Saturday, October 28, 2006
Sacrifice
Did Jade North do the right thing?
His pragmatic handling on the line two minutes from the close last night ultimately resulted in his team winning a game they would surely otherwise have lost. Yet the odds on that effect must have been long, and North (one of Newcastle’s best players in their last two games) now finds himself suspended.
Incidentally, it is the second case of a game-saving professional foul by the Jets this season, following Paul Okon’s calculated tripping of Adam Kwasnik in their encounter with the Mariners.
So, was it justified?
From an ethical standpoint, you would have to say no. There can surely never be a disinterested excuse for wilful flouting of the rules.
But from Gary van Egmond’s point of view, the situation is less clear.
After Michael Ballack had committed a cynical, nasty foul on Lee Chun-Soo in the 2002 World Cup semi-final, when the Korean was clean through on goal, his coach Rudi Völler praised him unreservedly afterwards.
Ballack’s foul meant that he was suspended for the final, and Völler talked of “sacrifice”. An interesting way to make cheating sound noble.
Despite what some have said with the wisdom of Latinophile hindsight, Germany matched Brazil and then some for the first hour of that final. With the sharpness of Ballack at their disposal, they may well have toppled Ronaldo and co. in Yokohama.
In other words, perhaps Ballack's foul wasn’t quite an act worthy of Völler’s commendation.
North’s fine form has contributed substantially to Newcastle’s renewed solidity in defence, and he will be greatly missed. They have put together a fine run and appear full of confidence, but with one or two soft goals against them in subsequent games…
Returning to the ethical side for a moment, I must admit to being a bit old-fashioned. These acts of “sacrifice”, especially when praised by coaches afterwards, do little to enhance the image of the game. And it would be unfortunate if the young players watching came to feel that a deliberate red-card offence, if it enhances your team’s chance of a result, is an honourable act.
His pragmatic handling on the line two minutes from the close last night ultimately resulted in his team winning a game they would surely otherwise have lost. Yet the odds on that effect must have been long, and North (one of Newcastle’s best players in their last two games) now finds himself suspended.
Incidentally, it is the second case of a game-saving professional foul by the Jets this season, following Paul Okon’s calculated tripping of Adam Kwasnik in their encounter with the Mariners.
So, was it justified?
From an ethical standpoint, you would have to say no. There can surely never be a disinterested excuse for wilful flouting of the rules.
But from Gary van Egmond’s point of view, the situation is less clear.
After Michael Ballack had committed a cynical, nasty foul on Lee Chun-Soo in the 2002 World Cup semi-final, when the Korean was clean through on goal, his coach Rudi Völler praised him unreservedly afterwards.
Ballack’s foul meant that he was suspended for the final, and Völler talked of “sacrifice”. An interesting way to make cheating sound noble.
Despite what some have said with the wisdom of Latinophile hindsight, Germany matched Brazil and then some for the first hour of that final. With the sharpness of Ballack at their disposal, they may well have toppled Ronaldo and co. in Yokohama.
In other words, perhaps Ballack's foul wasn’t quite an act worthy of Völler’s commendation.
North’s fine form has contributed substantially to Newcastle’s renewed solidity in defence, and he will be greatly missed. They have put together a fine run and appear full of confidence, but with one or two soft goals against them in subsequent games…
Returning to the ethical side for a moment, I must admit to being a bit old-fashioned. These acts of “sacrifice”, especially when praised by coaches afterwards, do little to enhance the image of the game. And it would be unfortunate if the young players watching came to feel that a deliberate red-card offence, if it enhances your team’s chance of a result, is an honourable act.
Comments:
<< Home
Prior to the compulsory red card for the deliberate handball to stop a goal, (when I were a lad) it was commonplace for this type of "save" to occur. You were more likely castigated if you didn't stop the ball from going into the goal, however it was required.
# posted by 
: October 28, 2006 at 3:55 PM
: October 28, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Am I being hypocritical in having absolutly no problem with making "professional" fouls to save goals, but detesting diving and simulation?
That 2002 final was great, and showed to me that anyone who thinks adopting the Brazilian "style" is a good idea is idiotic. I would take "slow team build-up play" over "hoping that individual skill gets a goal play" anyday.
That 2002 final was great, and showed to me that anyone who thinks adopting the Brazilian "style" is a good idea is idiotic. I would take "slow team build-up play" over "hoping that individual skill gets a goal play" anyday.
# posted by : October 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM
: October 28, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Don't see how he 'cheated', or broke the rules. The rules worked exactly as intended.
If there's any complaint, it's that a deliberate hand-ball which stops a certain goal doesn't result in the goal being awarded.
If there's any complaint, it's that a deliberate hand-ball which stops a certain goal doesn't result in the goal being awarded.
# posted by : October 28, 2006 at 10:19 PM
: October 28, 2006 at 10:19 PM
magnum has a point, the rules were not broken - you confuse ethics with morality because it involves a team sport. At the moment, its not a "stupid" thing to do(the goal is not awarded, even if you are off, and they have a penalty that they "could" miss), so what have you got to lose, and what have the team to gain?
# posted by : October 29, 2006 at 8:11 PM
: October 29, 2006 at 8:11 PM
The problem is that the reward for the red card, particularly that late in the game, goes to your other competitors. That is someone else gets to play 90 minutes against an easier to beat Newcastle.
However, what is more galling for a fan is to see professional fouls go unpunished or punished with only a yellow card - like Jamie McMaster's (Central Coast) 81st minute match saver heal lunge on the goal bound Matt McKay (Qld).
However, what is more galling for a fan is to see professional fouls go unpunished or punished with only a yellow card - like Jamie McMaster's (Central Coast) 81st minute match saver heal lunge on the goal bound Matt McKay (Qld).
...Don't see how he 'cheated', or broke the rules. The rules worked exactly as intended....
...magnum has a point, the rules were not broken...
So how do you cheat in football then?!
...The problem is that the reward for the red card, particularly that late in the game, goes to your other competitors. That is someone else gets to play 90 minutes against an easier to beat Newcastle....
That was exactly the point I was making in the article. That even if it does benefit your team in the short term, it may end up being a middle-term or long-term loss.
...magnum has a point, the rules were not broken...
So how do you cheat in football then?!
...The problem is that the reward for the red card, particularly that late in the game, goes to your other competitors. That is someone else gets to play 90 minutes against an easier to beat Newcastle....
That was exactly the point I was making in the article. That even if it does benefit your team in the short term, it may end up being a middle-term or long-term loss.
"So how do you cheat in football then?!"
Simulation (which is deception), bribery, etc.
No-one's to say if North's handball was right or wrong; it's a part of the game some see as unfortunate, like a professional foul.
Players are 'supposed' to be offside either, are they trying to cheat if they go offside?
I guess it's a black->murky->white thing: taking performance enhancing drugs/bribing opposing players or the ref is cheating; a Muscat-style punch in the ribs while no-one's looking (besides the replay cameras) is cheating to 98% of people; diving/feigning injury to get someone sent off is cheating to non-Italians; a 'Hand-of-God' handball is cheating to most people; a Jade North handball is sort of cheating but not really because he did it rationally knowing the consequences; etc you get the point.
Simulation (which is deception), bribery, etc.
No-one's to say if North's handball was right or wrong; it's a part of the game some see as unfortunate, like a professional foul.
Players are 'supposed' to be offside either, are they trying to cheat if they go offside?
I guess it's a black->murky->white thing: taking performance enhancing drugs/bribing opposing players or the ref is cheating; a Muscat-style punch in the ribs while no-one's looking (besides the replay cameras) is cheating to 98% of people; diving/feigning injury to get someone sent off is cheating to non-Italians; a 'Hand-of-God' handball is cheating to most people; a Jade North handball is sort of cheating but not really because he did it rationally knowing the consequences; etc you get the point.
# posted by : October 31, 2006 at 12:26 AM
: October 31, 2006 at 12:26 AM
..."So how do you cheat in football then?!"
Simulation (which is deception), bribery, etc.
No-one's to say if North's handball was right or wrong; it's a part of the game some see as unfortunate, like a professional foul.
Players are 'supposed' to be offside either, are they trying to cheat if they go offside?
I guess it's a black->murky->white thing: taking performance enhancing drugs/bribing opposing players or the ref is cheating; a Muscat-style punch in the ribs while no-one's looking (besides the replay cameras) is cheating to 98% of people; diving/feigning injury to get someone sent off is cheating to non-Italians; a 'Hand-of-God' handball is cheating to most people; a Jade North handball is sort of cheating but not really because he did it rationally knowing the consequences; etc you get the point....
I still don't see the difference TBH, Mags. Everyone hopes to get away with an infringement if they can (even North with the handball, I'm sure), and there are sanctions in place for all the infractions you mentioned.
Off-field stuff like bribery is in a different category.
Post a Comment
Simulation (which is deception), bribery, etc.
No-one's to say if North's handball was right or wrong; it's a part of the game some see as unfortunate, like a professional foul.
Players are 'supposed' to be offside either, are they trying to cheat if they go offside?
I guess it's a black->murky->white thing: taking performance enhancing drugs/bribing opposing players or the ref is cheating; a Muscat-style punch in the ribs while no-one's looking (besides the replay cameras) is cheating to 98% of people; diving/feigning injury to get someone sent off is cheating to non-Italians; a 'Hand-of-God' handball is cheating to most people; a Jade North handball is sort of cheating but not really because he did it rationally knowing the consequences; etc you get the point....
I still don't see the difference TBH, Mags. Everyone hopes to get away with an infringement if they can (even North with the handball, I'm sure), and there are sanctions in place for all the infractions you mentioned.
Off-field stuff like bribery is in a different category.
<< Home
