World Cup 2010 - besides almost causing me to go into cardiac arrest when Ghana lost ignominiously to Uruguay, has also rejuvenated my love for soccer. (In the last few years, I started a love affair with NFL football which lead me to desert my first love.)
It has also exposed soccer for what it is and what it’s not.
Soccer = a great game hampered by bad rules, terrible referees with too much power and total lack of sportsmanship.
In the dying seconds of the quarterfinals game between Ghana and Uruguay, Luis Suarez punched out a header from Dominic Adiyiah that would have sent Ghana to the semifinals. The only problem was Suarez is not the goalkeeper so under FIFA rules, he got ejected and Ghana earned a penalty kick. Ghana’s striker Asamoah Gyan missed the shot and the rest, as they say is history.

The outcry in the international media after the game has been totally anti-Suarez and he has been labeled a cheat and unsportsmanlike. Loudest have been Africans, the English and surprisingly, the Americans.
It is understandable why Africans should be pissed. Ghana had become the team of the continent. The English have never forgotten Maradonna’s “Hand of God.” The US media though surprised me. After all Ghana knocked out the US in 2006 and this year. In the 2006 competition, Ghana was the benefactor of (what most Americans feel) a dubious referee call. So why were Americans so aghast?
Well, before we get to that, let’s get some background.
The US is the only nation in the world not totally enamored with soccer. Reasons are as myriad as the pace of the game and the paucity of goals. Now baseball is no faster so the pace is no argument. Two other reasons that I heard over and over before the World Cup started and that got louder during the games were the facts that the referee wielded too much power and that the rules were at times arbitrarily and ambiguous.
Look at American sports. They are guided by hard and fast rules. There are of course situations where subjectivity plays a role – pass interference calls in the NFL and the strike zone in baseball are two examples that come to mind. But in the majority of cases, the rules are not arbitrarily and ambiguous. They favor sportsmanship because the rules don’t have too much of leeway to game and play the system. The referees don’t wield the amount of power those in soccer have. Their impact on games, although important, is not as game-changing as in soccer. Since goals are so few in soccer, teams may not be able to overcome one bad call.
Compare this situation in American sports to rules and referees in soccer. The soccer referee is literally an autocrat. His word is law and his decisions one-sided and grave. They make and break. That together with rules that are ambiguous and somewhat arbitrarily lead to players behaving in unsportsmanlike ways to gain an edge. Hence the “Hands of God, Henri and Suarez.” Hence the flopping.
So again, why were Americans aghast? Well the accusations of referee power and ambiguity were borne out during the games over and over – the American goal against Slovakia that was disallowed for no reason, the English goal against Germany that wasn’t given and the myriad suspect calls.The lack of sportsmanship in how players flopped, players hit other players when no one was looking, the blatant use of hands and so on.
That is why I think the rules of the game need some tweaking.
Ironically, FIFA can look at the one nation where soccer is not the number one sport for support, if it is willing to take the game to the next level. And that is the US!
Some of these needed changes are already practiced in American sports and that is why the US may be such a good example.
The use of goal-line technology is direly needed. It is expensive it can be reserved for international games and for those organizations and countries who can afford it. The setup would capture events at the goal and the video transported real time to a reviewer somewhere in the stadium who can communicate with the referee on the field. in the case of the English goal, the reviewer would have sent a message to the referee through his earpiece – “That was a goal!”
The concept of goal-tending should be introduced. It is a rule in basketball. If an opposing player other than the goalkeeper uses the hand or hands to prevent a kick or header that would have been a goal otherwise, that should be a termed goal-tending. The scoring team should be given the goal and the offending player sent off for good measure.
The game clock. Now this is one complaint I often heard. It really exposes the arbitrariness of the rules. The time of play should be set in stone not at the whim of the referee.
Tougher punishment for the use of hands by players. Everyone saw Henry use his hands twice in that fateful World Cup qualifier against Ireland. The rule should be – if a player who is not a goalkeeper uses the hands in a play that results in a goal, the scoring team will forfeit the goal and the offending player will be sent off. If the play that not result in a goal, the player will be sent off if the use of hands was intentional. Coaches in the NFL are able to throw in a red flag to challenge a call. Maybe this ability should be given in soccer in cases of blatant use of the hand or hands. Thierry Henry should never have gotten away with that handball and neither should have Maradonna.
Soccer is a great game with great athletes in great shape. Their skill level is mighty high and the game is a pleasure to watch. For the sake of all who love to play and watch the game, let’s take soccer to the next level. Let’s stop bad referees form influencing how games turn out. Let’s stop the Maradonnas, Henrys and Suarezes!