Yeah, you know - I get why he did it, although it was still a bullshit move. And if he’d just admitted it and accepted punishment quietly and moved on…fine, whatev. But to be all smug and gloaty about it is really distasteful and just makes him look like a jackass in addition to being a rule-breaking dodo.

Not encouraging at all.  He should have been banned for the final/third place game as well, at the very least.

What they should really do is change the rule so that a purposeful handball in the goal area by the defensive team results in an automatic goal.  “Unacceptable and unfair intervention” should never be the smart move.

All the indignation around Suarez befuddles me. He used the rules to his advantage and was smart to do so. Any player would have done the exact same thing in his situation. As jlk7e said, the only way FIFA works around this is to give an automatic goal for handballs on the line. As long as the rules give future Suarezes an advantage, this will happen again.

Except the rules don’t give that team an advantage. They lose a player and in most cases a goal anyway. If Gyan had simply dispatched the penalty no one would be talking about this but after his failure to do so, Ghana can hardly complain. They had their (dubious, considering the build up) chance and blew it. Case closed. Suarez meanwhile is missing the biggest game of his life. Sure he’s being an arsehole about it but that’s not a reason to change a rule that works perfectly well as it is.

“Suarez meanwhile is missing the biggest game of his life. Sure he’s being an arsehole about it but that’s not a reason to change a rule that works perfectly well as it is.”

Well said.  If you take a foul in the box to stop a goal, it should be red every time.  Beyond that, hey, taking a foul in the box is how you make them prove it at the spot.  It’s the ultimate unselfish act.  Your team has a chance to live on, as you die.  What more can you ask for from a player?

Sportsmanship means different things at different levels.

Beyond that, hey, taking a foul in the box is how you make them prove it at the spot.

So just to make sure I track this logic - a team that would have scored a goal in the run of play were it not for unacceptable and unfair intervention (FIFA’s words, I beat a dead horse in reminding you, not mine), should be made to “prove it at the spot”?

They had their (dubious, considering the build up) chance and blew it.

I need a lot of explanation of this sentence before I sign off. Are you calling the penalty dubious? Are you suggesting the onslaught at goal in the lead-up to that was a fluke?

Sure he’s being an arsehole about it but that’s not a reason to change a rule that works perfectly well as it is.

The rule says a player may be suspended on review for more than one match. I have seen players suspended for three+ matches for a hell of a lot less than what Suarez did. If you’re not going to agree that the rule should be changed, fine, but Suarez got off lightly in relation to the magnitude of the crime.

Fair or not, the last thing FIFA wants to do is look bad now.

This is the equivalent of refs ‘swallowing the whistle’ in the last quarter/period of play. The only way they ban people from the final game of the World Cup is the unavoidable red card points bans or if something like this happens in the semi-final games.

How often does this sort of thing happen anyway?

How often does this sort of thing happen anyway?

More in the future. I guarantee it.

Do you honestly believe this was the first time any player had ever considered doing this?

It’s almost a given on a breakaway in hockey that the defense will likely pull the attacker down from behind. And the NHL doesn’t even kick people out of the game for it. Hell, I’ve seen players win the game by hand-passing the puck into the net and get away with it even with replay officials.

I think you’re over-reacting a tad.

“So just to make sure I track this logic - a team that would have scored a goal in the run of play were it not for unacceptable and unfair intervention (FIFA’s words, I beat a dead horse in reminding you, not mine), should be made to “prove it at the spot”?”

Is there logic to track?  Yes,

Do you honestly believe this was the first time any player had ever considered doing this?

Soccer is a game that relies on the honor system. But starting almost since the day I first became a fan, there have been areas where confidence in that has broken down. The first was the addition of the fourth official: His role is fairly extensive, but the most-cited reason at the time was that managers were concerned about the referee’s timekeeping.

Other changes have also related to the ability or lack thereof of match participants to remain “honest”: Not allowing the goalie to pick up the ball when played back by a teammate, the addition of the tactical area, “automatic” cards for simulation, the requirement that players stand at least 2 meters from a player throwing the ball in, and most recently the power of the referee to stop a match if a player is injured and the other team refuses to stop the match by kicking the ball into touch - all of these changes were taken in response to an increasing trend of players (or coaches) “getting over” on the referee by exploiting a loophole (or a leniency) in the laws.

All I’m saying is, Suarez just proved on a huge stage that, as the laws are written, you’d have to be an idiot not to act as a second goalkeeper, just as players before him proved that you’d have to be an idiot not to pretend to be injured or you’d have to be an idiot not to hold onto the ball for a minute before kicking it back into play. There’s no reason, based on history, to believe it will not lead to more occurrences. If it doesn’t, great. I’ll be pleased to be wrong.

edited slightly for clarity

Soccer is a game that relies on the honor system.

Seriously? The only sport I can think of that uses the “honor system” to enforce its rules with any rigor is golf, and as an individual sport it’s a lot easier to do so (less peer pressure to lie, larger sense of individual honor). The other sports - including most forms of football - rely on officials to enforce a specific set of rules and mete out punishments. No one, in any sport, fails to break the rules when doing so gains them or their team a net advantage.

We go over this with diving quite often. Players who dive may be dishonest hacks, but they’re smart dishonest hacks and most players will dive in order to get a whistle. Hell, even Jozy Altidore pulled off an impressive dive in the Ghana game. In fact, even if diving earns a three-game suspension and a fine, people will dive because a good dive can win a game, salvage a much-needed tie, or send off a key player (see: Ronaldo’s dive against Rooney in ‘06). The only way to stop diving is to stop giving rewards like free kicks, cards, and penalties for diving, and that means adding at least one more official.

Let’s look at another case from this year’s Cup. When Lampard scored his ghost goal against Germany, perhaps a keeper operating on an “honor system” would have tossed the ball to the official and said it crossed the line. But no one expected Neuer to do that, or berated him for not doing that. Why? Because it’s the official’s job to enforce the rules, not Neuer’s. Neuer’s job is to help his team win, and if a ball crosses the goal line and bounces back to him, he’s going to try his damnedest to sell it. Indeed, I think Neuer’s actions are more questionable than Suarez’, since he helped his team get away with a bad decision by the ref a la Henry. Suarez, by contrast, knew the punishment and took it to help his team. Instead of trying to pretend the rule wasn’t broken (like Henry) or that there wasn’t a goal (like Neuer), he did what he did, took the punishment for doing so, and it turned out well.

Players are rational actors and will do what benefits the team. If that means batting a ball down at the goal and sitting in the next game to help your team get to a next game, so be it. The only way around it is to change the rules. And Dave has a take worth reading on that, especially for NFL fans.

Well, maybe it would have been fairer for me to say “Soccer is a game that has historically relied upon the honor system, and every time that is abused, rules get changed.” To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. No, not every rule is enforced via the honor code (and, btw, golf is not 100% on the honor system at tournament level) but the good behavior of athletes in soccer is far more assumed than in most other team sports.

And as for diving: At one time, diving was hardly punished at all, because players did it less (not, I hasten to add, never, not by a long shot.) As it became more and more profitable, and players allowed the diving instinct freer and freer rein, rules were drafted to punish it. This is how the system should work. It’s how it should work if, as I suspect, more and more players act as second goalkeepers.

No, I’m not suggesting that the German keeper should have called the goal out. That’s a very narrow reading of the “honor system” frame that assumes that it only refers to direct violations of the rules, rather than “the spirit of the game.”

And the thing is, I agree - Suarez did what he did, willing to take his punishment. The punishment should have been stronger. Since it wasn’t, expect - based on the history of soccer and such erosion of previously assumed behavior - to see more such actions in the future.  Again, if not, if I turn out to have been an alarmist, hallelujah.

Auguste, I guess I don’t see an increase in the number of players that will act as second goalkeepers increasing here. The punishment is already rather severe - the offending player misses the rest of that match and the entirety of the next one. In the 67th minute of a match, that’s just not a punishment worth taking. Under the current rules, it only makes sense:

1) At the very end of a game, and

2) In a match where a loss/draw eliminates a team from competition or makes staying in the competition all but impossible, such as the knockout round of a cup or a crucial end-of-season league tie.

That’s because the certainty of playing the rest of the match with 10 men and missing a key player for the next match isn’t generally worth the 20% chance that your handball will prevent a goal.

I can think of only one other circumstance I’ve seen where such a handball would have been appropriate, and that’s in the USA-CRC game at the end of World Cup qualifying. (Had CRC’s defender handled Bornstein’s header off the line instead of clumsily flailing at it, then if Donovan missed the ensuing PK CRC would have been through to the Cup.) The situations that lead to a tactical handball are just exceedingly rare even with the punishment being what it is currently - Suarez just happened to be at the center of the perfect storm.

You may be right. I’ll cross my fingers.

I’m with Jeff, Stubborn Kind of Fellow, and Ape Man. I wouldn’t even call this cheating. It was a case of breaking the rules, Suarez admitted it, didn’t protest the decision, and took the ban. I don’t see why he should be banned for more than one game. Usually extended bans are for violent tackles or going after the ref a la Drogba. Deliberate handball is not that kind of offense. And I honestly don’t see a lot of players beginning to do this sort of thing habitually: the risk is too high. He’s now missing a crucial game in which he would have been a key player. When/if Uruguay lose, everyone is going to point at him as the big reason for the loss.

I feel horrible for Ghana, but let’s face it, in any other situation this wouldn’t have been as big a deal. But Ghana played so well under all the pressure and won everyone’s hearts, so it was heartbreaking. And then, cue unseemly celebration from Suarez and his complete inability to stfu and stop gloating, and you’ve got a hugely emotional situation. But I don’t think a player should get punished more than he would have under less emotional circumstances.

Ask Fabio Quagliarella or Jose Mourinho whether you can get three-match bans for non-violent conduct.

And of course a player gets punished more depending on the circumstances. That’s why the Laws are written the way they are - it’s an automatic one-match ban, with the option to expand to more depending on the circumstances. FIFA was dumb to not do so in this case, because it invites further abuse. I think you all have blinders on if you think that’s not going to happen, but reasonable people can disagree.

We’ll see.

I’d love to know what’s behind this insane refusal to use the word cheating that I’ve seen from so many people. Cheating does not have to be done in a cloak-and-dagger way in order to be called cheating. It’s a really weird semantic argument to keep saying BUT OMGZ DON’T CALL IT CHEATING when what he did was break a rule in order to hopefully get ahead (or get his team ahead, more precisely). That. Is. Cheating. Just because he didn’t try to hide it, and even if it was semi-involuntary, doesn’t suddenly change the definition.

And what if Uruguay hadn’t advanced? Is this Schroedinger’s Handball? If they move on, it was okay, but if they don’t…then what? If the PK had gone in and Ghana had won, would people then think it was a stupid and wrong move for which Suarez should receive more punishment? If not, well…fuck, I don’t even know what to say to that. But the point is - the result of the rule-breaking shouldn’t matter. It’s the breaking of the rule that determines the punishment. And I do think players will be more inclined to do this sort of thing now, because a never-starting, occasionally-subbed-on dude on a Prem team in a mid-season game is going to care more about getting a win for his team than missing a match, most likely.

This is the God damn World Cup. The time for lenient punishments is not here. I’m sort of taken aback that so many people don’t get that.

As a fan of ice hockey, it amuses me that there is so much consternation over breaking of the rules and how lenient penalties will only encourage future players to try and get a way with it… Like this hasn’t ever happened before.

Are you people new to this? Pitchers can’t doctor a baseball. It’s against the rules. And I’d bet money that at some point they all do it. Can’t cork the bats…doesn’t stop hitters from trying to get away with it.

Can’t hit the QB late…and down he goes. Can’t block a shot on the basket when it’s coming down…goaltending: two points.

Every professional sport has rules about what players can and can’t do. And players are eventually going to find a way to cheat. It hasn’t exactly destroyed anything. The ‘beautiful game’ can certainly survive a player committing an intentional handball in the box.

Penalties and fouls and whistles and ejections and such happen all over the world in all sports. Why is this one indecent so important? Because the dude who did it won’t shut up about how it worked out. If Ghana had won, he’d be the goat. But they didn’t. The difference between this indecent and any other handball is this one was broadcast around the world in the quarters of the biggest sporting tournament. Somebody stop the press when Macclesfield Town lose in the same way. I’m sure it’ll be riveting stuff…

Are you people new to this? Pitchers can’t doctor a baseball. It’s against the rules. And I’d bet money that at some point they all do it. Can’t cork the bats…doesn’t stop hitters from trying to get away with it.

Can’t hit the QB late…and down he goes. Can’t block a shot on the basket when it’s coming down…goaltending: two points.

If you keep making my case for me, it’s going to be hard to have a disagreement.

The following are quotes from the pages they link to:

Prior to 1920, there was no rule that forbid a pitcher from trying to gain an advantage over a batter by wiping a foreign substance on the ball…Most hitters didn’t like it. They felt that pitchers had so many inherent advantages that allowing them to goop up baseballs to get even more movement only added insult to injury…Many even blamed the death of Ray Chapman, who died after being beaned in the head by Carl Mays, on the fact that the ball that killed him was covered in spit, dirt, and tobacco juice.

1975: [Auguste’s note: 82 years after bats of anything but solid wood first became illegal, but less than one year after Graig Nettles became the first modern-era player [corrections welcome, as everyone references “since 1970” when they discuss the matter] to be caught using an altered bat] Suspension for three days became mandatory if batter were to hit a fair ball with a filled, doctored or flat-surfaced bat.

Goaltending became a violation in 1944, and offensive goaltending in 1958. [Auguste’s note: Adolph Grundman’s book “The golden age of amateur basketball: the AAU Tournament, 1921-1968”, states that “...Bob Kurland, a three-time All-America Center from Oklahoma A&M;...[was] responsible for the college rule prohibiting goaltending in 1944.” I’m sure that was because Kurland asked the NCAA nicely and nothing at all to do with his making the game unplayable by repeatedly reaching up and swatting balls away from the basket. And, btw, considering that goaltending is one of the best analogues we have to the awarding of a goal for Suarez-like interference, I’m not sure how bringing up this example helps your case.]

As for “Can’t hit the QB late” - have you been paying the slightest attention to the way the NFL has changed its rules to protect quarterbacks? I mean, it’s getting to the point where people make fun of them for it.

You’re either still completely missing the point - THE POINT IS THAT FIFA NEEDS TO CHANGE THE RULES TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN MORE OFTEN, BECAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE ATHLETES HAVE EXPLOITED LOOPHOLES LESS AND LESS AS TIME GOES ON - or you really think that your examples, which all represent a ruling body making a change in response to such an exploit, often (such as in the case of Chapman and Nettles) immediately after a high-profile and unfortunate incident bringing the problem to light, are arguments against the very things they illustrate?

The difference between this indecent and any other handball is this one was broadcast around the world in the quarters of the biggest sporting tournament.

Exactly. I’m glad we’re on the same page.

Santa Claustrophobia, your point about hitting the QB late reminds me of another tactical-fouling incident that might be more appropriate here. In the NFC Championship last year, the Saints basically spent the entire game beating the crap out of Brett Favre, risking the 15-yard late hit penalties that would come with it. The result? At the end of the game, Favre gets scared of the hit and throws a crucial pick. Tactical fouling worked. They’re not cheaters.

And Alison, I definitely suggest reading Dave’s take on this that I linked to above. It’s a lot better written than mine. Point of that is, though, if you’re gonna call Suarez a cheater you’d better be prepared to call every NFL player who commits a late pass-interference penalty a cheater, as well as every basketball player who commits a foul to extend a game.

Remember, Memphis lost the NCAA Championship a couple of years ago because Kansas players kept fouling them at the end of the game and they couldn’t make free throws. Does this make the Jayhawks cheaters?

cheat - to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

I’m not sure an intentional hand-ball, punished according to the laws, rises to the level of “deceit” or “fraud.”  Now, if he tried to hide the fact he did it, yes, that would be deceitful.  (See, Maradona, Hand of God.)  “Fraud” is also considered a deliberate act of deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

The German handball in 2002 was cheating, there was deception and unfair gain.  Suarez did not attempt to hide his efforts, therefore I don’t think it rises to the level of “cheating.”  It is a professional foul.

James - I’d raise the white flag right now if that were the only definition of the word. It ain’t.

cheat
–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law . the fraudulent obtaining of another’s property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat

Pay attention to the one I bolded: “to violate rules or regulations”. That definition does not include any mention of hiding one’s actions, and neither does 1, 3 or 6. Cheating does not have to be hidden in order to be cheating. If I’m taking a test and instead of surreptitiously passing a note to someone asking for an answer, I call out across the room to them “HEY JOHNNY, WHAT DID YOU GET FOR NUMBER 5?” that’s still cheating. It doesn’t matter that I was open about it. It doesn’t matter if Johnny’s answer was wrong, or if I still end up flunking the test. None of that shit matters.

Problem is, Alison, the definition and the connotation are two different things. Sure, by the definition of the word, Suarez cheated by breaking a rule intentionally. But the connotation is more in line with James’ definition; when we call Suarez a cheater, we think he defrauded, swindled, or deceived Ghana out of a victory. He did none of those things. He realized that breaking the rules and getting caught was better than not doing so, and so he used the rules of the game - which are the same for everyone - to his team’s advantage. That’s not deception or fraud (a la Henry or Neuer). That’s just good strategy.

All the games we play and watch have these little quirks in them that occasionally advantage the breaking of rules. Soccer is unique in that such occasions are extremely rare. We managed to stumble upon the one occasion where that occurs on the largest stage imaginable. So yeah, Suarez broke the rules, and if you want to ignore connotations and call him a cheater, fine, by the strict definition of the word, you’re right. But let’s not confuse good strategy with what we usually think of as “cheating.”

Parse it all you want, he cheated and bragged about it-unforgivable.

Jeff - you don’t think he swindled Ghana out of a very very likely goal and a very very likely then-victory by defending against the shot in a way that was not in line with the rules? What do you say he did to them, then? If he’d hit that ball away with his head, totally cool, because then he came out on top in the way you’re supposed to. But he did it in a way that you’re not supposed to, and everyone is all WOOHOO. Yes, let’s show that video to kids in AYSO and tell them this is how you win games, kiddies - go out there and fuck the rules, yeehaw!

To say that breaking rules = good strategy is mind-boggling to me. It’s only a good strategy if you have no sense of self-worth, no sense of fair play, and think acting like a total jackass is a-ok. If you’re fine with knowing that the only way you got by was by doing something you’re not supposed to, then again - I just have no idea what to say about that. People are championing this shit, and I do not fucking get it.

Alison, I don’t think we are championing Suarez. We are just saying that he did not cheat by the connotation that this word has in this game. Instead, we are saying that a) he broke the rules b) got punished appropriately, as set out by said rules, and c) rules are broken in every sport. That’s not a good thing, but it’s a fact of life and tactics in every sport. For the record, I was rooting for Ghana and was upset that they lost. From the beginning, I thought that Ghana was a much better team than they were given credit for. I’m sad that they lost, but I’m not going to call for Suarez’s head and I don’t think this will have any further effect on rule-breaking in the game.

Alison, I think the problem is that soccer simply isn’t used to the idea of breaking rules in order to win games. I don’t know if you’re an NFL or basketball fan, but it happens all the time in those sports, and no one calls the D-back who gives a pass-interference penalty in the end zone or a basketball player who fouls intentionally late in the game a “cheater.” If you’re used to soccer or baseball, sure, you’re not gonna get tactical fouling because it never happens. But it happens all the time in NFL football and basketball, so fans of those sports are not going to view it as cheating.

In any sport, you do what the rules allow you to do to win. And soccer’s rules allow you to handle the ball on the goal line at the end of the game to give your team a 20% chance of winning as long as you’re willing to not play the next game. If you think this isn’t fair, then your beef is with the rules, not with Suarez.

I don’t think Suarez is acting cool at all, but I also am surprised folks like Auguste and Alison feel *so* strongly about this. He committed a foul, one that the rulebook accounts for, and he paid exactly the punishment the rulebook calls for - a red and a penalty. If he had slid into a guy who was lining up a shot with an open goal to do the same, would you really be as upset? Because they’re the same thing.

Sometimes you foul someone going for a layup to make them earn it at the stripe. Sometimes you commit pass interference in the end zone to prevent a sure TD. Sometimes you punch the ball away when it’s about to go in with about 10 secs left in the match and hope for the best.

If you were Suarez, and you saw that ball going in your net with no time left, you’re telling me you’d watch it go in and not punch it out and hope for the best from the stripe? Then we play games very differently.

The “honor system” involves following the rules—and the rules say that if you punch a ball out, it’s a red and a penalty. It’s not “dishonorable” to intentionally foul, nor intentionally punch a ball; that’s why there are rules governing those actions. Nothing unusual about what he did.

If you think this isn’t fair, then your beef is with the rules, not with Suarez.

Agreed!

Alison, I think the problem is that soccer simply isn’t used to the idea of breaking rules in order to win games.

I’m not Alison, but why is this not a screaming red flag? I don’t understand. The introduction and general acceptance of professional fouls of the type Suarez committed would be bad for the game. Repeated goal-line handballs, if they were to increase - which I am aware many people don’t believe is going to happen - would be a travesty, the way timewasting efforts became in the past. Whether you believe Suarez cheated or is just a jackass who exploited a loophole and then bragged about it, I find it weird that the blase acceptance of professional fouls in a game previously relatively free of them to be counterintuitive. They make sense in the american sports we keep mentioning. They don’t in soccer.

They make sense in the american sports we keep mentioning. They don’t in soccer.

I’ll ask it again: if you were Suarez in that moment, wouldn’t you punch that ball away? If so, then maybe the “right foul” does have a place in soccer. Certainly people seem to understand when someone is cut down on a breakaway to give a penalty instead of a goal, right?

Again, maybe you should be angry at the rules. If replay were allowed, it’d be great to add a rule that says if you punch away a goal in extra time, it counts as a goal. But you’d need replay to determine intent, and we won’t be getting that anytime soon.

Again, maybe you should be angry at the rules.

But Marc, I’ve only ever been arguing that FIFA should change the rules/increase the suspension. I don’t want Suarez to be able to make the choice that “yep, that was worth it” because I find what he did to be counter to the spirit of the game. Therefore, change the rules. That’s the point. Whether he cheated or didn’t* is less important to my own argument than whether we should sit around and say “well, the rules are the rules and FIFA’s decision on not extending the suspension is just fine” or whether, like many other circumstances in both soccer and all other sports before that, the rules should be changed.

* I see both sides but, in a game which is not designed to accept professional fouls, I’m far less blase about it than I would be if it were a cynical pass interference in the NFL. But vis a vis your point about cutting someone down on the breakaway: Even accepting your frame, I would say that cutting someone down on the breakaway:deliberate handball on the goal line::intentionally grabbing a WR’s arm to keep him from catching a ball in the end zone:hitting him with a flying body tackle 2 seconds before the ball arrives.

Marc, I would certainly bat the ball away, and hope it isn’t seen, but if it is, I’d accept the red card for the chance that I get to play to win the World Cup.  Maybe, in the first half, I’d hesitate, but in injury time in extra time, no question.

Actually, I think the diving is worse, it really is cheating by the definition of the word.  It is an attempt to deceive the official into an unfair advantage, and as that article I posted last week showed, it is often successful.  If one is going to tweak the rules, one should look to that rule.  It happens much more frequently, is less fair, and arguably does more damage to the game.

Maybe “I see both sides” is wrong. I don’t like what Suarez did, whether the calculus makes sense or not. Some things you just don’t do, and intentional handball on the line is one of them. Whether I call that “cheat” or not, I certainly understand the mindset that does.

Auguste, at this level of competition, even if you banned Suarez for life—it would be worth it.  Uruguay’s last semifinal was in 1970.  Suarez is 33 years old, this is his last World Cup.  Sure, he goes out with a red card, but it is a red card that kept his team and his nation alive.

Also, I wonder if we would be seeing this amount of agitation if it was *Germany* or *Brazil* or *Argentina* that we were talking about here, instead of Ghana.

I think part of the story here is that a lot of folks became invested in the “plucky underdogs” (hint: they’re not underdogs, they’re really good), and *that’s* why we’re still talking about this on July 6th. Somehow, I don’t think that if Suarez had done this against Brazil, people would be complaining about the handball with this degree of fervor.

For what it’s worth, all Gyan had to do was something he had done twice before in this World Cup, as a result of the same infraction: handball in the penalty area. On the biggest stage, he came up just short. But he had enough character to gather himself and score the first penalty for Ghana. Who let him down? John Mensah and Stephen Adiyah, who kicked two of the most mincy penalty shots I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think blame can be apportioned here: both teams played a hell of a game, and it was a heartbreaking loss (one of the most heartbreaking I’ve seen in sports). But it was heartbreaking because Ghana had multiple opportunities to cash in, and *failed to do so*. In that sense, they’ve only got themselves to look to for that. Kicking a penalty is like shooting a free throw, and at the worst possible moment, Ghana turned into Shaquille O’Neal at the line.

You know how when a celebrity of some sort breaks a law or does something else bad and then they apologise for it and people will still pile on because they weren’t contrite enough? I think that’s a bit of what’s going on here.

Clearly, Suarez wasn’t contrite at all, so there’s that aspect. But also the concept that Uruguay ‘got away with it’. The complaint that the penalty, the one game suspension, wasn’t enough.

As with the celebrity, what more would you have them do now? The rules have both been broken and enforced as they are written. To expect the governing body of an international sport to simply change the rule because of an incident that was broadcast to the world is the worst sort of reactionary crap that happens in sports.

I go back to hockey: the NHL keeps changing the rules to make the game faster and higher scoring. They mess with Icing and Interference and the various crease rules. But they don’t mandate a larger playing surface (The owners would lose seats!) and they don’t increase the size of the goal (Unfair to goalies, though they’ll pass rules mandating smaller equipment…)

Whatever FIFA is willing to do, won’t happen very quickly. And that’s probably for the best, all things considered. Is Lampard’s phantom goal so egregious (and common!) that replay must, must be implemented? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I’m willing to give this matter some time before jumping to the conclusion that the rules must be changed to prevent what might happen in the future.

So people are seriously suggesting that FIFA change rules on the hoof just because the team they were going for lost? Or ban Suarez for life? Really? The fact that this was done on the world stage is even more reason why the rules need to be followed, applying equally to all. Alison’s idea that this is some dastardly form of CHEATING is mad. Cheating, as someone said above is dependent on getting away with it. If you want to define this as cheating then so is any kind of fouling since you could argue that his disrupts the other tam’s natural rhythm causing them to be at a disadvantage. 

I’ve seen people handle the ball to save a goal a few times but not often, since it almost invariably leads to the defensive team losing more heavily than they would have. Even in the closing stages of a game, using your hand to stop a ball is a hell of a gamble since the attacking team will almost always score the penalty anyway while leaving you a man down. There’s really very little incentive, which is why Suarez left the field in tears after being sent off, hardly the actions of someone gleeful at ‘getting away with something’.

Incidentally, the term ‘professional foul’ is used to define the kind of challenge where someone brings down the last striker when they’re clean through on goal. The penalty is an automatic red card, just as it is for intentional handball. It works fine. The idea that these things are ‘accepted’ runs contrary to all evidence. People are only up in arms about this because a) It happened in the very last minute and b) Ghana didn’t score the penalty or win in the shootout, despite Uruguay losing their second best penalty taker (Who’s 23 not 33, incidentally). Other points: the free-kick leading to the handball was dodgy to saay the least (I’ve been looking in vain online for video proof, but distinctly remember feeling that at the time), Uruguay were denied a clear cut penalty in the first half of extra time but no one seems to have a problem with that.

I think that, as in most cases, the Good Old Days are being oversold a bit here.  Outright unfair play is not new in soccer.  Hell, Maradona handled the ball into the goal in a World Cup quarterfinal in 1986.  The punishment was… nothing.  Zero.  Zilch. 

There was a Brazillian player a couple decades ago who pretended to have been hit in the face with the ball when actually it hit him in the knee; he got a player ejected.  Etc. etc.

It’s certainly arguable that Suarez should have been more harshly punished.  But to appeal to some time when soccer relied on the honor system, well, you’d have to show me there was such a time.  I never witnessed it.

You also have to remember that beyond a certain harshness, you don’t make a big impact on behavior by increasing a punishment.  Being banned from the WC semifinal game is a very harsh punishment, but if the choice is clearly between being banned for the Semis or being eliminated from them (an unusual situation that obtained at the end of in the Uruguay game) a player is going to accept the punishment, no matter what it is.

The only way you could really change that is to make the punishment SO severe that it would be preposterous.  There’s a certain level you really can’t go beyond when no one is physically endangered.

Speaking of which, did anyone find it weird there was not more discussion of whether Caceras should have been shown red for bicycle-kicking Demy de Zeeuw square in the face?  I mean, yeah he was going for the ball, but I looked closely and noticed that rather than kick the ball he in fact kicked his opponent in the face.

So people are seriously suggesting that FIFA change rules on the hoof just because the team they were going for lost? Or ban Suarez for life? Really? The fact that this was done on the world stage is even more reason why the rules need to be followed, applying equally to all.

THIS. As mentioned upthread, the last thing we want is FIFA being reactionary and imposing a heavier ban than usual just because this happened in the World Cup.

No one suggested he be banned for life—the suggestion was a longer suspension.  I said that even if he were banned for life, he’d probably have done it.  (I misread site that listed him as 33 years old.  But even at 23—it is 40 years since Uruguay’s last semi, it may be the only chance they have, so he might still have done it even if he were banned for life as a result.)

Check the Uruguay press—Suarez is a national hero.  How much would people sacrifice for that opportunity?