Basics of the theses principle related to the big topic “football”.
The individual theses are subject to the following general problem:
- They are often new, unknown, never heard of
- If this is the case, the following reactions can be expected:
o “If there was something to it, I would have either heard it or thought so myself”
o It is therefore wrong
o I see something, the problem is familiar to me, but I found another explanation that makes sense to me.
o In all cases: objection - As such, a few things are required in relation to making it accessible in this way:
o It must be possible to provide good evidence for each individual thesis
o Each individual thesis must be well justified
o It must be possible to offer possible solutions - It is impossible to single out psychology as the cause
- Involving psychology has the problem that you can easily deny it. The person who allegedly has this reason to do something simply says: “That’s not true.” In court there is something like “eye sight”, but as a rule it is not given probative value.
- Back to 3.: it must be possible to explain, prove and justify the theses conclusively.
- At the same time, the following applies: a declaration of a way of trading and the offer of a remedy does NOT include any reproach. In this respect, those concerned can simply agree with the thesis without unpleasant consequences.
A single example:
Thesis: football is inherently unfair.
contradiction. “It’s always been like that”, “we need something to talk about for the regulars’ table on Sunday”, “fair doesn’t work at all”, “one should actually…”, “once like this, once like that, it balances out”, ” usually those affected complain, who are also subjective, so their opinion doesn’t count”, “there are injustices, but not the ones you see there”.
Maybe trying to provide a single piece of evidence: there’s a corner kick. There’s a fight in the penalty area. Hold, pull, pluck, push, tug, clamp, shove. Almost everyone does it, if you please, admittedly. The referee picks out a few players who acted particularly conspicuously. “Not like that, gentlemen!” Both are admonished. Supposedly both sinners. Well.
A corner sails into the penalty area. A whistle sounds. The question is: for whom?
The answer would be here: it was a storm foul. In more than 99% of the cases.
Now the final questions:
- What did the referee see?
- Was it always the striker who fouled?
- Would he have considered giving a penalty just like that?
The author’s answer to these questions is as follows:
- The referee blows the whistle on suspicion. All he saw was that BOTH of them continued to break the rules.
- No. The aggressor is ALWAYS the defender. The striker only defends himself. Those who defend themselves are punished, those who commit a foul almost never.
- No. There IS no penalty in such a situation. The ball isn’t close, you can’t give fouls and penalties.
Here psychology would be asked for the first time, so to speak, for the purpose of explanation: why can’t you? Well, the simplest answer would be this: “There has never been a 911 for something like this. Why should I of all people?” On the other hand, one could also refer to the trained eye and the training: foul in the penalty area IS a penalty, according to the rule. So give it up if the defender fouled?
But the psychology goes much further: you don’t give a penalty because it would often be suitable to decide a game. You don’t want to take on that responsibility. Furthermore, the penalty kick is too great a reward and upgrade for just a small offense. The striker would almost hug the referee out of gratitude. He probably couldn’t have scored like that, with or without a handicap, now it’s almost a goal. Too much of the wage. A goal is worth too much.
A final part of the rationale goes like this: if the referee were to be shown that a penalty was not awarded, the clamor would rise and his career would be in jeopardy. “He intervened incorrectly and decisively.” Conversely, if he doesn’t give a penalty, which is clearly assessed as “that was a penalty” by all experts, he is immediately relieved: “It was difficult to see”, “He did it differently judged”, “but they were lucky that he didn’t point to the point”, “a different referee would certainly have…” or even just “penalties would have been very hard” or “mercy before justice”.
This would be taken as proof that things are unfair. Included, since otherwise incomprehensible and inaccessible: the psychology behind it, which would clearly be disputed by the referees in the first instance.
