Saint or sinner?
Truthfully who wouldn't have done the same thing? It's cheating. Of course it is. But it also saved his team. He broke the rules in the knowledge that to do so would give his team hope. The ends justified the means.
That's unfortunate but it is fact. One man's saint is another man's sinner.
I've always been in favour of a penalty goal in such situations. The referee is allowed to award the goal and punish the player as he sees fit.
It might be nice if Suarez could at least show a bit of sympathy for Ghana. Although his lack of contrition did at least inspire Richard Williams to this whopping display of double standards:
A little sympathy for the losers might have been appropriate at that point, but he then started talking about "the real hand of God". He is a good footballer but he is not Diego Maradona, or entitled to claim the same moral exemptions.
You see, it's alright for a genius to cheat. A defence that I'm inclined to think probably doesn't stand up in many courts.
> Pained as I am to admit it my support for the penalty goal means I'm in agreement with Graham Poll:
"The clause in the law under which Suarez was dismissed was the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The problem is that Ghana were denied a goal, not just the opportunity to score one. A penalty-goal in these circumstances would be appropriate."
While some argued Suarez acted instinctively, Poll said that should not affect the punishment against his team. "If that is true then awarding a penalty-goal and a yellow card seems more appropriate. Then the wronged team would not be denied a goal and the instinctive act less harshly punished.
Suarez's goal was an insult to the sport and he should be banned for the next two games.
ReplyDeleteI can't condone it but I can understand it. If we're looking for Corinthian ideals in sport then, sadly, football is the wrong place to be searching.
ReplyDeleteI do agree though that he is certainly deserving of more than a one game ban.
What do you think of the penalty goal idea?