'Respect the whistle' has to work both ways

Last week, an otherwise dull soccer match between the English clubs Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United had a quite extraordinary ending. A Spurs' player took a shot from around half-field, about 50 yards away. United goalkeeper Roy Carroll somehow managed to botch an easy save and the ball squirted over the goal line by a full yard, according to all accounts. He quickly gathered the ball and got rid of it, as though nothing had happened. The officials were too far away to see the ball crossing the line and thus did not award a goal.

This incident has provoked much debate in England, giving serious ammunition to advocates of video replay for soccer. I do not support video replay for soccer, since it does not have natural breaks in the action that make limited replay work for sports like NFL football and NHL ice hockey. One proposal I've heard, that makes much more sense, is to put electronic sensors in the ball and in the goals that would alert the referee (who would wear an earpiece) that the ball has crossed the line. This is fundamentally the same thing that is used in professional tennis, where the naked eye would otherwise have to judge serves of speeds of 130 miles per hour or faster.

Another interesting effect of the Spurs' non-goal has to do with the intersection of ethics and sport. This leader (editorial) in the British paper The Guardian implies that Manchester United should fine Carroll for not admitting that the ball had crossed the line.

But the fact is simple: by not fessing up, Carroll cheated, in a rather serious, though not unusual way. It will be interesting to see whether Manchester United fine him for what he did, and whether the Football Association takes action against him, as each of them is entitled and ought to do. It will not, of course, give Spurs the goal they deserve, but it would show that someone in football still remembers the difference between right and wrong.

I am very much an advocate of sportsmanship, particularly with the kids I coach. I do not tolerate cheap play. I do not tolerate diving or its evil twin shirt pulling. I tell my players generally to not talk to the ref; I have them tell me if there's a consistent problem and I'll talk to him.

But The Guardian is wrong in this case, no matter how well-intentioned.

Interestingly, the exact same situation happened to one of the teams I coach last spring. A shot from one of our players clearly crossed the line. The keeper picked it out of the goal and rolled it to one of his defenders. The oblivious ref, consistent with the atrocious way he called that particular game, did nothing. We would've won the game had that goal been properly allowed.

I always tell my players: "Play the whistle." Which means, if the ref doesn't judge a foul, there is no foul. If the ref doesn't think it went out of bounds, it didn't go out of bounds. If one of my players stops because he thought he fouled the opponent but the other guy keeps going, our team is going to be at a disadvantage. Basically, what the ref says goes. But that has to work both ways.

I've also heard many refs tell coaches or players something to the effect, "You worry about playing/coaching and I'll worry about reffing." In other words, the coach's job is to coach, the player's job to play and the ref's job to ref.

In fact, the code of conduct for FIFA, the international soccer federation, states Referees are there to maintain discipline and Fair Play. Always accept their decisions without arguing, and help them to help you enjoy the game more. Officials are also part of the game and must be respected accordingly.

But again, that's something that has to work both ways.

You can't say "accept their decisions without arguing except when it might hurt you."

Speaking of the ethics, it was amusing to read Carroll's Manchester United teammate Roy Keane pontificating on the ethics of diving (aka: simulation, play-acting). This is the same paragon of virtue Roy Keane who admitted to INTENTIONALLY injuring Manchester City's Alf Inge Haaland who suffered a serious knee injury that essentially ended his soccer career. What did Haaland do to provoke the nutcase's ire? He allegedly accused Keano of play-acting during an earlier incident between the two. I wonder what demented ethical code makes play-acting a more serious crime than intentionally injuring someone.