Wanja talks to his children, today about…
Advantage
Football was always a topic in Putoia. It was a fixed subject at school, for boys and girls. So there was always something to talk about. One fine day – there was also day and night in Putoia, because without its own sun there was no life – but both the seasons and the days ran rather differently than on Earth, but one adapted well; for travellers it was perhaps like a kind of “jet-lag” known from Earth, which one had to be prepared for – at supper Vanya abruptly took up the subject: “Who can tell me what an advantage is?” “No problem,” said one of his boys, “you are fouled – which happens rarely enough — but the referee recognises that the fouled player remains in possession of the ball or that the game situation remains favourable for the attacking party, to that extent he indicates the foul play, but does not stop the game but lets the attack go. If this leads to a goal, the goal counts of course, whereby a personal penalty for the fouling player is still pending and not only possible but certain, in that the foul play is charged to him personally as well as to the team a team foul – at least; there are also harsher personal penalties, because one does not want to see foul play here. If there is another favourable standard situation in the aftermath of the foul – for example, another foul further forward, or a corner kick, or even a penalty kick – the game will of course continue with that situation, rather than the original foul being assessed.”
“Great. Even if it’s not word-for-word, it’s to the point, which is what the rules say. At the same time, it is logical. The fact that it is taken from the game of ice hockey on Earth may be an irrelevant side detail and is certainly known to you. What is clear, however, is that at that time on Earth in all sports seriously played in the USA there were such clear and logical rules, which were in the spirit of the game and which guaranteed the spectator justice and entertainment value. This is precisely why there was hardly any football in the USA. There was no influence on the rules and the few rule changes made for the 1994 World Cup in the USA were all sensible, but even these failed to capture the spirit properly and application remained more than hesitant to non-existent. Which rule am I referring to here?” “Hmm, you say, I think, that there was at least the instruction to the linesmen at that time ‘in doubt for the striker on offside decisions’, but the interpretation always remained, doubt or not, for the defenders, didn’t it?”
“You listen to me very well. That’s exactly what it was. Except that, on reflection, this ‘in doubt for the striker’ could have been applied to all other situations, as I’m sure the US would have done. But equal treatment of strikers and defenders is enough, as you can see here on Putoia, isn’t it?” “Football is the most beautiful game and it is fun, players and spectators, what else could we say now?”
“Back to the advantage rule: so you know how it is today and here. Logical, coherent, enforceable, fair. Those who play foul should not benefit, one way or the other. Now do you also know how it used to be and how it came about and how the rule was abused more and more?”
“No, papa, tell me.”
“At first it was the case that every now and then, as an attacker, you realised that you were slightly obstructed – that is, fouled — but that you would still like to continue the attack because you were just in a favourable attacking situation. So, despite being obstructed, they continued to run with the ball. The referee then indicated that the infringement had not escaped his attention, but at the same time he showed with his arms that play should now continue. So far, so good. You don’t want to be forced to penalise every foul, even if the person being fouled doesn’t even want it.” “So far, clear. It’s almost like here.” “Nonsensically, however, it was apparently the case that the referee had to make a decision, and a single one at that. Give the advantage or blow the whistle? If he had decided in favour of advantage, he could not, as it seemed, revise his opinion afterwards. The advantage was given, the ball was lost the next moment, bad luck for the attackers. “But why should it have been like that? Has no referee ever tried to use his common sense and, even after the advantage had been given, which did not turn out to be an advantage, to give the free kick which he had obviously not given by mistake?”
“Yes, it may be that such a thing happened once, I can hardly remember, but if it did, it was only at the very nearest moment when he could still get back. Should the attack have gone on, only a few seconds, there was no turning back.” “That’s unfair!” “Right, well spotted. Only it was just so, and it seemed that the rules, once written down, were sacrosanct, and either no one had the courage or indeed no one noticed that all the rules of logic had been turned upside down here, but still it was so.”
After a short general pause for thought, Vanya continued, once he had got into his flow of speech: “I gave you two examples to illustrate this and, as you know, all the problems in Earth football that have been mentioned and that you are now already familiar with are connected with each other, so it usually only becomes understandable in the overall context.” “Yes, we already know about that, but so far it makes sense to us, doesn’t it?” Agreement from the younger siblings.
“The first example was this: 1.FC Nürnberg desperately needed a win, or at least a goal, because it was just before the end of the season, the last chance to stay in the class. Marek Mintal had the ball on his foot in the opponent’s penalty area. He was preparing to shoot when he was fouled. There was no doubt about the foul. Everyone recognised it as such. Now Mintal, despite the perceived foul and despite the obstruction, decided that he could probably still put the ball in the box and shot. The shot was good, it was placed, but it still only hit the post. The game ended 0:1, Nuremberg lost and was even relegated later.”
“And, how did the media react, how did Mintal react, what did the players, coaches say? They should have at least complained or been upset or something?”
“As it seemed, everyone agreed that the advantage was there and that it was somehow unlucky that he didn’t sink the ball. After all, he was pretty close. However, the legendary coach Hans Meyer – there weren’t many whose statements could be given weight at the time, but he was one of them – was interviewed afterwards about how he would judge the scene? Hans Meyer said, with a mischievous grin after all: ‘Next time, I’ll tell him, he should let himself fall’. Because here, too, there was unanimity: if he had fallen, he would have got the penalty – and presumably with it the better goal-scoring chance.”
“So that means: actually he would have had to make a swallow for him to get the reward he deserved?” “That’s probably how it looks. First of all, the question would be how do you fall cleverly enough so that it’s clear to everyone that it’s a penalty? So if he hadn’t done it skilfully, then it would certainly have been said again: ‘he wanted it too much’ or ‘that was too obvious’ or ‘Mintal here with a showmanship, an amateurish one’ or whatever. So the penalty wasn’t certain. But it probably was.”
“Still, I guess the media’s reaction means: you have to take penalties or you won’t get any. Asking you to use the means of deception to get your goals. That’s bottom of the barrel. Such a thing would never happen here.”
“Fair is not fair either way. The player who adheres to fair play and continues to play despite an obstruction and thus accepts disadvantages is not rewarded for his exemplary behaviour, but is punished and later declared stupid for having kept on his feet – as was obviously possible – instead of falling down and ensuring success for himself and his team. At the end it is still said: ‘he lacked cleverness’. Football on earth was rotten all round, saturated with such injustices. The thinking people had long since turned away anyway, so no meaningful changes were to be expected.”
“But you said you had two examples. Tell me about the other one.”
“All right, you asked about it. It was that, as you already know, there was somehow a fear of gates. How was this to be explained, what do I mean when I speak of it?” “Yes, I know that,” the youngest came forward, “there were so few of them, to the extent that when you scored a single one you often not only had the feeling but were even confirmed in the final result – 1-0 was already almost the most common – this. So a single goal was felt to be the decision, insofar as the referee did not want to take it so easily and everyone joined in. In big games, it was even often used as an argument in critical decisions: ‘in such an important game, you can’t just give a penalty like that. He could have had a bit of tact there’ or something like that. And strangely enough, if a goal was awarded and there was a flaw in it, it was discussed a lot and the referee was put in the spotlight without meaning to, whereas if the decision was wrongly in the way of a goal being scored, it was not discussed at all. Wasn’t offside or should have given a penalty were weak arguments. A goal from an offside position or a penalty, which was borderline, were discussed for weeks, were the only topic. And there was another point: a goal that was wrongly recognised actually changed the score, so it had a real influence, whereas a penalty that was not given or a wrongly indicated offside maintained the score, i.e. the status quo, so, although objectively just as relevant, it had an insignificant influence emotionally. In this respect, it was better not to award a goal. The referee was safe. And no matter what flaw he discovered, it did not become a problem. But the reverse was true. Beware of goals given just like that!”
“Not only did you listen well, you also summed it up well. That’s exactly how it was. The only curious thing is that no one ever noticed and felt that the referee was looking for this flaw. There are, of course, many more examples of this. But a very vivid one for the interpretation of the advantage or vice versa, or the ‘goal prevention interpretation’ in general, was once in the Champions League final, when FC Barcelona met FC Arsenal.”
Wanja paused to speak and waited for questions to see if the audience remained curious. “So, what was there now?”
“It was very early in the game when Barca put forward a dangerous attack. Jens Lehmann was in goal for Arsenal at the time, he saw the danger coming and rushed out of his box, towards the attacker. But he was too late. He had not only left his box but even the penalty area. So he straddled him, legs first, as he would not have been allowed to play his hand outside anyway. Samuel Etoo, the striker, did try to avoid the straddle and jump over the legs, as the goal was finally completely empty. In addition, another Barca attacker had run away with him, who was running parallel – but in no way offside. So even a cross pass would have ensured the goal. Etoo put the ball past the goalkeeper, regardless of whether it was intended as a self-serve pass or as a pass for the team-mate who was running with him. He just failed to stay on his feet as Lehmann also, as the opposite number jumped, jerked his legs up in ultimate panic and goal-preventing intent. So Etoo fell, despite a recognisable attempt to stay on his feet. His teammate had the empty goal in front of him and sank it easily.”
“So goal for Barca and red card, right? That would be the only correct decision. Any other would only be conceivable in Utopia, and that’s not where we are. Don’t tell me something else came out of it? Advantage for the attacking team by punishing the offending actions in such a way that it is not worthwhile to carry them out. That’s the only way it could have been. So, go on?”
“As right as you are, and as logical and unique as the correct decision should be, that is NOT what happened.” “We can’t guess, tell what was done on earth to football, to fans, to justice, to common sense? Tell already?”
“So the referee panics in important games in the same way as the goalkeeper and as, in theory, every other neutral spectator: if a goal were scored, the spectacle so long awaited and yet somehow hotly longed for could very soon be over by an early decision. A goal would contribute considerably to this. This only precedes an understanding of his reaction: he interrupted the game the moment the foul occurred. Just as it was the ultimate opportunity for Lehmann to prevent the goal from being scored by pulling up his legs to bring the striker down after all, even though he had actually already missed him, it was also the ultimate opportunity for the referee to prevent the goal from being scored within the framework of the current interpretations of the rules.”
“But why would that have been his intention?” one of the children wanted to ask after all. “Because it was not to his detriment and because somehow he did not want to deprive the world of the possible spectacle. But a panic reaction is in most cases one that one might well regret. Just as Lehmann might have regretted his the next moment, so too might the referee. Unless he is given enough explanations that can somehow be reconciled with rule paragraphs or interpretations. Purely intuitively, one must first try to understand, there was the intention to maintain the tension and purely intuitively a goal would have put this state of tension in danger. I can’t put it any better than that. But the multitude of examples I can tell you over and over again allow only this one conclusion. In an important game – this pretty much the most important imaginable – the decisions were even more clammy and there was even more concern about allowing a goal, even in the making.”
“All right, go on. It was a panic reaction. How was the game resumed?”
“Yes, so the ref had blown the whistle in panic. The whistle blew, making it impossible to continue play, although the ball landed in the box the next moment. It would not have been possible to award the goal. This would indeed have broken the rules, because after all, any Arsenal player or supporter, or indeed anyone else involved or uninvolved, could say: not only is a whistle a stoppage of play, but at the same time any subsequent reaction would be affected by it.” “What do you mean by that? The ball was in, wasn’t it? No player in the way who could have prevented the inevitable?”
“I’ll explain this too with another example, which finally made this clear to me: in a tennis match between Fabrisce Santoro and Tommy Haas, it was once 5:2 in the second set, Tommy Haas serving, 40:0. That means: the match was over. Santoro had no more chance. One more point for Haas and he is the winner. He had also not yet surrendered a single service game. Match point, three first, and even if they were fended off, but how would you know? Suddenly, however, Santoro threw all restraints overboard. He played two stop balls, which he had not played the whole match. These balls were out of Haas’ reach. The crowd woke up and Santoro seemed to believe in a chance again? He failed in his third attempt and the match went to Haas quite undramatically, even if these two inconceivable ones would remain in the memory of every spectator and, supporters of this or that player or even the neutral ones would say: we were well entertained, also thanks to these two balls.” “Now what does that have to do with the game and with the goal scored and its failure to be recognised?”
“Quite simply, Santoro was able to play those two balls because he had ticked off the match. There was nothing more at stake. So he plays them like he would in training. Maybe he succeeds or fails, but it doesn’t make any difference. As soon as the pressure is back, in the serious match, it succeeds much less.” “Ah, so you mean the player who casually pushed the ball in after the whistle might not have pushed it in so casually at all if the whistle hadn’t gone?” “Clever chap. That’s exactly what I meant. At the very least, anyone who voted against the goal could invoke it. It just can’t count, I agree with people at the time. The only thing I would argue about is why the whistle blew? I mean I know the real reason. It’s just that anyone hearing that reason would probably disagree. Especially the referee would fight it tooth and nail.”
“Now how did the game go on, what was the decision?” “Well, obviously the referee had now also realised the small mistake he had made. He would have loved to have let the goal stand – but it was too late for that.”
“Why, you say, would he have preferred the goal? First you explained long and hard that he did NOT want the goal – just as everyone else seemed to be against the goals somehow. Especially the rules officials, right?” “Yes, that is correct as far as it goes. The problem he now faced was this: he had whistled away the goal. Now he had to assess Lehmann’s foul instead. Here there was the even bigger dilemma: a goal was in many cases decisive for the game. A red card, however, actually in an even higher number of cases.” “Ah, you mean to say: a red card in such a game – he wanted that even less, only was that what he now had to do?” “That’s exactly how it was. He had put himself in this predicament with the panic whistle ‘before another goal is scored I’d better blow the whistle; we can see afterwards how I assess the foul, and the hope is that I’ll get away with a yellow for the goalkeeper and, since he so exemplarily first left the penalty area and then only outside the penalty area for his – let’s not call it too crude an emergency stop, shall we, did I think that? – And it is very, very rare that a goal is scored from a free kick, so everything remains the same, the tension, the score, 0:0, as usual’. Now he had no choice but to take the even less desirable decision of having to send off a player, much as he would have liked to avoid this. There was no choice here, because that was the only way he could still justify the whistle. If someone had asked him why he had interrupted the game and not at least kept his eyes open or waited a tenth of a second to see if something could come of the action, he could only have given this answer: ‘I saw the foul play, which also amounted to an emergency stop. Of course, I stopped immediately. Particularly bad actions of this kind have to be stopped immediately, because you don’t even look at whether or how or what could otherwise become of the action. You blow the whistle – and send him off the pitch. It was a pity, but also human and so understandable.’ The game ended 2-1 for Barca, by the way.”
“Ok, let’s summarise then: there was simply no advantage. It was actually always to the disadvantage of the attackers. The striker was only allowed to get fouled, then decide whether he would play on more sensibly despite the obstruction and still take the goal-scoring opportunity that had clearly been reduced by the foul, or whether he would attempt a deception, with which, however, he would supposedly succeed, but perhaps not, but would at least have sinned morally. If, however, the action played out would have brought the recognisable advantage, then the referee simply brutally interrupted the game and theoretically took refuge in excuses, but was not even forced to make them, as he was not even put in this predicament.”