Monday, July 5, 2010
Luis Suarez’s World Cup Handball
The quarterfinal World Cup match between Ghana and Uruguay was one of the most exciting, yet frustrating soccer matches, nay, sporting event of any kind, I have ever seen.
After 90 minutes, the score was tied 1-1. Toward the end of the 30 minutes of extra time, truly with seconds left before a shootout would begin, with the score still tied at 1-1, Ghana was threatening.
Uruguay's goaltender got out of position and Uruguay forward Luis Suarez found himself as the last line of defense as a ball was flying just out of the reach of his head or feet and so Suarez committed a foul, handball. He reached out and swatted the ball away denying a goal that would have surely gone in had he not intervened illegally.
Suarez was rightly awarded an immediate red card and went to the sidelines in tears. Ghana forward Asamoah Gyan failed to connect on the ensuing penalty kick, hitting the crossbar. Extra time expired and despite Gyan's courage to take the first shootout attempt for Ghana and succeed this time, Ghana lost the shootout 4-2 and Uruguay advanced to the semifinals to meet the Netherlands.
As I watched this unfold, I could not help but think it to be completely unfair. I have no loyalty to either team. I have no grudge against either team. My only bias being I truly would have liked to see an African team in the semifinal and Ghana was the only hope once the round of 16 had begun.
I will admit I did not know the rules at the time. I honestly thought the goal would simply be awarded, seeing as the ball would have gone in without the foul occurring and initially was yelling at my TV whenever Suarez's melodramatic face appeared, cursing him for being a cheater.
As I've looked more thoroughly at the rules and the specific situation Suarez was in, I have come to a few conclusions:
1. Though it greatly pains me to say it, as the rules are written, Suarez did the right thing. However vile, however despicable it may seem to anybody, he did the right thing to give his team a chance to win the game.
2. According to the rules, the refs did the right thing. That is one thing I truly take comfort in. As poor as the refs have been this World Cup, they got this one right.
3. After receiving the red card, Suarez was disqualified from playing in the next match. FIFA met to decide how long his suspension should be and I do believe the one-game suspension he received is the right amount. The only reason I would consider a two-game suspension is honestly for the player's own safety. I don't think Ghana fans will be a problem, but if this had happened to eliminate South Africa, I would be a touch worried about Suarez even being in the country. Not because South Africa's fans are bad people or worse than Ghana's fans, but simply because there would be too many people upset and the more people there are, the more likely somebody will do something stupid and somebody will get hurt.
Most importantly, the issue of a deliberate handball in the goal area preventing a certain goal needs to be reevaluated by FIFA.
Many people have been trying to compare this incident to other sports scenarios and I believe that is beneficial to understanding what exactly happened and what the repercussions should be.
According to the rulebook, handball, no matter where on the field and no matter if it is incidental, accidental, deliberate, intentional, reactionary, or any other adjective you can use, is considered a "foul." When a foul is committed, the team, the individual, or both are punished with a penalty.
In the NFL, the closest foul is defensive pass interference in the end zone. In that situation, the touchdown is not awarded. The ball is placed on the one-yard line with an automatic first down, giving the offense a good chance to score. All in all this is very similar to Suarez's situation. The only difference I can find is that defensive pass interference in the end zone denies a potential touchdown, not a touchdown that was a foregone conclusion. This goal was a foregone conclusion.
In basketball, the closest foul would be an intentional foul on somebody about to score an easy basket. In this case, if an intentional foul is called, or a flagrant foul as it is known in the NBA, the player who was fouled gets two free-throws and his/her team gets the ball back, allowing for the possibility of between zero and six points to be scored in that possession (barring another similar foul). Again, just like defensive pass interference in the end zone, the basket is not a foregone conclusion. It is perhaps more likely than the potential touchdown, but layups are not a guarantee.
So the question becomes: was this illegal act a foul or was it something else? I believe FIFA needs to consider reevaluating this infraction and potentially calling it "goal interference" and interference in other sports can result in points awarded.
Despite the name, defensive pass interference is not interference in the same way as other examples. It is essentially the job of cornerbacks and safeties and everybody on defense to interfere with what the offense is trying to accomplish. It is a foul for interfering with a player.
The closest true example of interference in the NFL is if a player comes from the sidelines to interfere with the play. If the result of the play would have been a touchdown, as subjectively decided by the referees, the offense is awarded a touchdown. The difference between this form of interference and what Suarez did is that Suarez belonged on the field. He did not come from the sidelines to interfere. He was a legal player.
In basketball, goaltending is the obvious comparison. If a defensive player interferes or blocks a shot after it has reached its highest point or when it is in the cylinder, the due points are awarded to the offense. The biggest difference here is that when this happens in basketball, it is simply because the defensive player is trying to make a good, legal play and they are simply a bit late in doing so.
Suarez was not trying to make a good, legal play. The play he made was knowingly illegal and there is no way that what he was trying to make a legal play, therefore a penalty was assessed. Also, goaltending in basketball does not come with nearly the amount of drama. There are no suspensions and usually there is very little complaining, mainly because the points awarded are 2% of the team's total instead of 50-100%.
But I believe that for the closest example of illegal interference we have to look at Major League Baseball. In MLB, if a player throws his glove at a ball and prevents the ball from being a home run when it is (subjectively decided by the umpires) going to be a home run, a home run is automatically rewarded.
To me, the situations are identical. The result is a foregone conclusion. The item in use, a glove or a player's hands, are illegal to use for such a purpose and the item prevents a point from being scored.
The punishment should be the same: a point awarded.
Yes, the act of throwing a glove at a home run ball is absolutely premeditated and would never be accidental, but whether thought went into it or not, what Suarez did was still intentional. It was done for the purpose of blocking that kick.
Imagine if the baseball rule were different. Imagine Denard Span of the Minnesota Twins throwing his glove up to prevent a Miguel Cabrera home run and instead of the home run being awarded, the umpire gives Cabrera a ball and he is allowed to toss it up to himself and swing for the fences. That's what the current FIFA rule is like and it sounds ridiculous when you put it into a different context.
What Suarez did, based on the rules in place, was a smart play. Even if Ghana had converted on the initial penalty kick, it would have been a smart play, giving Uruguay a chance to win.
The problem people should have is not with Suarez. He simply took advantage of the way the rules are written and that is in a way commendable.
The problem people should have is not with the referees or FIFA's disciplinary decision makers. They interpreted the rules correctly. The problem people should have is with the rule itself and a change should be considered.