So . . . semi-final matches in the World Cup begin today, and there is a whole lotta controversy over Uruguay's path to this point. In the waning seconds of the Uruguay's quarterfinal match against Ghana with the score tied 1-1, Luis Suarez (of Uruguay, despite his typically Ghanaian name) used his hand to block a shot that was clearly headed into the net. This would have been fine, but Suarez is not the goalkeeper and therefore not allowed to use his hands. Ghana missed the penalty kick they were awarded, and then lost the game on free kicks. As for Suarez, he was immediately ejected from the game for his infraction plus banned from the next game (which is today's game).
(As an aside about today's game, given the back story to Uruguay's presence, there should be a good show of retrospective storytelling going on. If Uruguay loses, then the commentators will all say how it was bad karma and they reaped what they sowed. If Uruguay wins, then the stories will be about how they took that negative attention and channeled it into a win. What's interesting to me about this is that both of these explanations are antecedents to the outcome of the game, yet we don't know what led to the outcome until after. Which means that the explanations are worthless.)
The furor over this situation is that Ghana would have almost certainly won the game had Suarez not used his hands. Therefore there have been calls upon FIFA to mete out some greater punishment than they have, and to somehow right this wrong. Suarez has been called a cheater and a poor sportsman. He admits to having intentionally broken the rules to win the game (though his coach said that what he did was instinctual, not intentional - somehow, I think Suarez knows better in this case).
While what Suarez did defines poor sportsmanship, I hesitate to call him a cheater. To my mind, there are two parts to any rule - the rule itself, and the punishment for breaking it. If the punishment is an insufficient incentive to produce the desired behaviour, the rule or the consequence needs to be changed. If Suarez had not blocked the goal, Uruguay would have lost and their tournament would have been over. There is no incentive for him to let the goal go past. If he blocks it, the probability of them advancing is infinitely higher (given that it is zero if the goal counts), and all that is lost is he is ejected (from a game that is nearly over) and banned for one game (that they wouldn't be playing if he didn't break the rules). The benefits far outweigh the costs in this scenario. To set up rules like this is to make a law such that if you steal $100, you get to keep it but are fined $50.
For this reason, the consequences for rule-breaking have to far outweigh the costs. For example, in the NBA, if you flagrantly foul (attack the player and not the ball) a player who has a clear path to the basket (often done during the playoffs to prevent sure points), the player gets two free throws plus his team retains possession. So breaking the rule to prevent two certain points gives the opposing team the opportunity to score four points (though these will be uncertain) plus the possibility of further punishment (it may lead to the ejection and/or suspension for the fouling player, depending on circumstances). Continuing the above example, this would be equivalent to an uncertain fine of $0 to $300 for stealing $100 - might be worth the risk, but on the whole, probably unprofitable.
In the case of the World Cup, a suitable response (should FIFA actually want behaviours like this to stop), would be to create some sort of inevitability rule; if a ball was inevitably going to go in and a non-goalkeeper blocks it with his hands, the goal counts and there is a penalty kick. Now no one will do this (unless they think the official will not see the handball) because the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course, this raises a host of other problems, such as placing judgment calls in the hands of (what have been proven to be) incompetent referees.
In my estimation, Uruguay didn't cheat, because they broke the rule fully intending to accept the punishment. If the rule itself is broken, fix it, but don't blame a player for taking advantage of the existing system. In fact, Suarez probably would have been vilified (at least by his fans) if he hadn't lent a hand to his team.
No comments:
Post a Comment