World Cup 2010: The Passion Of Luis Suarez

The Uruguay/Ghana match became the first instant classic of the 2010 World Cup. The drama was the stuff of TNT. But far from fiction, the events on the field have further opened the boiling abscess that is FIFA’s all too real problems with the game’s integrity. Decisive in the outcome was Luis Suarez’s goal line hand ball. An act as cynical and unsporting as I could ever contemplate; but alas, this is the world’s game.

Mr. Suarez, as quoted in the press, reveled in knocking the ball back with palms opened wide and arms outstretched, subtlety never having been his concern. He claimed kinship with Maradona and joked about playing in goal during training. Further, his head coach warned critics off calling him a cheat, lauding Mr. Suarez for having made the ultimate sacrifice for his teammates. The Passion of Luis Suarez? Only if malapropos ever found a living, breathing host.

Reaction among the media, punditry and fans has revealed, to this writer, an acceptance, if not approval, of this sort of behavior. FIFA, as the game’s governing body, must duly act. Clear and exacting rules ought to account for violations of the sanctity of sports competition.

For those who would defend, encourage or even applaud Mr. Suarez, two arguments are perpetuated most resolutely.

One: Mr. Suarez can not be called a cheat; he did what the rules called for him to do as anyone would have done similarly. Taken on aggregate this line of thinking is schizophrenic at best. Parsing through such mistaken logic one can rejoin that rules are in place to set the boundaries of fair and proper play, not, according to popular misconception, to be broken when opportune. (I also get the sense “cheat” is too dirty a word for many to countenance calling Mr. Suarez, because for them it would be equating him to pedophiles, Ponzi schemers and dog fighters… Please, let us all keep in mind this is a game after all. Debate and partisan hand wringing should be enjoyable adjuncts to what, all considered, is for our entertainment.)

Leafing through dictionary definitions I’ve found that to cheat is to “defeat someone through trickery or deceit,” and a cheat is “a deception for profit to yourself.” Quite prominently in both is the word deceit or deception, pertaining to dishonesty.

Tell me, what is more dishonest than a sure-goal ball denied by an outfield player who handles it at the goal line? The viewing public is to accept that the ball never crossed the line, never was a goal. But what of our eyes and minds? The ball was going in. That’s what’s true. That’s what’s real. A handball refuting that is a misrepresentation and a lie.

Two: The penalty kick chance, as the red card, was just punishment for Mr. Suarez and reward for Ghana. Corresponding arguments seek to call attention to timed fouls in basketball and pass interference in American football. Clear as a jewelry store viewing case is the principle at play. A foul in basketball that exchanges a field goal chance with a free throw chance is similar-for-similar if not exact like-for-like. A penalty for a sure goal is trading in the winnings for the lottery ticket.

As of this writing the NBA’s Shaquille O’Neal has a career 58% FG percentage versus a 52% FT percentage. Neither are sure things. Hacking Shaq to pieces towards the end of a ball game to up the level of difficulty of his scoring chance is tenable because no points are being taken off the board (as no points were stopped) and no points are being given (as no points were scored). Much the same in American football with a pass interference; a touchdown can not be assumed or guaranteed—too many variables from unsure hands to a slip and fall. But in the case of Mr. Suarez’s handball, the sure was replaced by the dubious.

Neutrals must keep in mind that whatever the sport, all contingencies cannot be foreseen. Rules are crafted with respect to a just resolution of what is anticipated. Like the awarding of free throws, the FIFA rule regarding awarding of penalty kicks after hand balls in the 18 yard box anticipates to resolve problems surrounding a chance for a goal, not a sure goal. (Basketball actually awards automatic points for interfering with a basket-bound shot. They’ve managed to craft the rule so that balls on a downward arc, or coming off the backboard towards the basket cannot be interfered with. Strict? Yes. But it serves to deny players the ability to cynically cheat an opponent of a point.) Mr. Suarez jumped through a Uruguay sized loophole in the rule to have his team reach the semifinals of the World Cup.

How could FIFA have possibly anticipated a deliberate hand ball (and an attempt at one by Jorge Fucile) at the goal’s mouth in injury time of the second half of extra time? Is a red card to the offender reducing his team to 10 men a just resolution? With no time left on the clock, there is no advantage for the aggrieved team. Is a penalty kick a just resolution? As illustrated, a goal for a chance at goal simply does not balance out. (Stats recording the conversion rate of penalty kicks range from 65% at the previous two World Cups, to 80-90% at all levels of competition.)

My entreaty to FIFA is now that the contingency can be anticipated, what remedies are to be employed, must be employed? Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, already conceded that goal line technology is something worth looking into after some botched goal (or no goal) calls. Mr. Blatter must also lead on this, the epitome of what is wrong with the world’s game.

After the game, on ESPN’s coverage, both Steve McManaman, the former Liverpool and Real Madrid winger and Roberto Martinez, the manager of Wigan Athletic, declared that there was nothing, in any way, wrong with what Mr. Suarez did.

Mr. Martinez said, “Those are the rules and the players need to play within the rules.” Sportsmanship has been usurped by gamesmanship. Diving, incessant play-acting and quibbles dominate competitive matches.

In their quarterfinal, the Netherlander strategy seemed to involve getting a Brazilian booked and sent off above taking control of the game with their play. Anyone recall Brazil’s own Rivaldo, in 2002, at the corner flag, holding his face in agony after a Turkish player petulantly, but innocuously, kicked a ball that hit Rivaldo’s THIGH? Or the odious second yellow card given to Kaka at this World Cup after an opposing Ivorian player ran into HIM, fell and held his mouth as if struck?

My solution to such chicanery would be a panel empowered to review conduct in games on the appeal of the participants. Teams would have 12 hours to appeal to the panel which would respond within 24 hours. A two thirds panel majority would be required to retroactively rescind and hand out yellow cards and bans for excessive simulation and other offenses within their reach.

The Suarez handball? Change the rule so that at or near the goal line a handball is an automatic goal. Short of that, ban the perpetrator for the remaining tournament, and if it is the final, ban him for the duration of the following international tournament.

Perhaps Mr. Suarez’s “sacrifice” will help redeem his sport.