What if… strikers and defenders were presented with a peace agreement?
In order to make this peace agreement understandable and to set it up afterwards, you have to discuss the previous events, development and, a little on the side, the topic of “pedagogy”.
Basically, there is the assertion that rules must be set up in such a way that compliance with them is not only desirable, but necessary for good, respectful interaction with one another. It is like that in education, to gradually adjust children to adult life, in the law books, to regulate general interaction with one another, and in games in the form that the game is meaningful and that it is played as it can and should be played Is funny. Rule violations in any form should ideally not occur at all, neither here nor there nor there.
In order to ensure this, the sanctions are provided, which should basically only be understood as threats, and whose imposition should only occur in the undesirable case of a violation of the rules as a so-called “deterrent measure” in order to rule out a repetition as far as possible
In this respect, here is the maxim that is valid practically everywhere: “Observe the rules and laws.” The consequences are summed up like this: then everything works well and life (the game) is beautiful and fun.
However, the violations of the rules begin quite early. Basically when I was a kid. Here the egoism is still very pronounced, which seems to be innate in children and for which weaning is on the agenda. Although egoism is often retained into adulthood, it is not exactly considered a positive quality. In other words: mistakes in upbringing would come into play if things weren’t done well enough. Whereby there is also a kind of “healthy egoism”? Presumably meant like this: the complete untraining of the property would lead to a kind of self-abandonment, in which case one would probably be counted among the underdogs? “You have to see where you are.”
It remains to be seen how healthy this mixture is in this country. However, it is not for nothing that one speaks of the “elbow society”, which already indicates a properly preserved degree of egoism. One of the really big parties – currently, in 2017, the governing party – has a “C” in its abbreviation, which stands for “Christian”, and the behavior that Jesus Christ exemplifies is guaranteed to be selfless, but in line with what he preached . In other words: he exemplified how he imagined living together and spread the wisdom behind it.
However, this should not necessarily be a topic here, but it should still be given to think about – also in the sense of the chapter heading. “Peace on earth and on the soccer fields of this earth…”
Back to infancy: the children often feel neglected when playing with each other and show this to the adults. The cause is, of course, usually some kind of rule violation by the other player. There are a couple of baking molds, they both play with them in the sandbox, one child wants the same shape as the other. So it takes it away from him, maybe even with violence: “That’s mine, give it to me!” Maybe there will be a direct argument, maybe even more “violence”, i.e. a “hands-on” argument. At some point one of the children runs to the ward and complains, maybe both of them cry when the adult comes over. But now the blaring really starts. Above all, this statement is in the room: “He started it!” Only it is expressed on both sides.
Of course both feel right and at the same time both have broken the rules at some point. It’s hard to say whose injury was the decisive factor, but it all started with something. Whereby this “we play together, and therefore there is neither mine nor yours at the moment” may already be a critical prerequisite. It was neither pronounced nor generally accepted as such. At the same time, it is difficult to clarify whether a comment such as “you’re doing it wrong”, which could also be the cause, is already a serious insult and can therefore lead to an escalation, because one then backs down, in the absence of alternative argumentative arguments reactions.
Of course, this is not intended to be a pedagogical discussion. The crucial question is one that should be raised a little bit here and it is: “Who really started it?”
If you transfer this to strikers and defenders, the question arises again here. For example, you can see a running duel and both are rowing their arms, tugging at their jerseys – always just a few moments at a time – or blocking for a moment, using their bodies legally, whatever. Now one often hears the comment: “Here they both …” did whatever, one of the injuries, with the logical realization that neither of them can be blamed for anything special – and the scene may not even be blown “for lack To prove”. Now who has? Both – so keep playing.
The fact that in the majority of cases the striker is now identified as the perpetrator and it is said to have been a foul on the strike and the defense receives the ball and the injured party is no longer present – namely the neutral spectator – should not be brought into focus here either .
It’s more about the question: “Which of the two started playing foul?” And that doesn’t just apply to this scene. You could trace it back historically. Or, one could extend it more generally: “Who has the greater interest in the fact that it would not remain a normal running duel, not a normal duel?” Ultimately, perhaps culminating in the question: “Who benefits from the fact that things are irregular on both sides?”
These questions were actually quite easy to clarify: the peace agreement was presented to defenders and attackers: “If you don’t foul me, then I won’t do it either. Agreed?” Signatures on both sides – the deal is made.
However, this is where the bold claims come into play: a) it is the defenders who start, b) the defenders have the greater interest in an irregular tackle, c) the defenders benefit from it, d) the forwards would sign immediately, and e ) the defenders would at least hesitate.
The crucial question raised again, and as childish as it sounds: there is an answer. “Who started?” Answer: “The defenders!”
How this came about is perhaps not even the central question, even if such a derivation can always provide for the perhaps not immediately given understanding and acknowledgment of this, so a brief explanation: the defenders did not always have the right of way. They didn’t want to foul at all. This brought boos, abuse, warnings, the occasional 2-minute suspension, but in general it didn’t start out as a way of artfully incorporating rule violations in order to gain advantages. Nevertheless, it was gradually found out that the goals became rarer and the results scarcer and the results at the same time more valuable up to today “only important”.
The tactical understanding, the clever action, the catenaccio, the emphasis on the defensive lines, preventing football, letting the opponent come, enticing the opponent until he opens himself up at the back and you can use the spaces, the meaningfulness of a 0:0, All of these considerations, which gradually came into play in the course of the development of “pure results sport” have made their contribution. “You mustn’t let your opponent pass, got it?” “Ok, all right.” So all means are justified, are recognized and find their way.
How do I stop him? In an emergency with foul play. But even better if I foul just a little bit so that there isn’t even a free kick and we get possession instead. One trains with growing success the “easy, not free-kick-worthy” foul game. Partly you train this in the game: “Let’s see what he says about it, the ref? Oh, did that work? i got the ball Then I’ll try to stand on his feet a little more?”
What could the striker do against that? He just wants to be able to play the ball if you let him. He is the “active” part in the sense of “leading the ball” and “staging an attack” as well as provided with goal intentions – the actual goal of the game. The defender wants to prevent him from doing so. In that sense, he is the passive part that just wants to stop the striker somehow. However, in order to do this, he becomes the active part. Namely the one who starts with the small rule violations – which brings us back to the sandbox.
It holds very lightly and very briefly, almost imperceptibly. However, the striker in possession of the ball knows: a) “if I fall now, the ball is gone and we get nothing” because he knows that it was “not enough”, b) the handicap is still a disadvantage and c) if If I don’t defend myself, I only have disadvantages. Logically, he now gives back what was done to him. “If you can pluck, so can I.”
So this one “little argument” on the field escalates in such a way that practically every duel today is unsightly, ugly, at least borderline. But above all it is this: sought and initiated by the defender, historically and in individual cases.
Conclusion: the defenders start fouling, the strikers only defend themselves.
The simple suggestion would be: simply present the peace agreement to the two parties. If they sign: there you go, a statement and an agreement would already be made. Whether one would stick to it in the future might still have to be clarified, but it would definitely be worth a try.
However, should the hesitation of the defense attorneys actually materialize and they refuse to sign it, then one would also have a statement and a need to change something fundamental. Because the way the duels are fought today – including the increasing number of often serious injuries caused by spreading elbows or flailing arms – they are not only unsightly and ugly, they have also ensured that nobody actually wants to watch football anymore. In addition to being unsightly and ugly, it is also one thing: unfair. One starts with it – and it is he who emerges as the winner. The aim is to prevent the goal, and that has worked before.
Peace Agreement: “If you don’t foul, I won’t foul either.” This takes you back to the beginning. You just don’t foul. Deal or no deal?
The consequences are always the same: fewer ugly scenes, more football, more goalscoring, more of what the players can do with the ball and not just those who can prevent it as winners. More goals, more action, more fun, more happy spectators more justice. And in such a simple way that no one could refuse?
