Comments on: Who Says Crime Doesn’t Pay?

By: The Shouting/ A Look Back At The Tournament That Was | World Football Columns

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:43:23 +0000

[...] FIFA’s refusal to grow with the times and patch up the shabby officiating and the holes in the rule book. None of the officiating errors were the ultimate cause in any nation’s exit but who is to [...]

By: mpalazzotto

mpalazzotto — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:11:20 +0000

First, being North American, I am permitted (or at least have the audacity) to root for more than one club. In fancying both Toon and United, I find that your question poses something of a moral dilemma. Therefore, this answer will probably sound more like a cop out than it is.

I don't see how you can deal with such a situation any more equitably than the way it was handled at the time. The ref shoots down Ole-Gunnar (who until I read this, seemed a fairly likable guy) and gives Newcastle a free kick.

Yes, United have time to get men back and form a wall but the aggrieved Magpies also have the option of throwing men forward. No advantage is gained or lost there, although the resumed play is of a different nature than the one interrupted. In the end, Rob Lee (or a teammate, adv. Newcastle) get to take a free kick from a dangerous spot, with an unencumbered chance to score.

You may argue that Lee might have gone all the way to goal and beaten the keeper (Schmeicel?) to put the Geordies level but, then again, he may not have. He might have shot around or over the goalie, missing the net, he might have offered a last, heavy touch that the keeper, coming off his line, was able to smother, he may have shot directly at the netminder and had the ball saved or he may have even tripped over his own feet, in his enthusiasm.

All of those possibilities negate doing anything but giving the ball to the offended party at the spot of the foul with sufficient space around the ball to ensure that options are available and, at least, some of the advantage lost is regained. Granting a penalty for an offence committed so far from goal is not a fair punishment in light of all the variables that could have occurred had it not happened.

Remember, too, that from that point on, Newcastle were playing with a manpower advantage. You didnt say at the death, like in the Ghana match, so I'm assuming Toon had some time in which to work.

I only recommend giving a goal when the ball is diverted, in a nefarious manner, from what otherwise would have been a certain journey across the goal line.

By: geoffedwards

geoffedwards — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:06:32 +0000

Martin, I like your proposal. If it were up to me I would give the goal and the player gets a yellow card, thus avoiding a double punishment.

I found Ben's point about a deliberate foul interesting also. I remember a match back in 1998 between Newcastle and Man Utd. Utd were chasing the title at the time and I think were 1-0 up in the dying stages of the game. Then, Newcastle's Rob Lee breaks clear on the counter and gets to about 20-25 yards out. Up comes Ole Solskjaer and deliberately scythes him down with absolutely no intention of getting the ball. He started walking off before the ref showed the red card and was congratulated by fans and team mates as some kind of hero.

Newcastle only got a free-kick out of it. Utd got all the men back and formed a wall etc. Hardly a fair reward. What would be your take on dealing with that?

By: mpalazzotto

mpalazzotto — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:26:03 +0000

Do I smell the taint of sarcasm in this comment, or am I just being paranoid?

By: mpalazzotto

mpalazzotto — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:17:45 +0000

Hi Ben,

Its nice to see you're keeping tabs on us from the dizzying heights of Huffpo!

In answer to your question of where to draw the line between an allowed goal and a penalty, I would make a small amendment to my original wording, so that it reads thus:

If a defending position player, located on or near the goal line, deliberately uses his hand to stop **a ball,** which would otherwise be a certain goal, the offender should be shown a straight red card and the goal should be allowed.

For a goal to be allowed, as the rules now stand, the entirety of the ball must completely cross the line. If that single action were changed by a handled ball, it is my opinion the goal should be awarded.

In your example, however, more than one action is required. The aggrieved player has yet to act on the ball. He must kick, head or otherwise legally direct the ball towards goal before the ball can cross the line. There is the possibility that he could fail to do this in some fashion. Under pressure, he might sky the ball, hit the post or miss the ball entirely. As long as those possibilities exist, only a penalty should be awarded.

If it is the ball, in its certain path goalward, that is interfered with illegally, however, then the goal should be awarded, as no other possibility but the violation would have stopped it.

Does that suffice?

By: @Rubicon2008

@Rubicon2008 — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:00:15 +0000

I can't agree more! It seems (IS) so unfair that Suarez, who is known for tripping over grass when in the vicinity of an adversary, wins the game thanks to FOUL PLAY.
And FIFA is too much a greedy organization to actually enforce FAIR PLAY. They rather arrest beautiful ladies in orange than use technology to enforce the rules of the game. I vote for a large boycott of FIFA/IFAB/UEFA regulated football events!

By: Ben Cohen

Ben Cohen — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 04:48:06 +0000

Excellent piece, Martin. I sympathize with the key principle here: a ball that is clearly goalbound which is then prevented from crossing the line by a handball should count as a goal. But what about other illegal acts? If, say, a player who is about to tap the ball into an open goal is suddenly brought down by a foul before he makes contact with the ball, would that count as a goal or does the ref give a penalty? My concern here is that there could be situations that are not as obvious as the Ghana-Uruguay match, where the ref has to determine whether to award a goal or a penalty – and that, in turn, could lead to all sorts of contested decisions.

We know that there will always be players who cheat – and rules are designed to minimize the scope for cheating. So how would you codify a rule which essentially allows refs to award goals if certain conditions are met? I'm not expert enough to offer a formula, but other readers might be more qualified to do so.