|
|
In
the pursuit of the venerable World Cup
soccer trophy
Albert Ablorh-Odjidja
The Ghana Football Association (GFA) will receive a whooping
14 million dollars for reaching the quarter finals of the
2010 World Cup in South Africa…” this was the headlines on
July 3, 2010.
It is has always been the history of the
World Cup that winners receive awards that go to
benefit particular countries.
One can say that the players get
the glory and the exposure,
but so do their countries that also get to keep the larger
portion of the monetary spoils;
rewards far beyond the gains
bestowed on the individual player.
In light of this seemingly good news of
Ghana's $14 million, many in the
country now seem to have forgotten the terrible injustice
inflicted on the Black Stars during the Ghana Uruguay match.
What seems to stick in some minds now is the individual
mishap of Asamoah Gyan's penalty kick.
These people now express the
following sentiments: “if only Asamoah Gyan had scored the
penalty kick… ” And then continue with
the expression of the post award sentiment: "the
penalty, the red card, and the send off was just punishment
for Suarez's infraction….”, “afterall we made it to the
quarterfinals…”
Such
expressions do nothing to further
the pursuit of perfection, excellence, valor, teamwork and
the winning
spirit that are needed for victory at the next World Cup
games. Furthermore, it hides an imperfection within
FIFA - rules of faulty exercise that result in the robbery
of team victories, especially in the case of the all but
guaranteed goal of Adiyah for Ghana (thanks to Suarez's
hand) in the match against
Uruguay.
With this $14M, it is possible, to assume that the Ghana
Football Association will now have additional funding to
nurture the skills of its soccer players.
But it also leaves in place a bad call within FIFA
officiating rules.
Contrary to the reflective attitude
brought on by the award it must be
insisted that some countries, in
this case Ghana, have often
been cheated by the refs and by the rules of FIFA.
By her inaction or inappropriate
actions, FIFA
has allowed many to
embrace a bad call in the game of soccer
and to accept a terrible lesson in
the game of life: That it is alright to cheat.
As with allowing the deliberate and unjust hand blocking of
a ball that was a clear goal violation to stand,
FIFA has now
allowed the notion that the end does
indeed justify the means.
Therefore, Uruguay, despite Suarez foul play, has won and
must advance to the next stage at the expense of Ghana.
This bad lesson must be
separated from the good that the $14 million award may
eventually bring.
The award, it is true, can go a long way
to help Ghana. It can help the country build and
develop a needed soccer infra-structure. There
are very few areas in Ghana that can boast
of the amenities that other
developing nations have to nurture soccer
playing youths. One does
not need to travel too far in this
country to witness soccer being played on fields that
are riddled with ravines, gutters and rocks
- all conditions that can limit
the playing potential of any budding soccer player.
With the award and bountiful evidence of
skills of its individual
professional players assigned to
private soccer clubs all over the world, the recent
performance of it’s U-21 squad and the
performance of the national team, the Black stars, in
the recent African Cup of Nations,
Ghana can now exploit the
opportunity to ensure the growth and development of soccer
at the grassroots level and provide countless opportunities
to the youth that otherwise
would not be
available for them.
In light of the soccer events over the past couple of weeks,
culminating in the denial of the Ghana the opportunity to
advance to the next stage in the pursuit of the venerable
World Cup soccer trophy, I feel
that the following must be said
to FIFA:
1. Penalty: During any
soccer match, one's chance of scoring a goal from any point
outside of the penalty box is quite small.
Hypothetically, there is about
30% chance that a soccer player will be able to score
from 40 yards out from the goal line. This chance is further
reduced the further one gets away from the goal line.
So, if a defending player, deliberate or not, mishandles and
unfairly denies an
opponent
the opportunity to advance to
score a goal, a free-kick
is awarded. Likewise if the same
offence occurs in the penalty box, a penalty kick is
awarded, thereby increasing the chance of
scoring to one greater than 30%;
an award which is deemed commensurate to the denial of the
goal opportunity. Percentage wise, the goal scoring
chance is increased dramatically in a penalty situation.
This is fit punishment.
In the game with Uruguay,
the call for penalty in favor of Ghana sought to redress an
offense but instead clearly wiped out a victory that has
already been gained; but for the illegal intervention by
Suarez.
Suarez, the Uruguayan player, knew
this probability when he
deliberately put his hands up well into the flight path of
the ball. A soccer player that can
use his head to deflect a speeding ball cannot pretend that
he used his hand to protect his head when the ball
was nowhere close to his head!
By doing so, Suarez deliberately and
unfairly denied Black Stars'
player Adiyiah’s 100 % chance of scoring a goal. If the
intent of a penalty, according to the rules of soccer, and
as argued above, is to punish a team by increasing the
opposirtion's chance to score, then it is necessary to point
out that Adiyah's ball was already a goal when the call
came. Ghana should have been awarded a decision that
increased her chance and not one that decreased the goal
that she had scored.
It ought to be noted that
in the 54th minute Pantsil
was booked for fouling Fucile who probably did not have much
of a great opportunity to score. The referee awarded
a free kick to Uruguay and with an improved chance of
scoring Forlan delivered. A deserving goal and punishment,
justice was served.
With this in mind how can a ref,
visibly seeing that a veritable
goal has been unfairly denied by a foul
play, wipe away that real goal and attempt to make Ghana
whole by rewarding her with a 50% chance,
a lesser chance, of making another
goal?
Such a deceptive act
of denial by a
FIFA official, in the heated moments of the final
seconds of a crucial game
of grueling match-up in a
well executed demonstration of discipline, tenacity, will
and teamwork, frazzled the most
steely of all nerves; even that of the
eventual victor.
Compounded with the emotional charge of
adrenaline, and anger brought by the
referee's unbalanced call for redress, it
was no surprise that Asamoah Gyan
over powered the ball and thus
could not strike it to result in a goal.
2. Referees: At the start of any game, soccer players always
assess the tolerance level of a referee to determine the
type of game to play. If the
referee is not strict, they will
push the envelope and resort to unfair tactics to gain an
edge. It is the responsibility of the
referee to set the tone so as to
allow the beautiful game of soccer to emerge.
We all know throughout this tournament
that there have been questionable decisions and calls
by the refs that were
unfair and unpopular
but these calls have not been
reversed. Right or wrong, soccer referees thus far have
had absolute authority and final
decision on calls during the game.
Interestingly, at almost five minutes into the Ghana-Uruguay
game, I blogged that the ref could be a suspect of unfair
calls. Least did I know what was
to come.
Referee Coulibally of Mali was an unfair referee for denying
the goal to the US. It was blatant. The denial of England’s
goal, the sending off of Kaka during the Brazil-Nigeria game
and the yellow carding of Black Star midfielder Dede Ayew
were all unjust calls at the hands of referees who had the
authority tocontrol the and to say to
all players that deception to gain an unfair advantage would
not be tolerated.
The number of unfair calls gave the
message to players that the referees
may have a different agenda as opposed to
the exacting of proper punishments to unfair plays.
This attitude could
have emboldened
the likes of players who had the
proclivity to push the envelope in order
to gain the advantage.
Wielding the authority that referees have, it is my opinion
that the Ghana/Uruguay ref, Benquerance was equally biased
as was Coulibaly.
Benquerance hid his bias behind
a rather tricky call. After all, he
could argue that he granted a foul, a send off, and a
penalty kick, that he interpreted the rule and appropriately
delivered the proper and just decision.
However, in actual fact, all he did was unjust because it
still denied Ghana a ball that was clearly a goal!
Could he have declared it a goal? It was not as if he did
not know or see that the ball was clearly going into the
net. Forget the fact that there was no goal line technology,
but the probability was that were it not
for Suarez's hand, the ball would have been in the net.
Only the the physically blind, and therefore the impractical
referee, would not see this eventuality.
What worried Benquerance
was not the eventuality of Adiyah's ball. Rather, it
was the probability of who would have won the game, thus
advanced to the next level. Thus could he,
as the ref, have awarded Ghana
the goal? YES! and in the same breath as it took him
to instantly award the red card. But that would mean that
the "Black" stars would be making history to face
Netherlands and eventually face the Germans.
But, wait a minute victory for Ghana in
this case cannot happen, no it certainly cannot be
allowed to come to pass: it is not our time yet, we are
advancing too fast, it would be too much history in the
making. Imagine the youngest team in the tournament, in
South Africa, in such a short time, the country of Mandela,
land of Apartheid, the last African team, to take the world
cup?, when it is held on the continent the first time ever?
(…and maybe the last time for a very long time)? No it
cannot be allowed to happen just yet.
So, to make sure that we do not surpass what had been done
by other previous African countries we are reduced to
accepting,… "nice try, lad. It just was not your turn….”,
“but at least you have made it this far you should be VERY
happy!" What the hell?
3. FIFA rules: There is the strong
need for FIFA to adapt her
rules to the changing world. What is fair will always be
seen as fair and what is right is always right. Even if you
do not want to use technology to
monitor every instance of the game you have got to modify
the rules or add a new one.
With new rules, in instances such as this one, when a ball
with a 100% chance of scoring is mishandled in a manner that
warrants a red card, the goal will be awarded, an additional
penalty kick be awarded, the offender will be ejected for
five games, which will carry over into the next tournament.
And, in the event that the offending player is not available
for the next five games, the next likely player in the same
position of the offending player will carry out the penalty.
This way dishonorable cheats that exhibit unsportsmanlike
conduct (...like Luis Suarez, Diego Maradona and his hand of
God, and others) will think twice about using any means
necessary to gain an advantage. At least this way we can use
soccer, the beautiful game, to teach all
that fair play, teamwork, discipline, tenacity have
their rewards. When a team such as the equally young
German team is able to demonstrate these principles in all
their games, it is not at all difficult to cheer them as
victors. However, when a team such as the
Black Stars are denied the
reward of their hard work by a cheating hand it is a little
difficult to accept any type of consoling patronizing
reward.
The implications of this robbery are far reaching for Ghana
and the rest of the world - all this at the hands of
a team that clearly did not have what it took
to win and an improper punishment by a ref
who was allowed to do so by
an antiquated set of rules and governing body.
For the beauty of the game, and in
the interest of promoting the principles of any game,
especially soccer, FIFA will do the world, and the
sport that it is promoting, a world of good to reconsider
its rules and make immediate amendments.
Albert
Ablorh-Odjidja, New York City, July 5, 2010
|
