Luis Suarez: Playing to the whistle

The third round of the FA Cup was all that it was hoped to be. Minnows, so to speak, got to strut their stuff against the biggies, and by all measures, they did give an excellent account of themselves. Among the goals and the whatnot stood one particular specimen; one that, in the end, proved to be the deciding goal of the game; one that many believe should never have been allowed in the first place. That Luis Suarez goal.

It is uncanny, really; uncanny how one man somehow finds himself at the center of many a storm – some of his own doing and others, well, of his own doing. This was one such. He came on with Liverpool a goal up. He got the ball in the box. He took the shot first time. It came of the keeper and he bungled it in. With his hand. A clear case of handball. Ball was in the back of the net. The goal should’ve been disallowed. End of. However, such was not the case. Not by a long way.

Yes, the ball did hit his hand. Yes, the ball ended up in the back of the net. However, and this is key here, the referee did not emit a high pitched sound from his instrument of attack – his whistle. Quite simply, he did not see it and hence did not give it. Suarez did what he did, perhaps, in his line of thinking, what he was expected to do. He followed the ball into the net and claimed the goal. After all, his job was scoring and scoring he did. His job was not contesting the legality of the goal. That is the referee’s job and that, apparently, he did not do.

Now, people readily brand Suarez a cheat and blame him for the goal. It can be seen where those people are coming from; after all, he is no saint. He does have a nasty reputation and that, unfortunately, is one that he has to carry with him for the rest of his career. Liverpool fans might think that he is a godsend, but most of the football world, and lesser still the Vatican would be inclined not to agree. In this case, however, my sympathies lie with the player. Well, almost.

I mean, was it his fault that the referee did not see it? Was it his fault that the linesman did not do his part in assisting the referee? Or was it his fault that the ball happened to strike his hand? No, no and not quite. There is often the case or rather, the debate about ball striking hand and hand striking ball. In either case, if there is a clear advantage to be gained, then the advantage ought to be negated. In other words, handball must be declared.

Why? If the ball hits his hand unintentionally, it is not his fault, is it? So why must he be penalized? Good question. The answer: this is football. It is not meant to be played with the hand. In fact, the rules state that if a player touches the ball with his hand when it is in play, he ought to be penalized for it. The intention or the un-intentionality of it is merely interpretation. End of.

Coming back to the larger point; Suarez’s goal stood. It stood because of one reason – the ref allowed it to. On the field of play, the ref is pretty much God. What he says, goes; however wrong the decision may be. He did not see anything untoward with the goal or perhaps he was incapacitated by the sheer speed of the action or by virtue of being a little too far away from the action. Either way, he deemed it to be fair and fair, it was.

People who crucify Suarez for cheating and all else might well be justified in their name-calling at other junctures. However, at this particular one, perhaps it is not quite right. After all, he did his job, so to speak. He played to the whistle. The whistle never came.