We take an anecdotal ride into one of football’s murkiest matters today: diving and fair play. Does it exist at all, or is it part hope part idealism?
Marcus Rashford can do no wrong. He has probably been the only ray of sunshine in the post-apocalyptic landscape that Man United fans skulk in. He can do it all – dribble like Giggs, pass the odd raking cross-field Scholesesque ball, strike a free-kick like Beckham, wind up the annoying opponent like Gary ‘Red Nev’ Neville. And as if all this was not enough, he seems to have learnt how to dive like Ronaldo too.
When young Marcus took that opportune tumble against Swansea, United fans were no doubt relieved. Swansea were clearly the better side and deserved to take back all three points from Old Trafford. Yet, Rashford’s impression of a flying fish did the trick for United and it was left to Swansea’s Icelandic Messi (that’s Sigurdsson – for people who don’t give a shit about Swansea) to come up with the goods once again.
Robbie Savage came up with an innovative thought by distinguishing between ‘cheating’ and ‘professionalism’. According to Mr. Savage, going down without any contact is ‘cheating’ – so not British, not quite the straight bat and so on and so forth. Going down after being touched, albeit while you were on your way down, is ‘professionalism’ – permitted in the most British of bulldogs, thank you very much. By this bizarre logic, when Lucas Leiva threw himself to the ground against Watford without being touched, he was cheating. When young Marcus did it, he initiated contact by almost falling onto Fabianski’s gloves – that’s kosher. Ignoring the mildly xenophobic angle to Mr. Savage’s verdict, it would be worth our collective whiles to look at some other aspects of this dubious practice of ‘conning the ref’.
It isn’t just penalties or red cards, players try and con the ref even for measly throw-ins and cheap free-kicks on the halfway line. It’s almost as if every footballer is taught at his mother’s knee – hoodwink the referee: not everyone can perform crazy roulettes or score solo goals or thump them in from halfway, but any mediocre idiot can appeal for a throw-in when it has clearly gone out of play off said idiot’s shin. To be fair, there are a few exceptions. Miroslav Klose springs to mind. For the benefit of those luddites not aware of the incident: this paragon of virtue from Poland requested the referee to rescind his goal because it came of his hand. The referee had missed it.
Apart from a few such incidents that give you warm fuzzy feelings (like watching cat videos and Buzzfeed posts titled ‘What Happened Next Will Blow Your Mind’), the rest of the exhibits are full of low cunning that would do Jim Moriarty proud.
I would like to point cricket as a point of reference for our conniving footballers. Forget cheating, but even gamesmanship (which is gent-speak for low tactics like time-wasting which may not be illegal, strictly speaking) is frowned upon. The sport suffers from a heavy bout of idealism and hope. Players, rarely, if ever, attempt to throw dust in the ageing eyes of pot-bellied umpires. Outfielders will honestly signal fours or sixes to the umpire. Batsmen will honestly ‘walk’ if there has been a faint nick carrying to the keeper. Eyebrows are raised whenever a cricketer decides to stretch the rules. Irrespective of the status of cricket today, the moniker of “gentleman’s game” refuses to unglue itself. All in all, cricket seems to the complete anti-thesis of football in this respect. Is it because cricketers are inherently good, moral, honest, upright people? I prefer the other, more cynical explanation – that there is a third umpire with access to video technology who can check each decision on the spot and revert to the on-field specimen. I hear video refs are going to be introduced to the La Liga or some such league next term. Will that bring about a change in the long term?
So far we’ve been talking about instances where the referee has been conned and one team has undeservedly gained a degree of advantage without facing penal consequences. There is another aspect that isn’t entirely unrelated. I don’t know what to call it. It’s a noble sort of cheating. We can call them the Sidney Carton cheaters (Sid Carton is the noble anti-sort-of-hero of a Tale of Two Cities – don’t blame me for not having a cultured upbringing). The Sid Carton cheater does an illegal thing, gets his just deserts, and yet his band of merry colleagues find or could find themselves benefited. The professional foul is a textbook example. Of course, not all professional foulers are Sidney Cartons, some may be plain lazy or incompetent.
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer falls into the classic noble variety. Sample this. In the 97-98 season, United were slugging it out with Arsenal for 5th place…wait that’s today, it was for the top spot back then. United had recently lost to the Londoners and needed a win against Newcastle to stay in the hunt. The scores were tied at 1-1 when Beckham launched one into the Newcastle penalty area. It was cleared away and suddenly Rob Lee was away bearing down on all by his lonesome self on the United goal. Ole, who happened to be nearest, sprinted back like a maniac and cut Rob Lee down. Straight red! As David Beckham jogged back to commiserate, Ole can be observed (by those versed in the arcane art of lip reading) to be saying “I had to do it”. Old Trafford gave a standing ovation to the Norwegian on the way out. That’s how you get sent off, Marouane! The sequel was not pleasant for United fans. Arsenal went on to win the title that year.
But, what if? Let’s try a spot of alternate history (like Robert Harris does – author of Fatherland – don’t bother googling it, you barbarians). What if Beckham had managed to score at the very end in that Newcastle game making the score 2-1? And what if this result had propelled United to a title victory? Suddenly, that professional foul cannot be taken too lightly can it? There’s no remedy to this. Solskjaer duly received a three-match suspension in addition to his sending off. Is it unprofessional at some level? Immoral somehow? How can I say such things about sweet Ole? Hear me out, though.
The essence of sportsmanship or fair play has to be that the best team should win in any engagement. In the Sidney Carton variety of skulduggery, the player gains an advantage for his team despite being not as skilled as his opponent. Consider another example. The classic Hand of God. Diego Maradona seems to be worthy of the opprobrium thrown his way. He won a very obvious advantage for his team. England may have even won but for his hand. This case sounds open and shut. Another Hand of God case is that of Luis Suarez against Ghana in the 2010 World Cup (do South Americans have a different variety of football over there that use of the hand when in trouble – like a get out of jail card?). With the scores tied at 1-1 towards the end of extra-time, Suarez used his hand to block a goal-bound ball. Clear penalty and straight red – duly dished out. Here comes the twist though. Gyan missed his penalty, the game proceeded to penalty shoot-outs where Ghana crashed out. Now, Suarez did receive the punishment prescribed for his crime. Yet, his crime benefited his team. Can one argue that he denied victory to the better team? Since the shot was goal-bound, Ghana would have won, had Suarez not infringed the law. Or can one counter-argue by saying that if Ghana missed that penalty, they deserved to lose?
On the whole, the Sidney Carton variety seems to be a dicey one. They have taken one for the team so to speak and yet they have disrupted the meritocracy that should prevail in the world of football.
Before I go back to the real world where no one listens to my views for more than 10 seconds, I must talk about Joey Barton and the professional foul that might have been. Very recently, Joey Barton (with his pants on this time) managed to muddle himself up and allowed Anthony Martial to escape with the ball. This resulted in a lightening quick break by United culminating in a superb finish by the Frenchman himself. United fans were left wondering if somehow they got transported back to the Ferguson era when such goals barely raised an eyebrow. In all this, Joey was left to huff and puff in Martial’s wake. During the post-match analysis, the pundits suggested that Barton was culpable of not fouling Martial when he had the chance. If he would’ve fouled the Frenchman, a truly wonderful goal would have been lost to posterity. If he would’ve fouled, he would’ve been punished with yellow – since he was by no means the last man and it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity by then. United would’ve drawn another game and life would’ve gone on. Only, doesn’t it seem fair, does it?
Have I raised irrelevant issues? Am I just another bitter Spurs fan? Feel free to troll me and let me know.
