Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
For a soccer world that's relieved to move on from of two weeks Luis Suárez-induced debate about the place of honor on the pitch, a small wrinkle has been introduced by Andrés Iniesta, scorer of the 116th minute goal that won Sunday's World Cup final for Spain.
Iniesta's goal, beating an offside trap by the Netherlands at the edge of their penalty box, was scored past Maarten Stekelenburg from about ten yards out, but had the Spanish midfielder exercised some of the on-the-spot moralizing some advocated for Suárez, the shot may have never happened.
That on-the-spot moralizing would hold you don't do something you know is wrong, but as Iniesta says regarding a goal that was later shown to be conclusively onside, he did not know what was right-and-wrong:
"I was only waiting for the pass from Cesc Fabregas and he delivered in a perfect way. He was very quick and for a moment I was alone and I really thought I was offside but I controlled it well and when I hit the ball I knew it had to go in," Iniesta told a news conference.
Iniesta clearly did the dishonorable thing, the thinking should hold. At the moment he received the ball, he thought he was offside. There is no way he could know, even after the goal, that he was onside. After all, linesmen have been proven fallible. Iniesta should have erred on the side of right, stopped the movement, and not taken advantage of a play that, to his knowledge, was outside the rules.
His revelation having tainted Spain's title, I will never look at Iniesta again. By intent, he's no better than Luis Suárez. You either live by a code or your don't. Suárez and Iniesta don't.
OK, enough snark. You get the point.
Can we stop this obscure morality play - quit fighting the obvious? These aren't life-and-death, choose-your-favorite-child decisions. It's soccer, and within reason, the code is winning. We can either recognize it and move-on or continue this antiquated moral gambit.
5 comments
Comments
There’s a difference between committing an offense which is clearly against the rules in all situations – deliberate handball – and simply playing to the whistle while committing no deliberate offense. Your comparison, snark or not, collapses before it even gets going.
If I am good I could add years to my life / I would rather add some life to my years.
by Jay Preece on Jul 15, 2010 7:16 PM EDT reply actions
Agreed
He didn’t KNOW he was offside. He THOUGHT he was offside. Thus the decision to play the ball and let the ref, who had the ability to look and determine the case, have the ultimate say.
Suarez, on the other hand, clearly knew what he was doing. He didn’t THINK it was going to be a penalty. He knew it.
What about the German goalkeeper that knew Lampard had scored and decided to try to fool the refs? Or all the deceitful diving that continues to plague the game? Those are much better targets, in my humble opinion.
Can we add an automatic replay of the action leading to a card or leading to a penalty kick that results in a goal? Make it so that if it is abundantly clear the player dove to draw the card/penalty, he gets an automatic red card. I’d be happy with that. Of course, make close calls on the goal line reviewable as well.
That, and nothing else. Problems solved.
Anchor of Gold
by KingJamesIV on Jul 15, 2010 7:34 PM EDT reply actions
One of the very first things you learn as a soccer player is to play to the whistle. What Iniesta did was in no way whatsoever wrong or in your words “dishonorable”. What about Arjen Robben in the very same game when, with a yellow, he was whistled for offsides and, instead of stopping, continued by putting the ball into the back of the net while knowing that he was offsides. That is what you could call dishonorable yet understandable considering the stress he put himself under. Anyway, Spain deserved to win. They stuck to the tactics that have led them to success in ’08 through the present while the Dutch played a dirty game that even the legend Cruyff was disgusted of.
Going back to the Luis Suarez comment, I personally don’t believe that he did anything wrong. Maybe you don’t like that he did it, but he did and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to change it. In the heat of a quarter final match in the WORLD CUP, anyone would have done what he did. By sacrificing himself to do his team good, I believe he was actually quite honorable. Let’s go back in time and pretend that Gyan had scored that last minute penalty and put Ghana into the semi’s; Nobody would be talking about this “cheating filth” Suarez. If Ghana had deserved to win, they would have taken their chances and defeated Uruguay. Instead, they wasted a golden opportunity and allowed the less deserving team to go through.
If you’re going to write about the sport, do please learn it. I found this aritcle nearly as flawed as the ref from the Slovakia-US match.
by Peter Harjes on Jul 16, 2010 5:59 PM EDT reply actions
Umm ..
… the piece is sarcastic. The first two commenters, though they disagreed with me, got it.
Even if you don’t get the sarcasm, the last paragraph is pretty clear.
To turn your kind phrase used at the end of the article, if you’re going to comment on a piece …
You get it. Let’s move on. Thanks for reading. Maybe next time?
-rf
by Richard Farley on Jul 16, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed