JULY 11 — This World Cup has produced quite a number of debatable decisions.
From the ruled-out stoppage time winning goals for Iran (against Egypt) and Colombia (against Portugal) to Messi’s potential (but ultimately ungiven) red card when playing against Algeria, to Croatia’s denied past-extra time equaliser against Portugal, to the Jonathan Tah goal for Germany against Paraguay which was ruled out due to a foul on the keeper, we’ve had more than a fair share of heated moments where one team can claim prejudice and unfairness whilst another will surely say, “Oh it’s the referee’s decision so let’s respect it.”
Therein lies the funky principle: If you’re a football fan one of the things you must accept is the on-pitch “injustice” towards the team you favour.
Mentioning team bias is important because, as we all know, apparent “injustices” and “poor decision-making” by the referee are all in the eye of the beholder, or more specifically the eye of the fans whose team is either being favoured or disadvantaged by such controversial decisions.
Speaking of wild decisions, on Wednesday morning Egypt fans were livid that Mostafa Ziko’s first goal against Argentina was disallowed because of an earlier foul on Argentine centre-back Lisando Martinez.
Then later in the game Argentina completed their comeback from two goals with Enzo Fernandez heading in the winner, but Egypt fans will again point that Mo Salah was fouled in the Argentine penalty box.
So not only should the Argentine goal be ruled out, Egypt should’ve had a penalty!
The scenes after the match in which Egypt head coach Hossam Hassan was screaming at the officials and accusing them of both prejudice and racism are both understandable and yet, well, paradoxically “part of the game”.
Let me explain.
It’s like when you get involved in a relationship, anyone except the most naïve of individuals should realise they’re setting themselves up for a world of hurt and pain.
That’s just the way courtship and romance functions. Anyone who’s ever been in a relationship or marriage knows exactly what I mean.
Likewise, in football, part of the excitement of the game is the sheer subjectivity of the decisions being made, decisions which simply will NOT make everyone happy.
As a Tottenham Hotspur fan, I’ve seen my team put the ball into the opposition net only to have the goalie drag it out and the referee wave play to continue.
I’ve also seen my own goalie put the ball down next to his feet for a goal kick, only to have the opposition striker kick it in when the goalie thought the match was paused.
Many football fans will tell you a million stories and incidents of blatantly wrong, unfair, harsh and unjust decisions against their team. Crucially, they will also be able to relate a few episodes in which their team benefited from referee blindness, oversight, carelessness or VAR simply missing something.
Again, it’s all part of the game.
Without the possibility of injustice, football would be ironically less than it is. In a sense, this makes football very human.
You have 22 players plus a few officials plus very enthusiastic managers and assistants on the sides all trying to coax and nudge the game their way in even the slightest manner possible. This will not change and, frankly, shouldn’t change.
I suspect this is also the reason why although it should be very easy to bring A.I. into the picture and get it to decide on controversial calls (replete with its hundreds of unassailable justifications – and who’s going win an argument with a super-smart machine?), in football it just won’t happen.
Because, in the end, football remains a human game with all our human flaws. And every human will want to keep it that way—even fans of those teams who got kicked out of the World Cup because the referee decided a certain striker wasn’t fouled in the penalty area but lost his balance instead.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
