Occupy the Internet
The Living Room Philosophy The Hand of God (or, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Law in the Beautiful Game)
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
The Hand of God (or, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Law in the Beautiful Game)
If you help your team win a match by deliberately breaking the rules, as Luis Suárez did last week, are you a hero or a cheat?  I think a cheat, but let me say why. Consider this famous trio of scenarios.

1. Thierry Henry, France v. Ireland, November 18, 2009.

Thierry Henry controls the ball with his hand (twice!) before scoring the goal that puts France into the World Cup finals and Ireland out.  After the match, he is contrite, saying “I feel embarrassed at the way that we won and feel extremely sorry for the Irish,” adding that “the fairest solution would be to replay the game.”

2. Diego Maradona, Argentina v. England, June 22, 1986.



Maradona, who is 5 foot 5, goes up for a high ball with Peter Shilton, who is 6 foot 1.  By a "miracle," Maradona gets to the ball first, causing it to fly over Shilton’s head into the goal.  Replays reveal that he did not head but punched the ball into the net.  After the match, an unrepentant Maradona says “it was not my hand: it was the Hand of God,” ensuring him the eternal loathing of English people everywhere.  (Sorry, Diego.)

3. Luis Suárez, Uruguay v. Ghana, July 2, 2010



In the very last minute of extra time, Dominic Adiyiah hits a shot that is flying straight into the goal, taking an African nation into the World Cup semifinals for the first time ever... until Suárez punches it out.  A penalty is given to Ghana, but it’s missed, and Uruguay go on to win the match.  After the match, Suárez—who clearly wants to be loathed even more than Maradona—says "the hand of God now belongs to me."

I was watching this last match in a café in San Francisco, and was stunned when two people in the same café described Suárez’s action as “a great play.”  Look, they said, Suárez knew that a penalty would be given and that he would be sent off, causing him to miss the next match; he sacrificed himself for his team.  How noble! 

The logic was of course faulty, since there’s no next match to miss if Suárez doesn’t stop the ball.  Not to mention that Suárez may well have hoped not to be caught, just as Maradona was not caught.  (Look at all the goals and offsides the referees missed in other matches this World Cup!)  But I think the problem goes deeper than that.

The way I see it, there are two kinds of offense you can commit in a sport.  The first kind is, so to speak, merely illegal; the second is also immoral.  It’s not for nothing that Thierry Henry felt sheepish after committing his handball: he knew that it wasn’t just an infraction against the rules, like standing in an offside position; rather, it was a deliberate attempt to cheat the other side out of victory.  For doing something like that, you can expect not just to be red-carded (if caught) but also to be vilified.

To see it differently is, I suspect, essentially to consider that winning is everything—that if X helps your team win, then X is ipso facto good.  If that’s the case, however, then we should really be cheering on all those histrionic footballers who writhe on the ground in fake agony whenever someone breathes on them,



not to mention all the baseball stars who inject themselves with steroids,



or, I suppose, players like Roy Keane who deliberately set out to break an opponent’s leg.



Perhaps in some sports winning really is everything.  But football is supposed to be the beautiful game.  You’re supposed to win by playing better, like the Spanish or—yes, let's admit it!—the elegant and impeccably honest German team of 2010.  The aesthetic dimension of football causes the legal to be supplemented by the moral.  It’s wrong to bring the game into disrepute, it’s wrong to seek victory at all costs—precisely because football is the sport whose ethos is joga bonito (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4236037183430852844), a game of skill and grace and yes, why not, of honour.

The brilliant Ben Wolfson (http://philosophy.stanford.edu/profile/Benjamin+Wolfson/) told me recently of an interest he’s been taking in what we might call "sanctioned illegality": even though it is officially a crime to exceed the speed limit by 5 mph, de facto, as we all know, it's not; at the end of a basketball game, similarly, players on the team that’s behind are not only not discouraged from committing fouls, they are positively required by their team to do so.  You might think—as Luis Suárez, Diego Maradona, and my café-mates appear to—that throwing your fist at the ball at a crucial moment is just such a sanctioned illegality.  I rather suspect it's not, and I also rather suspect that it's bad to think so.  Cheats, of course, do prosper, but that’s not a reason for us to encourage them.
Thanks for the provocative post.  My feeling is that the first few examples you quote are substantially different from the latter (baseball, etc) -- more to the point, I'd add that part of what makes soccer such a complicated example in this respect is its intensely national aspect, certainly at the level of the World Cup.

We've come a long way from the time when cities warred with each other, so basketball and baseball around the US have rivalries of an intense but not quite martial flavor; whereas for many of the countries in this competition, the wounds of war or occupation are still quite fresh.  And so under a veneer of good sportsmanship, games are understood by many as a legitimate way of redressing the wrongs of the past. And surely the area here becomes much greyer -- people may feel a bit of injustice is allowable as a way of hastening what they feel must surely be the morally correct outcome.

After this year's Germany-England match wherein a presumed English goal at the end of the first half wasn't counted by the referee, the NYTimes (and others) went on and on about how Germany finally got their revenge for England's contested goal in the 1966 Germany-England World Cup match. Whether or not you agree this is true, it's striking that this is the kind of rhetoric which arises and is taken seriously. One starts to see the fault lines and the immense, intense, irrational shadows -- it suggests that the Hand of God may describe a much deeper set of justifications for this ambiguous behavior than is suggested above -- the not-quite-Invisible Hand.
There are the winners and the whiners - that's people's usual view of sports, soccer included.
I'll use basketball as an example. People know the NBA league is crooked and is often controlling which games are won and yet everybody accepts this. We watch games where the umpires are so clearly cheating it's embarrassing, and yet no one cares. An umpire , after having been caught betting, confesses to this and describes the action of the league only to be dismissed as are the whistle blowers in films with sad endings. The only thing people care about is who won the game, who won the championship. Winners and whiners.

There is the classic Karate Kid scene with "Sweep the leg." Watching the movie the audience is for the nice Karate Kid and not the bad cheaters, but in real life? I remember Robert Horry of the Spurs trying to wound a Charlotte Hornets player who had an injured back throughout a couple of crucial games. The Spurs won the game and that's all we heard of the Hornets.

Was there always this monumental fetish of the winner in lieu of the sport, or is this a new phenomenon? I don't know, but that's certainly the case at the moment.

Ps. as for using performance enhancing drugs - this is perceived as an egotistical thing and not in order to help your team win. When Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France people were obsessed with whether he was using drugs, but not whether his teammates who helped him did.
The unfortunate side of sports is that it is commonly accepted that unless you win the final game, regardless of your season, your play in the tournament, or the valor of your efforts, you are a chump.  Players will do anything to win the trophy under this view of competition.  Fan(atic)s obsess over their teams fortunes and feel major depression when their teams are proven chumps by failing to win the championship.  Why do we only celebrate the champions?  Are there no worthy opponents?  All this leads to an abetting of cheating, wink, wink, nudge nudge, in order to advance. 
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: July 26, 2010 at 6:25 AM
Number of posts: 7
Spans 18 days

  
Searching
No results found.