From: jvazquez on

IMO, it' s not the best for football the hand of Suarez, but it was
within the laws of football.

It was a fault, there was a penalty awarded and a red card.

There was no justice, though.

But Ghana didn't know how to win the game, although they tried and
deserved it.

Uruguay did know how to win and also deserved it.

It was a close game.

Dura lex, sed lex.

Juan Vazquez

From: JCQ on
On Jul 2, 7:05 pm, Mike Hall <tar...(a)> wrote:

> If one deliberately break the rules, one is cheating.  End of.  Take
> up the argument with the English language.

Breaking the rules is just that. Do you think every foul is cheating?
By your definition cheating happens in every single match all the
time. Why is what Suarez did worse than teams that commit twice as
many fouls as the opponent and get away with it? What about the
players that pretend they were hit in the face when it was just a
touch? Did the Mexicans cheat by continually fouling Messi? I don't
think any of that is cheating. It's just part of the game. If someone
breaks the rules the ref should be there to call whatever needs to be
called. In this case he did so justice was done and there is nothing
to complain about.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on
SHUSSBAR <shussbar(a)> writes:

> Suarez vs. Henry :
> Both used their hands
> Both used their hands : one to get some help to control the ball that
> lead to a goal, the other one to get some help to stop a ball that
> prevented a goal.
> At the end, it can be be argued that they both prevented another team
> to advance further in the competition.

To my mind, there's a huge difference that makes one cheating (or at
least damn lucky) and the other simply good clean tactics. To my
mind, it's not cheating if (1) you don't attempt to injure someone and
(2) you don't try to hide it but rather have decided that it is
tactically advantageous to get caught and take the penalty according
to the rules.

It's no different from an intentional walk in baseball, deliberately
taking a delay of game penalty in football, or intentionally fouling
at the end of a basketball game to put the other team at the foul line
and stop the clock (even when this means fouling out of the game).
The only difference is that in this case the mandated penalty is so
severe (playing a man down, losing him for the next game, and giving
up an *almost* certain goal) that it takes a much more extreme set of
circumstances to make it worthwhile. Such as stopping a certain goal
in the last minute of overtime in a tied game in an elimination

If he had argued or tried to hide it or pretended he hadn't done it,
that would have been a different story. But here he was clearly
thinking "The only way to prevent us losing is to block the shot with
my hands, and if I do he *might* miss the PK".

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took
|place (the morning of May 5, 1450,
kirshenbaum(a) |at some time between neenuh fiftehn
(650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv).
| Kevin Wald

From: M DG on
No, I don't believe I'd consider him a "cheater". Yes he used his hand
to block the ball, but he was also red carded and Ghana was given a
penalty shot. Henry is a perfect comparison. I consider neither of
them cheaters, in the Henry case the referee just missed the call.

There is a good chance he at least had some idea in his mind of what
he was doing, he knew it was against the rules, yet he did it anyways
and accepted the punishment. How is this any different from a player
who scores from an offside position and the referee misses. Maybe he
does so unknowingly but what if he knows. Take Tevez's goal vs.
Mexico, clearly offside and he even admitted to the media after the
game that he knew he was offside. It's not like Tevez ran over to the
referee to correct his mistake. To those who call Suarez a cheater you
could call Tevez one, and just about every other player at some point
or another.

Some people have been comparing this to going out there and blatantly
and/or flagrantly injuring a member of the opposing team. To me it's
not even the same case. In one case, a player is knowingly blocking a
goal in attempt to save the game. In another, a player is going
outside the bounds of the game itself in an attempt to injure another
player. That may just be my opinion, and players have gone after other
players before in an attempt to injure them. You could argue that is a
far more serious form of cheating than Suarez's rather (comparatively)
benign offense.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on
Mike Hall <tarrow(a)> writes:

> On 3 July, 00:01, JCQ <zelig9...(a)> wrote:
>> It's amazing that people still complain about cheating. It's up to
>> the ref to decide that and to get the calls right. The players will
>> try to get away with as much as they can because the opponents
>> would do the same if given the chance. What Suarez did was part of
>> the game. He had no choice but to use his hands. It was very clear
>> but if the ref somehow misses it and doesn't call a penalty it's
>> still not cheating.
> If one deliberately break the rules, one is cheating. End of. Take
> up the argument with the English language.

No, hoping to gain an advantage by breaking without getting penalized
is cheating.

There are (in pretty much every game) so many worse case of actually
trying to get away with doing things the rules say should be penalized
that I really don't think people have much call to apply the word to
somebody who made a tactical decision that the penalty was better for
his team than what would have happened if he had not "committed the
offence" (in the language of the LotG).

I'm thinking about things like

- pretending to be injured or to have been tripped (should be a
yellow every time).

- grabbing an opponent (free kick). Along with spitting at an
opponent the only one of the FK offences that you can do to an
opponent that doesn't require that the referee decide that you
did it carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force. It's
mandatorily a yellow for USB if it prevents a player from
getting the ball or "taking up an advantageous position".

- moving the wall forward (yellow card for "failure to respect the
required distance") or just waiting near the ball until the
referee tells you to move back.

- deliberately wasting time when ahead at the end of the game
(e.g., unnecessary substitutions, walking slowly off the field.)

- hoping to get future calls by complaining to the referee when he
doesn't agree with you that contact warranted a free kick or a
card. (Should probably be a yellow for dissent in many cases,
or USB when you know good and well that it wasn't as bad as
you're making it out.)

Those are all things that are much more clearly "cheating" in my mind,
because they only benefit you if you don't get penalized.

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right.