there's no guarantee that the competition will do so as well, is absurd.
Click to expand...

Another idea might be to remove the referee and have the players self-regulate during the match. Simulation, for instance, might meet with such public opprobrium (the public would feel compelled vociferously to register their displeasure) that divers would stop from shame. Also, the clubs themselves would feel directly responsible for the maintenance of their product - attractive, entertaining, ethical play - and would encourage their players to act well. With no referee to dole out compensation, consistently unethical teams would face great resentment and soon lose their sponsors.

padraig (u.s.) said:
don't complain when someone takes advantage of the rules as now written
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but public complaint serves a function: it can highlight the wrongness of behaviour that has fallen through the inevitably present legal and penal cracks, and thereby serve as a deterrent. If Suarez had been a non-South American player he may have been less inclined to handle the ball, either instinctively or not, being more likely than not to have once sympathised with widespread condemnation of Maradona's transgression in '86 and not wishing to face the same life-long finger-wagging*. Perhaps this is why John Terry instinctively made a seal dive rather than lead with his hands.

Of course, being South American, and football being an adversarial and collegiate pursuit, Maradona's foul instead had served as a positive example - which manager Tabarez invoked post-match, seemingly to garner approval!

*which foul Maradona may have attempted to atone for by developing the image of an unreflectively oppositional and defiant character who could not have been fairly expected to have acted ethically, just as hardarse defenders might welcome the 'el Loco' tag to distance themselves from the havoc that they create
 
Last edited:
hucks

hucks

Your Message Here
crackerjack said:
Anyone else notice the Sunday papers yesterday? The big scoop was conspicuous by its absence.
Click to expand...

And there had been denials in other papers all week. What was interesting about d_q's (OK not actually his but you know what I mean) original rumour post was that it was, at that point, set to come out on the day of the Germany game. But then it got delayed because of "an injunction". Then it got delayed by another "injunction", this time laughably linked to Capello's two week decision making period granted by the FA.

And so, the law of unintended consequences comes in. By pushing for an injunction against something that was true, John Terry has made sure that there is no way of disproving a rumour, because the lack of a scoop in the papers only points to the existence of an "injunction".
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
hucks said:
And so, the law of unintended consequences comes in. By pushing for an injunction against something that was true, John Terry has made sure that there is no way of disproving a rumour, because the lack of a scoop in the papers only points to the existence of an "injunction".
Click to expand...

Yup, despite the denials I must admit I thought there was some truth in it until I met a TV news editor at the weekend, who said he'd asked around and was positive there is no gagging order. But yes, it'lll be interesting to see how long it is before it dies
 
D

droid

Guest
I really don't buy this 'any player would have done the same' line at all. That's what they said about Henry.

Funny then that every match isn't replete with strikers handling the ball into the net and defenders handing it out. Its not an 'instinctive' reaction at all. In fact its drilled into players from day one never to use their hands. I only played casually until the age of 13 and even by then Id let the ball smack me in the face rather than give away a free by handling it.

Its certainly true that FIFA have a lot to answer for when it comes to rules and regulations but that doesn't absolve players of ethical responsibility.

Suarez is like a thief who stashed the cash and got caught. Out on bail soon to share the spoils with his mates while the people he robbed look on.
 
D

droid

Guest
And just to flog my favourite old horse again for a sec - I cant help but think that had we qualified there is a reasonable chance we would now be in Uruguay's position, possibly making it to the finals without having to face Germany, Italy, France, Brazil or Argentina - which is almost unheard of. :mad:
 
D

don_quixote

Trent End
oh droid, please, ireland failed to finish above italy in their qualifying group. italy, the world champions, who finished behind new zealand.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
droid said:
And just to flog my favourite old horse again for a sec - I cant help but think that had we qualified there is a reasonable chance we would now be in Uruguay's position, possibly making it to the finals without having to face Germany, Italy, France, Brazil or Argentina - which is almost unheard of. :mad:
Click to expand...

Uruguay played France in the first round.
 
D

droid

Guest
don_quixote said:
oh droid, please, ireland failed to finish above italy in their qualifying group. italy, the world champions, who finished behind new zealand.
Click to expand...

Hold on. Qualifying is not the same as a major tournament, if it was England should've made it to the quarter finals at least. As I pointed out earlier, we've never failed to make it out of the group in the tournaments we've been in.

Im not making any grand claims for the Irish squad, but unlike some teams we actually play way above our level at tournaments.

Its not inconceivable that we could have made top of the group if we'd taken Frances place - especially the way Uruguay played in their first match. After that, South Korea and Ghana certainly offered the easiest path to the semis, so again, its possible we might've made it, not withstanding that Holland would probably kick our asses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top