Sepp Blatter, FIFA President
The referee who officiated in Ghana’s quarter-final match against Uruguay might have acted within FIFA Law 12, 2005 which says a free kick or penalty will be awarded if a player “handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)”.
Page 67 of the FIFA Law also reminds referees that “deliberate handling of the ball is normally punished only by a direct free kick if the offence occurred inside the penalty area”.
Perhaps it is based on the interpretations of the FIFA law that Luis Suarez, the Uruguayan striker, who acted as the second goalkeeper in Ghana’s quarter final match against the South American country, is reportedly serving a one-match ban. He missed yesterday’s semi-final match between Uruguay and The Netherlands.
Often, offences punishable by instant red cards attract one match ban. And so on the face of it, Suarez’s ban falls within the ambit of FIFA Laws 12 and 67.
FIFA’s disciplinary committee ruled last Saturday that Suarez was guilty of “denying the opposite team (in this case Ghana) a clear goal-scoring opportunity” and therefore imposed a one -match ban on the Uruguayan striker.
Like what has become almost a cliché, we believe there are exceptions to rules and we believe in the spirit of FAIR PLAY, FIFA should have considered the broader ramifications of Suarez’s action than the parochial interpretation of its rules on cheating.
In that instance, the critical nature of the match should have been taken into consideration; the posture of Suarez under the circumstance should have been considered and even the post-match jubilation of Suarez should as well have informed FIFA‘s judgment on the issue.
We believe Suarez’s position at a time he scrambled the goal-bound header when the ball had beaten the Uruguayan goalkeeper and one other player clearly suggests that his ban cannot be considered as just a deliberate obstruction of a goal-bound header.
It is an issue that falls within the exceptional cases in rules, regulations and laws and should be interpreted based on the environment under which the act was committed and not strictly by the rules. FIFA’s one-match ban of Suarez falls flat in the face of justice and fair play. A six-month ban of the Ajax striker would have even been flattery.
To us in Ghana, there had been a precedent and even if it did not occur on a big stage like the World Cup, the fact that it happened in an international match officiated by FIFA accredited officials who gave a goal in similar circumstance meant the exception rule can be applicable in football.
It was the 2nd leg of the last Cup Winners Cup final match between Ghana’s Kumasi Asante Kotoko and WAC of Morocco where a goal-bound shot by Kotoko’s Aziz Ansah was scooped on the goal line by a WAC player with his hand. The referee did not hesitate to award a goal to Kotoko and gave the offender an instant red-card.
Indeed the FIFA stance on the Suarez issue vindicates those who had since last Friday night believed the striker’s action was well intended to deny Ghana a semi-final berth in the ongoing South Africa 2010 World Cup. Suarez, like many others, believed FIFA’s ruling on the callous “hand of the devil” issue would not exceed the mandatory one-match ban.
That explains why Uruguayan players and their coach carried the villain Suarez shoulder high for his “bravery” that obviously denied Ghana legitimate qualification to the semi-finals of the South Africa 2010 World Cup.
For now, it might sound okay for Suarez and his journey and countrymen. Yes. But what Suarez and his cohorts should not forget is that they could also be at the receiving end of such thievery some day. When Northern Ireland suffered an infamous “hand of Thierry Henry goal” which denied that country of a legitimate qualification to South Africa 2010, some, including Ghanaians, thought the protestations by the Irish amounted to sour grapes.
England suffered similarly during their 1/16th stage of the World Cup in their match against Germany when a Frank Lampard legitimate goal was over ruled by the officiating match officials that it did not cross the goal line. Playbacks of the incident clearly showed that the ball crossed the goal line by so many inches.
We had knowledgeable Ghanaian football pundits who, obviously, driven by their hatred for the English game, rubbished the intense protest mounted by the British press on the disputed goal. Today, it is Ghana and the paper believes next would be another country.
It is really a harrowing precedent that had been set by the World’s football governing body and we would not be surprised that in subsequent World Cup matches player-cheats would be replicating the infamous action of Suarez / Thierry Henry and boast afterwards that their action had some mystical hand of God behind it, as the Uruguayan bragged after their match against Ghana.
Such cheats know that after all, their punishment will not go beyond the mandatory one-match ban that comes with such glaring denial of goals as was in the case of Ghana against Uruguay last Friday night. And whom do we blame? It is the monster called FIFA which is gradually killing excitement in global football.
Similar acts had been committed in the past with the most recent one being Thierry Henry’s goal against The Republic of Ireland in a South Africa 2010 World Cup qualifier.
We thought the obvious cheating by Henry would have softened FIFA’s stance on goal line technology where pundits had suggested that one of the best means of sanitizing football would be to adopt video re-plays to decide on many controversial decisions that bug the game in recent times.
But Sepp Blatter would remain reticent and insist that goal line technology has the potential of taking off the emotions, excitement and sentiments that are associated with football. In effect, it would take away the moans and sighs that make soccer such a unique sport.
Blatter’s position, we believe, defeats the purpose of football which is to promote UNITY and FAIR PLAY. Indeed no one would accept pure cheating and chicanery on the altar of FAIR PLAY. And even if countries and teams put up bravery in the face of obvious cheating, their gestures cannot measure up to their inner pain and hatred for the cheating party.
The underdogs put up such bravery very much aware that any expression of angst and open disapproval may warrant sanctions from FIFA; resulting in situations where their anger is given expression in crowd violence and mob actions that are often recorded at many stadia under conditions similar to what happened during the dying embers of the Ghana-Uruguay match.
Indeed Ghana has paid a huge prize; the blame is, however, not Suarez’s; but that monster called FIFA.
Analyzing the pain: Richmond Keelson
