This is the "definitive" thread of yet another recurring rss flamewar
that never gets resolved: "diving & cheating", "diving v fouling", etc.
Feb 20-23, 1998 Cultural differences? (Marcelo Weinberger, Steve Jones)
Mar 4-12, 1998 Hand-balls, diving and fouls (Steve Jones, Ariel Mazzarelli, Karel Stokkermans, et al)
Mar 12-25, 1998 Cheating, violence and corruption (Stig Oppedal, Marco Paserman, Massa Sugano, Ariel Mazzarelli)
=================================
Cultural differences?
=================================
Subject: Re: Serie A - a disgrace
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Date: Feb 20, 1998
Massa Sugano writes:
> > Diving is against the rules and should be punished. It really is as
> > simple as that.
>
> A dive, if caught by the ref, gets punished with a yellow card. If he
> gets away, "pazienza." Maybe next time, maybe not. You'd realize that
> distinguishing dives and fouls become really difficult when you stop
> looking for a dive whenever a contact takes place.
Massa, I totally agree and I understand exactly what you mean. But there
is no way you both are going to agree because it's a cultural matter.
Noone is either right or wrong, it's a matter of how you define the
game. To me, fooling the ref is part of the game, and a nice one! If you
are caught, tough luck, you are rightfully sent-off or booked. If you
are not, maybe it just shows that you are more skilled than other
players.
For example, the first goal Maradona scored against the English in WC'86
should of course have been disallowed, and under the new rules he should
have been sent-off. But he wasn't caught, and I never understood all
these complaints about his personal attitude: the ref was to blame, not
him! In that particular action, he just showed that he was more skilled
than others even to fool the ref.
The appalling thing is that all these complaints many times come from
people that when the likes of Maradona are brutally fouled, they don't
complain, as you pointed out with respect to the diving complaints! A
good diver has one additional skill and if he gets away with it, good
for him. But if he is a bad diver he will get caught, and then... tough
luck. So taking advantage of any situation is one thing, brutality is a
different one.
--------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Serie A - a disgrace
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Date: Feb 20, 1998
Bollocks, cheating is cheating, that's like saying that Ravanelli was
a good brutal player against Auxerre as he elbowed the player in the
face when the ref wasn't looking. Diving is cheating, it should
be punished. There is no such thing as a "good" cheat, they detract
from the game.
Ravanelli (a dirty diving bastard IMO) took advantage of the situation
to elbow a player in the face. Just one more string to his bow ?
---------------------------------
Subject: Re: Serie A - a disgrace
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
Date: Feb 20, 1998
I didn't expect you to agree: as I said in my post, it's a cultural
thing. What you don't seem to understand is that I don't condemn
brutality because it's cheating, but because:
a) It is dangerous for the opponent's health.
b) It destroys the beauty of the beautiful game.
c) It privileges the beast over the artist.
Once you understand that your obsession with cheating is just a cultural
thing, you will agree to disagree; meanwhile, you will say "bollocks,"
without trying to understand my point of view. Different cultures see
the beauty of the game in different aspects of it: that's why some
cultures are more likely to produce a Maradona than others, while the
German is more likely to appreciate perfect team work or the English
hard work and, of course, playing by the rules. I can see beauty in a
smart dive, can you blame me for that? I see beauty in a perfect
dribbling, in a short passing give-and-go, even if they are sometimes
ineffective. On the other hand, I don't see beauty in, say, the typical
English game, while many English do, and I can understand that.
--------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Serie A - a disgrace
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Date: Feb 23, 1998
I understand what you are saying both in individual words and sentences,
it is in inability of these sentences to form into a coherent argument
that leads to my use of the word "bollocks".
Diving = Cheating. It is against the rules of the game. Not to condemn
it is to condone it. Not to stop it is to endanger the very principles
and practice of the game. Ravanelli wasn't caught elbowing the bloke
in the face, that doesn't reduce the act in my eyes it just makes him
a worse player and the ref and his assistants are at fault for not
spotting it.
===============================
Hand-balls, diving and fouls
===============================
Subject: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 08:38:08 GMT
From: (mcdonnell@econ.bmg.eur.nl)
Last night, Vieri tried a 'hand of god', knocking a cross into the
Villa net with his hand. Now, if a defender had tried to prevent a
goal by handling the ball, he would be red-carded (as well as
conceding a penalty). This doesn't seem to be the case when a forward
commits a similar offence. Anyone agree with me that forwards should
also be sent off if they 'score' with their hands? Nothing against
Vieri or Atletico, it's a point that's irritated me a little for a few
years.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 04 Mar 1998 16:20:14 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
This is the same reason that for me should mean that a dive in the box should
be an automatic booking and one commited to look like it was by the keeper/
last defender should be a red. After all it was the attackers intention to
get the other player booked/sent off.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 11:18:54 -0500
From: "Miguel A. Ballicora" (ballicor@pilot.msu.edu)
The idea is not to punish the "intention". The idea is to compensate
the fact that a goal would have been scored if the foul/hand/etc would not
have been commited.
You stop a goal illegaly, you have to punish the foul and compensate
that the goal was not scored.
You scored a goal illegaly, you have to punish the foul. You don't have
to compensate anything, the goal is not granted.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 04 Mar 1998 17:35:19 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Surely the intent is to commit a deliberate professional foul ? The goal
isn't allowed because it doesn't exist (play stops at the point of the
foul, what goes on afterwards doesn't matter). His intention was to get
a goal via deliberate cheating, thus IMO a professional foul thus a
red card.
I get the point on compensation but surely this is the same as diving,
the player should be punished not only for the offence itself but for
the advantage he sought to gain off the opposition.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:39:18 -0500
From: Massa Sugano (sugano@fas.harvard.edu)
Typical British opinion. Of course, my typical Japano-Latin opinion -- :-) --
is that there is a serious difference between preventing a sure goal (which
actually changes the game), and being caught tring to score a fake goal (which
doesn't alter the game). The former is making a sure 0-1 into a 0-0, while in
the latter case the game is still 0-0 after the offense. Clearly the former
is a worse offense.
This opinion, I disclaim, has nothing to do with the fact that Vieri was the
player in discussion. He generally has a good reputation, so I feel no need
to protect him unlike with Ravanelli, Del Piero, etc. Either way, we could
argue this forever and not resolve anything.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 5 Mar 1998 02:20:41 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
I've been trying to argue in many different threads that this is a
cultural matter, but some English fans seem unable to understand that
their obsession with cheating, diving, etc., does not necessarily
reflect the way other people understand the beauty of the most beautiful
game.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 05 Mar 1998 10:29:00 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
The head of the Italian PFA is English ?
(He recently said that Italian players should stop going down as if dead
in order to gain advantage).
==========================
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 05 Mar 1998 10:27:39 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Miguel A. Ballicora writes:
> A dive generally is the only weapon that an attacker has
> to fight fouls that the defender commits and the ref don't see.
I'd disagree most dives are taken to attempt to gain advantage not because
the player was fouled a couple of minutes ago. AbFab and Del Pierro aren't
diving to get some cosmic justice, they are diving for penalities.
> It has been like that for decades and decades...
Professional fouls from behind used to take place all the time as well,
they don't happen anywhere near as often anymore, because they are
now punished.
> Sometimes a dive is an exageration of an actual foul. A Red card for
> that could break a delicate balance between the tricks that the defender
> and the attacker have.
I agree, and if it is a foul and the severity of the foul merits a booking
then that is what the free-kick and booking should be, HOWEVER if the
attacker is diving in order to _assure_ a yellow card, in other words to
unreasonably influence the ref by cheating he deserves a yellow card as
well. The ref still awards the free kick and still books the defender
but also makes it clear that it wasn't the Oscar winning antics of the
diver that resulted in either.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 5 Mar 1998 15:24:39 GMT
From: Agalliu Taulant INCO21 (s922184@vub.ac.be)
It's a FACT that if the attacker does not fall, the ref awards no
free-kick. Therefore it often happens that the foul is sufficient to make
the attacker lose the ball, but not enough to make him fall. In this case
it's almost a player's *duty* to fall on the ground, forcing the referee to
decide and give the free-kick.
That's why I consider Miguel's above sentence (... delicate balance...) as
very, very appropriate.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 05 Mar 1998 17:12:33 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Monaco v ManU last night. Benarbia has the ball on the edge of the box,
he is nudged from behind but the ball runs to another AS Monaco player,
this player is well tackled by Paul Scholes, the ref awards the free-kick
for the first offence. Wimbledon v Wolves, Don Goodman jumps for the ball,
is nudged in the back so misses the header... Uriah Rennie awards the
freekick. OM v Monaco at the weekend, a Monaco player drives into the
opposite half and has his shirt pulled back, he doesn't fall but does lose
control of the ball, the ref gives the foul.
Your FACT (in capitals no less) appears to have as many holes in it as
Neil Hamilton's defence.
Refs need to follow the adavantage rule more and penalise fouls that
while not severe do place the player at a disadvantage, this is NOT however
an excuse to dive.
==========================
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 10 Mar 1998 01:49:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Karel Stokkermans dixit:
>"Miguel A. Ballicora" writes:
>> > > A dive generally is the only weapon that an attacker has
>> > > to fight fouls that the defender commits and the ref don't see.
>
>> > Nonsensical. Usually the diver is near the ball (though he usually
>> > lost control just before) and so both the referee and the linesman
>> > are likely to look in his general direction and are in good position
>> > to spot any fouls. No need for dives.
>
>> There are dozens of different cases. Many times the attacker receives
>> an actual foul that was not enough to take him down but enough to
>
>Well, if it's a shoulder check it's not foul, if it's any type of obstruction
>it's an indirect free kick, and if he's tripped or his shirt is held or
>whatever the ref should spot it and it's a penalty. I still see no reason
>to dive.
>
>Of course I'm assuming there's a competent referee, which divers don't.
I am SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of people grabbing shirts and the foul not being
called. I'm sorry, but this has gotten totally out of hand. I remember it
very well--in fact, my grandfather taught me this rule--that as SOON as you
saw that shirt stretch a SINGLE FUCKING CENTIMETER it was a yellow card.
Automatic. No questions asked.
So that's one.
The shoulder check has always been controversial. There are shoulder checks
and there are shoulder checks. We don't want to end up with a Steroid Bowl
scenario, hmmm?
So that's two, sorta.
Obstruction? Does anybody know how to make this call anymore? It makes me
ill to see a player with the ball barrel over a defender who has basically
committed the sin of not mastering the art of making his body vanish into
thin air. Ridiculous. Of course, we also have a zillion obstructions that
the ref permits to go on. So there is massive confusion there.
So that's three and change.
What's left... oh yeah, tripping. If this call is ever called tightly,
Ortega will be the next Maradona. The man can invent a trip quicker than
Jules Verne. An amazing skill. So the refs compensate by allowing the
defenders the option of being human.
So that's four.
Let's face it, the situation is a MESS.
>> make him lose the control of the ball or lose a good angle etc. etc.
>> two choices: a) continue and miss the scoring opportunity b) exagerate,
>> fall and earn the deserved penalty. The deffender should not get away
>> with a foul just because the attacker is strong.
>> Should the attacker receive a red card in this case if is caught?
>> Is it fair?
>
>A player trying to earn a penalty he doesn't deserve should get a yellow
>for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Remember Vonnegut's "Player Piano"? That was a study of what happens when
we base a society on perfect lie-detector testing. So let's reread that
book again, put the gadgets on all the players, and commit mass suicide.
Now, there is nothing in the rulebook that says that a player must fight
through a foul and do his best to prevent the foul from being called. So if
you get tapped on the ankles or shoved on the shoulder and he chooses to fall,
that is fine. Is that a dive? Yes. Is that a foul by the defender? Yes.
If you have the mind of, say, oh, I don't want to mention any names, so
let's follow Kafka's example and call him "B.". If you have the mind of B.,
then you call that a dive and give the fallee a red card. Personally,
I would just call the foul and assign yellow/red card to the ankle-tapper
based on whether the foul was intentional and/or whether it stopped a
sure goal.
> Dutch and English referees tend to give
>these fairly consistently, so players better be warned. If it's the
>second yellow, tough luck.
I don't know about the Dutch, but please, PLEASE, WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU DO,
NEVER CEASE AND DESIST FROM REMINDING THE ENGLISH THAT THEY HAVE THE MOST
ATROCIOUS REFEREEING CORE OUTSIDE OF THE MLS.
Now, I don't know that for a fact. There may be a league with a less
fortunate array of choices for a whistle on a weekend afternoon
(Scotland and Espa~a come to mind). But do not under any circumstances
discourage those fogheads from doing what they must do in order to evolve
beyond the paleozoic era. In a reckless mood, I might recommend large
daily dosages of radiation on every referee to speed up the mutations.
In a less reckless mood, I might suggest that these "real men" take
a kick in the shins for every instance where they let the defender
get away with this crap.
I have seen far too many players get kicked very violently by thugs
while these morons just blew a whistle and had that "take it like a
cromagnon" look on their face. And don't you dare remind the fuck that
he's supposed to punish such things more sternly!
No, injuries are not funny, they fuck up people as well as the game,
so if you don't like my tone of voice on this issue, bite me.
Maybe we can talk the English FA into letting Castrilli work for a year
up there. You'd see some red cards then...
>> Sometimes there is no foul because the attacker jumped to avoid
>> a sure ankle injury. As a consequence, he lose the control of the ball.
>
>That's a foul. The ref may not always spot it, but a foul it is.
"May"? "May"?! Excuse me?!?!?! The only way to get some of these fucks to
notice a foul is to stage a Broadway production for them! Forget it, man!
"May". HA! In Espa~a they will throw bycicle parts at a referee that calls
such a foul. HA! Such an innocent...
>If a defender goes for the ankles rather than the ball, a foul should be
>given regardless of whether he actually hits the ankle. But the dives
>Steve and I are talking about are those where the defender goes for the
>ball but the attacker pretends that an ankle was hit or he was tripped.
Well, you can go for the Vonnegut scenario, or you can just accept that
this is a game, and as long as the boys playing it are having a good time,
nobody is getting hurt for the hell of it, and we can see some gambetas
on the tube, that's cool.
Somebody gets away with a dive? That's part of the game, it is a skill
after all. Gives us something to post about, right?
Somebody gets away with breaking legs? That puts us in the Nero leagues.
Please, people, let's have a little civility here. It's nearly the end of
the 20th century, isn't it about time we did away with bloodsports?
I'm really surprised at some of the attitudes I see here. If you folks
spent 0.001% of the energy that you spend foaming at the mouth at some
wily forward into kicking the asses of your local politico/corpopig then
maybe you could talk. You want to crack down on lying and bullshit,
do it for real, but don't waste that precious energy on a game.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 10 Mar 1998 10:37:17 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
> Maybe we can talk the English FA into letting Castrilli work for a year
> up there. You'd see some red cards then...
It's interesting however that English clubs in Europe and the England
team in International competition seem to pick up less cards than
any of their rivals, so even non-english refs appear to think that
the English are sportsmanlike, while the diving fouling antics
of certain countries that complain about the physical play
of the English results in more cards for the very thing they
complain that the English are doing.
Could this be a vastly inaccurate stero-type of the "English style" of
play ?
I loved the irony of Juninho warning his fellow players that Villa
were a physical side, when his career has been blighted by a foul
commited not in England, where he played for sometime, but in
Spain.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 10 Mar 1998 11:03:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
It is always refreshing to see someone willing to work out the logical
conclusion of any line of argument.
Alas, I was not talking about what English players were doing, but what
the English referees have done in every single game I've seen them whistle.
I have yet to see an English referee that protected the talented player from
systematic violence. It took egregious violence to get a card out of them,
and even that was too rare. On the other hand, they were very quick to give
a card to a player that openly disagreed with one of their rulings.
So, it seems to me, Steve, that you are pursuing a straw-man line of
argument. I do not know for a fact that English players are the cleanest
in the world (in fact, I rather doubt it); I do know for a fact that
I have never ever seen an English referee that punished systematically
violent behavior in a manner that would discourage it to my satisfaction.
Never. Not a one. I have seen Italian referees that did so. Hungarian,
Swedish, Soviet (it was a while ago), French, Danish, Dutch... but not a
single one that was English.
btw the "Fair Play" awards lately have been going to Argentina. Also, when
it comes to the petty filthy stuff Shearer is up there. And, of course,
let us not forget that the most egregious example in a long and
distinguished history of corrupt world cup trophies belongs to the 1966
winner. It seems that you need to revise your current set of assumptions.
>Could this be a vastly inaccurate stero-type of the "English style" of
>play ?
Nah. Years of watching the hoofers has led me to this point of view.
Why should I lie? I mean, everybody can watch the English league on tv,
right? So why should I expose myself to ridicule? I hereby declare that
I believe there is too much violence condoned in the English league and
throw myself on the mercy of the RSS court.
Perhaps you would prefer a specific instance. Well, Paul Ince is
currently the most obvious example on the national team; that guy
should single-handedly revoke any aspiration to a "Fair Play" trophy.
>[Juninho's injury]
I don't love a single thing about what happened to Juninho. I think
it's horrible. I think that the player that injured him should be
dismissed from the field of play for a year or two.
I don't know, Steve, does the protection of your precious FA crows really
warrant the celebration of violence on the fields of other federations?
England is not the only place where this sort of referee abounds--you
snipped my specific references to Scotland and Espa~a, for example. But
England is rather offensive in its pretense to define what is fair play.
Now, granted, there are more offensive things in the world than that (and
some of them surely originate from England as well), so you might wonder
about why I spend so much time on the topic. I believe that on-field
violence, being witnessed as it is by millions, cannot be condoned,
tolerated, or celebrated the way that it is in all too many UEFA matches.
It gives a bad example. It leads to a world where B. is the typical man;
surely you see the peril in that!
In a nutshell, the English referee sets forth the following motto: tackle
systematically in a way that guarantees that you will violently hit the
man as well as the ball and no substantial punishment will come to you;
raise any objection to an authority figure and you will be summarily
banished. Steve, I cordially invite you to apply to the previous sentence
your enterprise in following things to their natural conclusion.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 10 Mar 1998 11:30:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Steve Jones wrote:
>Marco Paserman writes:
[massive snip]
>> Exactly as Marcelo pointed out. You are incapable of recognizing that
>> other people don't see diving as such a moral outrage. You can't even agree to
>> disagree.
>[snip]
>
>Its not a question of moral outrage, its a question of the rules, elbowing
>someone in the face whether the the ref sees it or not is a despicable act.
The committee has consulted several specialists and it has concluded that
your confusion stems from the misplacement of the act of diving in the
same emotional space as an act of violence. This is possibly caused by the
psychological incorporation of the futbol rulebook, an object that is
prima facie not of the human body; the resultant stress is vented out
whenever violence is applied to said rulebook, much in the same way as
a normal man vents out stress when unsolicited violence is applied to
his body. The reaction is internally consistent, yet to an outside observer
that has not similarly incorporated the non-corporeal entity, it is an
act of madness.
Unfortunately, the B. case has discredited previous therapeutical
techniques, due to the discovery that repeated use of a penetrometer
could be met with an addictive reaction to the treatment; this then leads
to the patient doing whatever he can to remain in treatment, forestalling
a cure even more strongly than if no treatment had been applied in the
first place. Thus, the committee cannot recommend a specific course of
action that will lead to a cure. However, in many cases, the mere
presentation of a clinical diagnosis has lead the patient to find his
own cure. Best of luck.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 11 Mar 1998 09:48:00 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
> I have never ever seen an English referee that punished systematically
> violent behavior in a manner that would discourage it to my satisfaction.
I'd disagree with this assesment, certainly refs like David Elleray are
known to be very keen (and quite rightly so) on giving out cards. Yes
Durkin is on occasion (for instance with Leeds v Wolves he was apparently
shite and let one Leeds player get away with a deliberate elbow (only
a yellow) and missed a headbut). On the other hand however late fouls
are almost always punished these days and players like Juninho can make it
through nearly two seasons without picking up a major injury while he
didn't make it to the halfway mark in Spain (and the player wasn't booked).
My opinion is of course coloured, as indeed is yours, but last night in
the Auxerre v Bordeaux League Cup match there were only two bookings,
with the likes of Uriah Rennie or David Elleray in charge there would
have been a damned sight more, there were some bad challenges flying in,
the ref did knack all.
> btw the "Fair Play" awards lately have been going to Argentina.
The UEFA fair play award went to Argentina ? :-)
> 1966
There should be an RSS specific limit on the number of times someone can
mention this :-)
> [Paul Ince] should single-handedly revoke any aspiration to a
> "Fair Play" trophy.
Italy v England in Rome, the two "hard men" on the English team were NOT
booked by the very very good Dutch ref.
> [Juninho's injury]
Without a doubt the bastard stamped on his ankle, something that neither
Gareth Southgate or Ugo Ehiogu are liable to do (neither are dirty players).
> I don't know, Steve, does the protection of your precious FA crows really
> warrant the celebration of violence on the fields of other federations?
Err ? Wibble Fish. I think it is terrible what happened to Juninho, it
was a dirty foul, a clear red card (at least) and I'd bet a penny to a pound
that in England the defender would have walked.
> England is not the only place where this sort of referee abounds--
I disagree, I'd say that certainly this season and last its been tougher
to foul in England than, to take my easiest example, France.
> I believe that on-field violence [...] cannot be condoned,
> tolerated, or celebrated [...]
Without a doubt, I agree completely, I'm one of the people who wants to see
MORE yellow and red cards dished out and dirty players removed from the
game.
> It gives a bad example. It leads to a world where B. is the typical man;
> surely you see the peril in that!
Of course.
> In a nutshell, the English referee sets forth the following motto: tackle
> systematically in a way that guarantees that you will violently hit the
> man as well as the ball and no substantial punishment will come to you;
Not true, go in with two feet up and the ref is going to blow for the foul,
whether you win the ball or not. The problem comes (in all countries)
when the defender gets to the ball first and then goes through the attacker,
clearly the defender has every right to get the ball, the grey area
is the intent to cause harm, two feet for me should be an automatic
yellow whether you win the ball or not. Studs up should be a foul, but
winning the ball fairly and then, as a result of the momentum of the two
players, colliding is part of the game. Any attempt to injure should
be punished, any attempt to win the ball should not.
> raise any objection to an authority figure and you will be summarily
> banished. Steve, I cordially invite you to apply to the previous sentence
> your enterprise in following things to their natural conclusion.
Very socratic of you, the problem is one of perception possibly, I see the
refs in England as getting much better, they are dishing out miles more
cards, both for dissent and for violent play, than they ever have done.
And in comparison with some of the matches I've seen from other countries
they seem to be at least as tough, if not tougher than their counter-parts
around Europe.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 11 Mar 1998 20:42:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Ok, let me make a confession of sorts. It's been a few years since I have
watched a game from the English league from beginning to end. I think the last
one was an FA cup final between a team with a red shirt versus another one
with a blue shirt, in which some French guy scored the only goal with about
five minutes left in the game. That game was not particularly violent,
which brings up another point--when the players are willing to play good
fair futbol, then the referee that likes to stay away is the right one
for the job. I have seen the odd play while telesurfing since then, though,
and one of the reasons that I don't stay to watch the whole thing is that
as soon as I see one of these barrelling tackles go uncarded I just change
the channel.
Actually I think I saw most of a Middlesborough vs. Whomever match last
year when Juninho and Ravanelli were there. You're right, nobody hurt
Juninho--nobody got very close to him at all!
Curiously enough, I have seen more of the Scottish league (blame Fox for
having more coverage of that league, or for showing it when I'm awake).
Am I mistaken in assuming that it's pretty much the same kind of referee?
They don't look that different (ok, maybe the Scots are a little rougher).
No, my most frequent sighting of an English--let's broaden this a little
and say "UK"--referee is in an international match. There, I have seen
so many vicious, intentional and quite predictable fouls go without a
card (except to the victim or the team mate that might complain) that I
feel that you can set your watch by them. The latest example is this
Durkin retrograd.
>The UEFA fair play award went to Argentina ? :-)
Wait for the Swede to be sworn in before assuming that FIFA=UEFA, please.
>>1966
>There should be an RSS specific limit on the number of times someone can
>mention this :-)
Hmmm... well, we could have an RSS entrance exam, and all posters from a
.uk domain should list the top 10 razones why the 1966 cup was a fraud.
You'd luck out in that case, too.
>Italy v England in Rome, the two "hard men" on the English team were NOT
>booked by the very very good Dutch ref.
Well, your piercing scholarly skills have found a counter example, but if
we choose not to dig so selectively into the past and simply refer to the
most obvious example--the most recent one--then you should remember that
when Chile held a public futbol lecture at Wembley Mr. Ince was a very,
very bad student.
>Without a doubt the bastard stamped on his ankle, something that neither
>Gareth Southgate or Ugo Ehiogu are liable to do (neither are dirty players).
Don't know Ugo, I'll take your word for it. What I've seen of Southgate is
as you say. In fact, I'm sure we can make a list of hundreds of players
in the English Premiership that would not do that.
Now, can we make a list of all the English referees that would have given
an immediate red card for that? Do not put Durkin on that list, of course.
If the list is larger than, say, a fifth of all referees, then things have
improved.
>it was a dirty foul, a clear red card (at least) and I'd bet a penny to a
>pound that in England the defender would have walked.
Make it many more pounds and I'll grease the wheels to give that whistle
to Durkin, and then pocket the difference.
>I disagree, I'd say that certainly this season and last its been tougher
>to foul in England than, to take my easiest example, France.
Oh well, I suppose you are just trying to coerce me into watching some
games from England. Fine, I guess I will just have to do that. Let's go over
to Oliver's site... click, click... hey, no wonder I'm not catching any
games, they're not on! Ok, next wednesday Arsenal visits West Ham United.
I'll try to watch that and post my impressions.
>Without a doubt, I agree completely, I'm one of the people who wants to see
>MORE yellow and red cards dished out and dirty players removed from the
>game.
Hmmm... well, note that I only mentioned violent players. I am perfectly
happy to watch Hernan Diaz make his numerous and varied attempts to fool
the referee all day long, it's a great show.
>[...] Any attempt to injure should
>be punished, any attempt to win the ball should not.
You were doing fine until you got to the end. A player does not have a
right to injure another just because that is his geodesic to the ball.
To me, the classic example is the divided ball, where one of the players
makes absolutely no attempt to slow down even when it is clear that he
is not going to get there first. A player that goes in for a ball in a
manner that is guaranteed to hit the opponent in a dangerous manner does
not belong on the field. Whether it is due to malice or to misjudgement
is not relevant; such a player is a menace to all the others and when he
is allowed to remain in the game, others follow in his footsteps and pretty
soon you see a situation where all the good players use wheelchairs.
Currently, in the divided ball scenario, a player is tentative because
his opponent might injure him. Why not switch that to make a player
tentative because if he risks injuring his opponent, he gets a red card?
This is what Blatter was getting at.
Poor Sepp. His instincts are good--futbol needs more goals and there are
too many violent fouls. His solutions are not so good. Fortunately,
if he beats Johansson his creativity will be curtailed by the sober
permanent members of the rules committee.
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 12 Mar 1998 09:40:17 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
[...]
> To me, the classic example is the divided ball
Okay this therefore becomes a foul, its a late challenge and more often
than not these days is going to result in a yellow if its late enough
and spectacular enough.
> [...] Why not switch that to make a player
> tentative because if he risks injuring his opponent, he gets a red card?
Too much in favour of the attacker, take a classic example that is NEVER
called as a foul, attacker coming through, defender clears the ball away
from his feet and out of play, attacker slams full on into the defender.
Clearly this could result in injury, but right now its not even given as
a foul. If the defender can win the ball then let him, if he is late then
its a foul and maybe a yellow, if he is late and dangerous its a certain
yellow and maybe a red, but to ban a specific type of tackle when decent
players can execute it well seems to be against the spirit of the game.
Example, Des Walker (when he was a Forest) once managed to, from behind
the player, wrap his legs around the ball so it was trapped at the back
of his knees and the attacker went arse over tit, Walker had FULL control
of the ball and didn't touch the player, a superb tackle and a memorable
momement.
> Poor Sepp. His instincts are good--futbol needs more goals and there are
> too many violent fouls.
Blatter appears to think that their aren't enough goals and therefore
nobody should be tackled, there is a difference between violence (I agree
this should be a red) and a decent tackle where the defender wins the ball.
> [Blatter]
Oh god not Blather as FIFA president, thats just as bad as having the
current moron with his "we'll kick Brazil out of the WC if you clean up
Brazilian football" threat to Pele. Johansson is short term, he will last
about 1 WC and then the head of the Africa federation is liable to take over.
--------------------------------------
Subject: West Ham - Arsenal [R, sorta]
Date: 21 Mar 1998 20:52:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
{snip Ariel's 20'-80' match report}
>From what I saw, the referee did a fine job. Now, I cannot say for sure,
because one really needs to look at the whole 90 minutes, but I saw some
encouraging signs: he called the fouls, he gave the cards, and he even
came up with something like eyes on the back of his head to foil the
fiendish Keown. He did miss a penalty against Hartson, who was wrestled
down by Vieira on a very dangerous cross at the goalmouth, but I have not
seen that foul called nearly often enough (they've been calling it in
Argentina for the last couple of years, which at first took people by
surprise but now it works fine). It's too bad that FIFA picked the Durkin
specimen over this fellow (his name may have been Reed, but I'm not sure
what the commentator said).
===========================
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 10 Mar 1998 20:00:35 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
Ariel Mazzarelli writes:
> [shirt-grabbing] has gotten totally out of hand.
True. But in most matches I see, the ref would give advantage to the attacker
and since usually the attacker manages to pass to a teammate in time anyway no
foul is (needs to be) called. If the attacker doesn't manage to do anything
intelligent, usually (admittedly not always) the foul is called and a free
kick given. Yellow cards are indeed not given enough for this offense.
> [The shoulder check]
A normal shoulder check wouldn't disturb the opponents balance significantly.
Those that do, should be called.
> [Obstruction]
Annoying, indeed. Hardly a reason for an attacker to protect himself by
diving, though.
[Tripping called -> Ortega is Maradona II, should I take that serious?]
> Let's face it, the situation is a MESS.
Not messier than ever before.
> [...] So if
> you get tapped on the ankles or shoved on the shoulder and he chooses to fall,
> that is fine. Is that a dive? Yes. Is that a foul by the defender? Yes.
No. Yes. The dives I am referring to (can't speak for Steve or anyone else
here) are those where no foul took place and the attacker still goes down.
> [...]THE ENGLISH HAVE THE MOST ATROCIOUS REFEREEING CORE OUTSIDE OF THE MLS.
A far cry from the days English referees were welcome guests in South America
in general and Argentina in particular because their own refs couldn't handle
the important games, I see.
I'm not saying English refs are the best in the world (and David Elleray
certainly isn't world class), just they are not reluctant to give yellows
for dives. Period. I personally prefer French, German (but not Krug or
Merk, fortunately Heynemann, my favourite for the final, will be in France)
or Italian referees (not considering Dutch ones - these are pretty good in
fact, but I may not be unbiased). I don't see enough South American football
to pass any judgment on Argentine or Brazilian referees.
> [Scotland and Spain with poor referee corps]
Austria and Belgium are two obvious others. And I wouldn't put my hand
in any fires concerning Switzerland, but it's five years since I saw
matches from there on TV.
> Please, people, let's have a little civility here. It's nearly the end of
> the 20th century, isn't it about time we did away with bloodsports?
1.e2-e4.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 11 Mar 1998 19:46:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
[snip stuff we mostly agree on]
>Not messier than ever before.
The mess has shifted. Before, you had some blatant crooks in black.
Now they are smoothies, but they have forgotten to give yellow cards
for grabbing shirts. I suppose that as the speed of the players has
increased over the years, so has the number of borderline collisions,
and that places more responsibility on the referee.
[snip vonnegut and more stuff we mostly agree on]
>No. Yes. The dives I am referring to (can't speak for Steve or anyone else
>here) are those where no foul took place and the attacker still goes down.
Ok, here is a test which any RSSer can take. You are watching a game on TV
or at the stadium, and the player takes an obvious dive. Do you laugh?
If the answer is "yes", how can you give him a card when he makes you laugh?!
If the answer is "no", I say lighten up!
[snip again, just to show the clueless intruders on this thread that one
can indeed use an editor to advantage]
>[English referees were welcome guests in South America]
Indeed. btw It is not that the refs could not handle the games. The problem
was that people starting assuming that there were crooked things going on.
So they brought in outsiders whose main virtue was that they were outsiders.
In addition, of course, they needed to be of good reputation and in those
days the English referees had plenty of that.
I don't think you will find this sort of thing happening after 1966.
>[refereeing in Europe]
Man, UEFA is a disaster! Ok, as far as the Swiss are concerned, the problem
is not necessarily one of allowing rampant thuggery to go unchecked, is it?
As the years have gone by the Swiss reputation for impartial neutrality has,
how shall I put it, been overshadowed by the realization that such
neutrality comes at a price--to put it more directly, that its opportune
disappearance is for sale to the highest bidder, no matter how foul said
bidder may be.
>I personally prefer French, German [...] or Italian referees
I agree with that. I was rather fond of Mr. Puhl, his world cup performances
were pretty good.
Argentina's referees vary. My favorite is Lamolina, but I also like
Castrilli now. On a bad day, however, Castrilli is a historical disaster.
I remember a game last year between Racing and Independiente which was
ordinary, yet by the time it was over Racing had 3 red cards and
Independiente had one as well; it was hilarious to read the Reuters account
of this game because you could tell that the writer had been handed a
factual synopsis of the match--lineups, goals, cards--and just made things
up to make it sound like it was a war when in fact it was just Castrilli
being 200% Castrilli.
I have not been happy with the brasucas that refereed the world cup
qualifiers, and we did go rather deeply into their staff when CONMEBOL
decided to use them almost exclusively to, supposedly, avoid conflicts
(Bolivia-Argentina showed that that particular goal was not to be reached
in this way). There's probably a good one or two, and one can expect them
to make some effort to protect the skillful player. However I cannot end
this paragraph without pointing out that until about a year ago the CBF
official in charge of the referees, a close acquaintance of Havelange's
son-in-law Teixeira, was merrily making phone calls before matches offering
the services of the whistle to the highest bidder.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 12 Mar 1998 11:16:05 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> [...]
> Man, UEFA is a disaster!
UEFA has many countries, it's not hard to find some with horrible referees.
OTOH, the Czechs, Hungarians (notwithstanding their traditional reputation
for being involved in a few crooked things) and Romanians, for instance,
usually have good referees, Denmark as well. As for Austria, I have to say
things have improved in the last five years or so, though trainers of course
complain as always.
===========================================
3. Cheating, violence and corruption
===========================================
Subject: Bring me the Hand of Diego Armando (Re: "Hands of God")
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:32:32 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
There's always a moment of awkward silence when the unintentionally
unison gloating of "Read 'em and weep!" is followed by the cold
realization that everyone else at the table has also laid down four
aces.
Then abruptly, chairs scrape the floor, claim and counter-claim fly
through the air with punches not far behind, Joe the barman quickly
dismantles the grand mirror (while calling to his wife to remove the
liquor from the shelves), the shady dealers of tomorrow peer in through
the windows of today, the sherrif may (or may not) awake from his
drunken slumber.
Merely a "game"? More like a good book, well worth imbibing: fiction
transmuted to non-fiction. Hey Joe, where are you going with that dough
in your hands? I'll have a margarita sans the slice of Harry Lime.
---Stig
"Royal Flushes of the world, disperse and take over" (RF = eg EC)
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:48:25 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
At the tail-end of the latest diving deabte, I'd like to ask two
clarifying "devil's advocate" questions to the "pro-cheaters" (eg
Marcelo, Ariel, Daniele, Massa):
1. What is your distinction between on-field and off-field cheating? The
only difference I see, when you first accept cheating as a natural part
of the game, is one of visibilty, i.e. the fan has less opportunity to
appreciate well-executed corruption. The skill required for a good bribe
can be just as impressive as that for a good dive or handball (knowing
how to "phrase" the offer, knowing _what_ to offer (not necessarily
moolah, but say "female companionship", fur coats, etc). Torino for one
have shown the beauty of creative accounting, and we all know about the
cleverness of last minute venue-switching. By enlargening the focus from
the 11 players to the entire club (or federation), can not the rationale
for cheating - football's just a game, cheating is a skill, no one gets
hurt, etc - be used to justify corruption, influencing the refs, etc?
2. There are certain individuals - we need not name names, not even
initials - who openly approve of defenders violently hacking down
skillful players. No doubt there are fans who enjoy "hard men" who set
themselves in respect through violence, and consider deliberate attempts
to injure an opponent as a legitimate tactic of the game. The question
is: though you yourselves completely reject this view of football, do
you respect it? I.e. are you willing to chalk it up to "cultural
differences", cordially "agree to disagree", and not complain if your
team should lose due to violent play?
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 17 Mar 1998 06:20:07 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login3.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
I'll speak for myself. The four of us have probably very differing
opinions on the matter.
> 1. [distinction between on-field and off-field cheating?]
There is no difference. As a fan of a team that notoriously buys the
refs I have to say that nobody is as skilled at this as the Juve
management. We don't bungle up things like Anderlecht or Torino, but
rather do it much more discreetly) :-)
But seriously, I don't justify corruption, but then I don't really
justify diving or deliberate handballing either. These are infractions
to the rule of the game, and they should be penalized. And they are penalized.
If a player gets caught diving, he gets a yellow card. That's fine.
There's no need for draconian measures. I don't think that the game
is demeaned by players trying to get away with a dive or a handball.
I don't think that Serie A is any less exciting because players
"cheat" all the time. Serie A may be less exciting than other
European Leagues, but for other reasons.
As I've said before, I dislike diving to the extent that it hurts my own
team. More often than not a dive results in losing possession and
losing a possible goal-scoring opportunity, so I'm annoyed at
Del Piero when he dives all the time, because I think he could
do something better with the ball. But I'm not outraged at the
moral turpitude of diving.
And I'm also not really in the business of admiring the beauty of
a "good cheating act". The spirit of my RSS Post of the Week winning
post on the Best Cheating Acts Ever was more one of taking the piss
out of all the anti-diving moralizers than of real admiration.
I'm not sure that everyone (even on my side of the debate) understood
that.
> 2. ["cultural difference" => pertains also to violence?]
First of all, I think that deliberate leg-breaking tackles, aimed at
getting a player out of a game, are such a rare occurrence that it's
not really worth talking about it so much.
Secondly, I think it's wrong to associate diving with deliberate violence.
Both are infractions to the rules: similarly, speeding and rape are
both against the law. Deliberate violence is like rape; diving is like
speeding. A lot of people do that, if you get caught you are fined, and
there's nothing morally outrageous about that.
Finally, I don't think anybody really defends deliberate violence
as a legitimate tactic. What somebody whose initials I'll omit
advocated was really the professional foul, in somewhat colorful
terms (hacking). I can agree to disagree with those that
defend the professional foul.
Between two good defenders, one that uses the professional
foul, and one that doesn't (e.g.: Scirea and Baresi) I'll
prefer the one that doesn't (Scirea). But that doesn't
take away from the fact that the other is also a good defender.
Football is a physical game. Sometimes to stop an attacker
you need a combination of good defending skills and minor fouls.
This is how Gentile stopped Maradona and Zico. After the fourth
or fifth minor foul, Gentile got booked. He knew he had to be more
careful, and he was. You see, a good defender doesn't need
brutal violence to stop an opponent. But if somebody thinks
that brutal violence is all right.
One last word of advice: did you ever try diving? If not, then do
it the next time you play with your mates. It's a lot of fun...
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:15:07 -0500
From: Massa Sugano (sugano@fas.harvard.edu)
I guess I have 5 minutes to spare. Note that the below is my view only
and may not represent those held by others who advocate my position.
> 1. [distinction between on-field and off-field cheating?]
Life is full of compromises, and you simply have to draw an artificial
line somewhere. It seems the most reasonable and civilized to draw that
line at where the football pitch ends. Corruption by the club is to be
condemned, individual cunning by players is no big deal.
Here's another line of argument; no one deserves moral ourage, as long as
he's getting the due. You dive, you get booked. You kill, you get life
imprisonment. Moral condemnation should only go to those who haven't paid
(i.e, Craxi), or those whose crime is so big that no punishment is large
enough (i.e., Hitler).
> 2. ["cultural difference" => pertains also to violence?]
It's like social democraticism and fascism. Condoning "diving" is a bit
off center but not that far off; condoning hacking is way off-center. So
I will not agree to disagree, and I would complain if the Celtic hack
Zidane and Del Piero to pieces in next Champions League. For me, hacking
players is an event "ouside" the pitch, in that it has real effects upon
the player as a human being. I know how it sucks to lose a game by an
non-existent penalty, but being torn a ligament was incomparably worse.
I've never heard of a "hardman" who had trouble walking his dog the
next day because someone dived in front of him.
I could agree to disagree with those feeling moral outrage against diving.
That is no problem.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:02:58 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
> [artificial line, etc]
The logical consequence of this line being "artificial" is that you
must, in light of your previous statements, accept that due to "cultural
differences" others draw the line elsewhere; i.e. you have waived your
rights of complaint if your team loses due to corruption. Your
disappointment would then have to be vented towards your teams's
management for not bribing the ref themselves (though as you've chosen
Juventus as your club, this is of course a hypothetical statement).
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:48:00 -0500
From: Massa Sugano (sugano@fas.harvard.edu)
It is artificial, so if you are in a society where bribery is rampant, you
can't really help it. That's why you try to watch a league with relatively
little sleeze, or if that is your country, you try to improve the society
first. Anyhow, I don't think I'm too far off in claiming that it is the
most civilized to draw the line at where the football pitch ends; common
sense and majority agreement is my argument. How many people can you get to
argue that corruption off field is all right?
If, say, Panathinaikos corrupts the officials in European competition, they
are to be condemned, since Europe as a whole does not have an extremely
corrupt culture. If Panathinaikos corrupts the officials in Greece, it's
sad, but it's none of our business. It would just mean that Greece is less
civilized than elsewhere. (No offense, just an example.)
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:16:44 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
I'll let you connect the rest of the dots yourself.
==========================
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 17 Mar 1998 02:12:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
[...]
Let's give an answer to Stig and conserve some threadspace. Ok, corruption
sucks because we watch the game like a bunch of idiots when it's already
been determined. It's that simple: we are being fooled. I am not sure how
much more futbol I'll keep watching if farces like the refereeing and
diet-pill-framing scandals of the previous world cup cycle repeat
themselves. There are a lot of fine math books to be read rather than
being treated to a grassy version of Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant.
Violence sucks because people get physically hurt. The necessary foul that
does not injure, however, is an art form. Ruggeri was a master. Remember
when he was beaten by Caba~as (I think it was him) in Asuncion in the 1993
qualifier and rather than kill him from behind, he just reached up and
pulled his hair? You have to admire such sportsmanship in the face of
necessary transgression. Perfumo was of the opinion that the foul was part
of the game, and was simply another obstacle for the attacker; who am I
to contradict Perfumo, the greatest defender in the history of the game?
I am not worthy.
The dive is undoubtedly a part of the game. Getting one over the ref is a
beautiful thing. Admiration of order--outside of math, of course--is
probably a fascist impulse. A good dive reminds us all that the man with
the whistle can be fooled, and that is a good thing.
Now, a bad dive is its own punishment. Laughter and disrespect quickly
follow. It's like any other technique; a good player is supposed to do it
well and when he doesn't we all think "shit, I can do better than THAT".
So, as I said earlier in the thread, if when you see a dive, your first
reaction is something unlike a smile, lighten up! It's just a little joke,
an aside from the player to the fans that bypasses the referee. If your team
is the victim, well, can you not laugh when the joke is on you?
So, to sum up: corruption bad, violence bad, defense good, fascism bad,
laughter good.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:02:58 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
> [...] There are a lot of fine math books to be read rather than
> being treated to a grassy version of Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant.
The pro wrestling analogy doesn't quite work. All the encounters are
fixed and choreographed beforehand, thus pro wrestling is more akin to
the theater or religion. Good corruption, like good diving, has to be
used sparingly if it is to have the desired effect.
> [...] A good dive reminds us all that the man with
> the whistle can be fooled, and that is a good thing.
Hmmm. As I hinted at in a previous post, the fundamental difference as I
see it is whether you consider football as fiction or non-fiction. If
the former, then sure, cheating can be a beautiful thing - we all enjoy
the tale of the elegant conman fooling the diamond merchant, or the
master thief outwitting the police, or the dashing international spy
escaping the authorities. But if the latter, then cheating is (at best)
anti-social - we don't enjoy being swindled, or robbed, or spied upon in
real life. Friction thus occurs when writers of fiction play against
writers of non-fiction.
And as I also previosuly hinted at, football may only be a "game", but
games are one of the major areas for where kids learn their values.
Those "corpopigs" you refer to aren't teleported ready-made from the
planet Anything Goes.
> [...] If your team
> is the victim, well, can you not laugh when the joke is on you?
Your impressive verbal dexterity notwithstanding, it remains that also
this justification can be used for off-field cheating. Take the Copa qf
in 1995 between Argentina and CBF, as you saw it. Up until the 80th
minute, you were thoroughly enjoying a classic game of futbol. Then with
Tulio's Hand Of God goal came the sudden, terrible realization that the
game was fixed! For 80 minutes Lucy had fooled you into thinking that
_this_ time she wouldn't yank the ball away when you tried to kick it -
then WHAM! you landed flat on your back once again. Sucker! I.e. whether
Tulio fooled the ref, or the CBF fooled the Argies, the subjective
result is the same - "the joke's on you"!
If you are unable to laugh, you may take solace in Adorno/Horkheimer's
merry words:
"Even though laughter is still the sign of force, of the breaking out of
blind and obdurate nature, it also contains the opposite element - the
fact that through laughter blind nature becomes aware of itself as it
is, and thereby surrenders itself to the power of destruction."
> So, to sum up: corruption bad, violence bad, defense good, fascism bad,
> laughter good.
As we all know, the fans creative input into football is limited to
making noise and making stories (buying $$$-worth of licensed products
and throwing objects at opponents deserve dishonorable mention).
Therefore, I think it should be obvious that corruption is _good_ for
the game, as it enhances fan participation. I.e. your team lost and you
feel helpless to do anything about it? Create a conspiracy.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 20 Mar 1998 20:02:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
> [...] Good corruption, like good diving, has to be
>used sparingly if it is to have the desired effect.
The referee for Colombia-Argentina, 1994 WC qualifiers, claimed that he had
been pressured by his boss to throw the game to Argentina. In the game he
heavily favored the locals instead. I don't take that shit lightly, if it
keeps happening I'll find something else to watch.
> [...] But if the latter, then cheating is (at best)
>anti-social - we don't enjoy being swindled, or robbed, or spied upon in
>real life. [...]
Property is theft, hadn't you heard?
>Those "corpopigs" you refer to aren't teleported ready-made from the
>planet Anything Goes.
Hmmm, I think there is QUITE a stretch between investors setting up
atrocious factories and somebody diving to win a penalty kick. I'll leave
it up to you to work out a phrasing for the difference since you brought
it up in the first place. Ok, here is a little push: is Hitler the guy
diving to win a penalty, or is he the referee, or is he off-topic?
> [...] I.e. whether
>Tulio fooled the ref, or the CBF fooled the Argies, the subjective
>result is the same - "the joke's on you"!
The problem with Tulio's arm is that it was a crass cheat. There was no
elegance to it at all. Also, it should be noted that the brasucas have
always had the referee in their pockets in these things (England 1966 being
the exception), so we are talking about more than just a wily forward
fooling a referee.
>If you are unable to laugh, you may take solace in Adorno/Horkheimer's
>merry words: [...]
Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting the above, but is he suggesting that
laughter is a savage activity? I think it is quite the opposite, really.
The only other animals that laugh are hyenas and some RSSers.
>As we all know, the fans creative input into football is limited to
>making noise and making stories
And breeding the next generation of futbolistas!
>[...] Create a conspiracy.
No, we don't need to create any more conspiracies, there are plenty of
real ones already. Our game is to find out what they are.
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 22 Mar 1998 03:49:07 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login3.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Ariel, Ariel, have you learnt nothing?
Here's a little test for you:
Your reaction when Tulio's Hand of God goal is mentioned is:
a) Laugh at it and admit that this time the inferior brasuca cheaters
were better and more clever than the master arghie cheaters.
b) Whine like the English.
I'm sure you know what the correct answer is...
--------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:39:58 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
Ariel Mazzarelli wrote:
>
> [Colombia-Argentina, 1994 WC qualifiers]
I can only reiterate that both corruption and diving must be used with
discretion; too much of a good thing only leads to inflation. It's
precisely because eg drugs-test frame-ups are so rarely used that most
people were duped into believing that Maradona wasn't the victim of
FIFA.
> Property is theft, hadn't you heard?
... and what is diving if not the covetous desire for property?
> Hmmm, I think there is QUITE a stretch between investors setting up
> atrocious factories and somebody diving to win a penalty kick.
Definitely; about 15 years and a host of shady decisions. Which brings
us back to whether football is fiction or non-fiction.
> [...] is Hitler the guy
> diving to win a penalty, or is he the referee, or is he off-topic?
...or is he the little totalitarian who murders millions and grows up to
become a rhetorical cliche?
> [Tulio's hand/ brasuca's $$$]
Either way, "the joke's on you"...
BTW, why are the argies such lousy bribers as compared to the brasucas?
I mean, even when someone tries to influence the ref Argentina's way he
ends up going against them! Pitiful.
> Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting the above, but is he suggesting that
> laughter is a savage activity?
Who knows what they're on about? ;-) The context is Poseidon's laughter
in the last song of the Odyssey, as over-analyzed in "Dialactic of
Enlightenment". Be glad I snipped out the part about how names are
nothing more than "frozen laughter"! Here's another classic from the
German chucklemeisters, this time about "faith":
"In the secret consciousness of the deficiency - necessarily inherent in
faith - of its immanent contradiction in making reconciliation a
vocation, lies the reason why the integrity of all believers has always
been a sensitive and dangerous thing."
> No, we don't need to create any more conspiracies, there are plenty of
> real ones already. Our game is to find out what they are.
That's one vote for "non-fiction", then.
-------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: 23 Mar 1998 19:10:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>... and what is diving if not the covetous desire for property?
It is the emergence of the universal thespian. All the field's a stage.
>Definitely; about 15 years and a host of shady decisions. Which brings
>us back to whether football is fiction or non-fiction.
Now wait a sec! You dragged that subject back by the hairs.
Ok, the difference that one of them is the universal thespian and the other
is a cancer that paves the planet, barrages people with misanthropic
commercialism through all possible media, and displaces Mozart with
really bland shitty noise branded as "music".
>[Hitler]
Ok, so he's off-topic.
>BTW, why are the argies such lousy bribers as compared to the brasucas?
Well, see, they know we'd own futbol if it was ever fair. All our bribes
only help to make things less unfair, they never quite go the full measure.
> [Adorno/Horkheimer on "faith"]
Now this one is sweet. It almost makes sense. In German it was, what,
three words total?
That reminds me of what Walter Kaufman wrote about previous translators
of Nietzsche into English. He practically recommended that they all be
hanged, and denied tenure for good measure. Of course Nietzsche has only
himself to blame for writing in that impossible language in the first place.
>That's one vote for "non-fiction", then.
Hmmm... don't you see an immanent contradiction in the non-fictional
character of the universal thespian?
---------------------------
Subject: Re: "Hands of God"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:08:49 +0100
From: Stig Oppedal (stigopp@mail.hf.uio.no)
"Universal thespian"? Ha!
Diving = property = theft. First of all, the diver shows he is in it
solely to increase his material wealth (i.e. property). Not for honor or
glory, nor to prove footballing superiority, does this lonely figure
throw himself to the ground like a displaced leming - he knows that the
replay will disprove any delusional claims. Likewise for that other form
of cheating, the handball goal (the "Hand of God" is an exceptional case
that I will refrain from commentating on). Eg Poland 1, San Marino 0:
the striker who punched in the winning goal did so not to prove his team
were superior to some fourth-rate thugs (as they clearly weren't), but to
secure himself enough zlotys to buy a used Trabant.
Diving is also "property" in a more immediate, more disturbing sense. If
successful, the diver gains exclusive rights to the ball for himself and
his team, thereby denying others access to what is rightfully theirs;
indeed, whether a "penalty kick" or a "free kick", his fellow men must
withdraw from the ball or else incur a penalty for "trespassing". Note
that this is in contrast to when a player is awarded the ball as a
result of an illegal challenge; in this case the infringer, through his
own brutality, has waived his rights to the ball.
The referee is merely the mortal agent of Nature, and thus the imperfect
representative of a perfect Order/Chaos. The Laws of this Nature are not
the laws of "society", but rather Natural Law, like F=ma as opposed to
"speed limit = 55 mph". This Law is eternal and unchangeable; it is
science's aim to uncover these Laws. As Newton's Second Law was
supplanted by quantum physics, so may new Laws be "discovered", but
always working within a certain paradigm as the expression of the same
Nature. (Note that certain charlatans, eg one "Rotten" Al Rothenburg,
will propose ludicrous interpretations of these Laws.)
The wretched diver thus seeks to cheat not only himself and his fellow
man, but vainly also attempts to cheat the very Laws of Nature, the
never-ending cycle of Life and Death. In short, the diver is like a
speck of stardust who erects a statue of himself and engraves upon it:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"