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.
July 5, 2010
wc fan:
Ample punishment was provided by giving a penalty kick and also a red-card. How much more do you want to punish the team just because you felt offended? Uruguay was down to 10 men thus giving Ghana an advantage for the remainder of the game … tell me if this happens in Basketball or Baseball. Incorrect comparisons without giving much thought. Sorry dude, you are wrong.
July 5, 2010
rulebook:
While you’re reviewing the rules you might want to go over what constitutes a foul and what doesn’t. Tripping over the defenders foot is a foul. Tripping over ones own foot isn’t. The foul that started all this was a bad call from the referee. The Uruguayan player was about a meter away from the Ghanan and the ball. The Ghana player dived, that’s it.
The beauty of this is that the Uruguayan goalie doesn’t even touch the ball during the penalty shot. Gyan misses all by himself. A bit of poetic justice for trying to take advantage of an ill called foul.
July 6, 2010
cliff clven:
This rule you propose would be open to interpretation by refs; something I’m not in favor of. For example, let’s say that Suarez’ handball goes instinctively to his face. He’d instinctivly swat with his hands. This is way different than an outfielder throwing a glove at a homerun. Or let’s say he tries to stop a ball with this hands to his right or left and doesn’t see another teamate behind him who would have stopped it with this body. I’d hate to have refs argue that that would not have been a goal hence no automatic points.
July 6, 2010
Kyle Jahner:
WC Fan: You are wrong on this one. Ample punishment? They won the game BECAUSE Suarez broke the rule; they would have lost if he didn’t. Period. If you think a sport’s rules should incentivize a player to cheat, we have differing definitions of the purpose of rules.
What’s wrong with giving a goal in that very specific situation? (Only on a hand ball preventing what was absolutely, 100 percent going to be a goal).
Who cares about playing down a man? They were a couple minutes from a shootout! Who cares about suspension? They were going to be eliminated from the tournament with that goal. Suarez prevented a goal, one that would have been fully one-third of the scoring in the entire 120 minutes of play, by willfully breaking a rule. And his team was rewarded with a chance to win a game they otherwise shouldn’t have. The punishment turned an absolute game-winning goal into a penalty shot, and did nothing more to help Ghana.
Calling that play a goal has no victim. It should have absolutely been a deserved goal. Anyone who says otherwise is a crazy person.
Rugby awards penalty tries for fouls the ref deems prevented tries, or for repeated penalties by the defense on the goal line. The aforementioned baseball example of a player throwing his glove at a homer is another valid example. There is nothing wrong or difficult to enforce about awarding a goal that everyone saw would have gone in if not for a deliberate hand-ball.
July 6, 2010
Andrew Jones:
WC Fan - If the rule were changed and the goal allowed, I would not seek further punishment that the allowed goal. No red card, no man down.
Cliff - It is true, the rule would likely be open to interpretation on some levels (a player behind perhaps stopping the ball being one of them) but I don’t think it needs to be a pre-meditated only rule. All the refs need to decide is whether it was accidental, coincidental hand contact or not and that seems far easier than determining a players’ brain function before using his/her hands.
Kyle - thanks for the support and the Rugby info. I did not know that about Rugby.
July 6, 2010
Kyle Jahner:
Cliff: How is this level of ref discression different from every call/no-call a ref makes in the box?
As was pointed out earlier, a dive was almost rewarded with a game-winning goal; is that any better than the risk that a ref mis-applies this rule? The ref already makes the judgement call of whether the hand ball was intentional (See: the red card) and I haven’t seen that misapplied yet. Meanwhile you see missed handballs and fouls in the box that should lead to penalty shots, and dives that shouldn’t; all alter the outcomes of games. This would be an easier call to make more often than not. And it is certainly worth the risk not to have a team lose a quarterfinal with a handcuffed ref because the rules incentivize cheating in that situation.
July 6, 2010
prior handball:
Let us recall the game with Australia. Ghana gets a penalty shot after an Aussie player handballs just like Suarez (albeit a bit more discrete). Ghana scores the goal and Australia plays with one man less for the rest of the game. Yet Ghana never scores again against a 10 man team. So:
a) Why is everyone complaining about this now and not then? and why change the rules now for Suarez and not then?
b) In the game against Serbia, Ghana was also given a penalty kick for a handball. In this case it was not a direct shot to the goal but rather a handball in the penalty area. Serbia could argue that a very uncertain goal was converted into a certain goal. The ball was moving from one sideline to the other, moving away from the goal and it happen in the penalty area just a few meters from the corner of the goal area. In other words there was no way that ball would go into the goal short of a black hole forming on the net all of a sudden.
July 6, 2010
Change the Rule:
Very good article! What a lot of people do not get is that this situation is now beyond Ghana and Uruguay. This discussion is mainly about the future of the game. What Luis Suarez did followed by the loss of Ghana, opened the eyes and exposed a major hole in the game. I really hope FIFA will take this situation seriously. Now that Suarez did such act in such a big tournament, he simply opened the eyes of a lot of players around the world whom are willing to act the same way from now on. And I believe that if FIFA does not react fast enough, we will most likely see the same situation repeated over and over again because most players now are aware of a big hole in the game that could be taken advantage of. I would not be surprised if in similar situations, I would see a few players standing behind their goal keeper just in case.
July 6, 2010
Metti:
I am really angry with what that little money,Suarez did.Although i have to admit that the situation was hyped up than other handball scenarios because it was a crucial match for both team.I mean it has been 40 years since Uruguay made it this far and as for Ghana it was the only African team left and it actually had a chance of reaching to the semi finals.Which has never been done by any African team.It was a very disappointing outcome.I can still see images of Gyan crying and that idiot monkey Suarez,his face brightening up after he realized Ghana’s penalty miss.Anyway i hope this will open eyes to the officials and the world.This world cup has been very unfair.So much for the banners that state free and fair play.!I mean Tevez goal was offside,England denied a goal and the most heart breaking of all was Suarez’s handball!I think fifa should review their rules and make some major adjustments.I believe that a penalty should only be given when there is no way of knowing whether it was going to be a goal or not and in this case if that suarez shit didn’t touch the ball with his hands it was definitely a goal.There is no question about that.Ghana should have been awarded the goal!
July 6, 2010
Luke Broadbent:
I’m not going to call Suarez a cheat because that’s not the business I’m in and nor do I believe it to be applicable.
The definition of cheat is “To violate rules deliberately.” The definition fo deliberately is “Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional.”
The key words are consciousness and intentional. I defy anyone to stand on that goal line and not do what Suarez did. I know I would, but not because I wanted to cheat, but because it would be a instinctive natural reaction when its the only way you’re stopping the ball. It’s like Thierry Henry’s handball. The first time he touched it was instinctive the second time was deliberate cheating.
Was the ball going to go in? Probably. I would say it’s nearly certain that is was going to. I say nearly because until the ball has crossed the line I don’t truly know that a goal has been scored. Time and space are strange things and a lot of things are visable. I don’t want to see a goal given when a goal hasn’t been scored, regardless of what other sports do.
Secondly, let’s say a player goes round the goalkeeper and is pulled down from behind by a defender. The defender is sent off for denying a goalscoring opportunity and a penalty is given. The attacker had an open goal and would more than likely have put the ball in the net. Should a goal be awarded for that, like it would be in rugby? I would hope not, especially since the player hasn’t even shot.
A lot of people seemed annoyed that Suarez celebrated after the penlty miss as well. To those people, I say grow up, you would, once again, probably have done the same thing.
Also, whilst we are in the relams of “cheating” then we need look no further than Ghana. They kicked Dempsey off the park in the second round. That seemed like a clear tactic and all credit to them, but very few pundits mentioned that because they were unbelievably biased towards the sole African representative.