[Note: this was originally written in the wake of the April 22nd Fixture between Tottenham and Arsenal]
In the wake of this past weekend’s fixtures, I feel obliged to say a word or two on the events that transpired during the Tottenham v Arsenal North London Derby.
Controversy began with a loose ball, and a simple challenge. Nearly square in the middle of the park, Gilberto De Silva and Emmanuel Eboue – both Arsenal players – lunged towards a loose ball, collided and fell to the turf. As one might expect (both due to the challenge and reasons I will explain later) both men collapsed, seemingly in some amount of pain and remained on the ground.
Tradition dictates that, under such circumstances, whichever player happens to collect the ball next acknowledges the injury by putting the ball into touch. This stops play and allows for medical attention to reach the injured party. Had this actually happened, there would likely be no story. Instead, Tottenham’s Michael Carrick collected the loose ball, played it forward and Spurs were rewarded with the game’s first goal.
As one might expect, Arsenal, who would need a late piece of brilliance from Thierry Henry to equalize, were immediately incensed. The generally reserved Arsene Wenger went so far as to refuse to shake his counterpart’s hand – an action that earlier this season drew stunning condemnation for Chelsea’s Jose Mourinho – and declare dramatically that fair play had died. His anger centered on a pair of simple questions; why was tradition ignored? How could Michael Carrick dare keep the ball in play while two men lay injured?
There were, from Tottenham’s perspective, situational counter-arguments and reasons the ball should have remained in play, but I will avoid them here. I will, in fact, avoid the entire situation entirely and choose instead to tackle what I believe to be the root of the problem and a much larger issue in the game of football.
I open with two simple statements each of which I believe to be true:
1) In the event of an injury, Tottenham, or any other team, is required to play the ball into touch, allowing for medical attention to reach the downed player.
2) Tottenham, or any other team, should absolutely avoid interrupting the run of play in that situation. They should, rather, seize the advantage and press for a goal.
Now for the complicated part. How do I address what appears to be an absolute contradiction between my two statements? How can I, at the same time, support the “fair-play” arrangement of playing the ball out of bounds while simultaneously advocating its abandonment? The answer is a simple: character.
The first statement depends upon character, upon an underlying honesty. To expect that an injury must stop play, one must be able to expect an actual, legitimate injury. It doesn’t take a great deal of observation to realize that, in the modern game of football, no such expectation exists. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the injury has become an important tactical tool. Just as passing, shooting and tackling have effective uses, injuries may serve to disrupt offense, waste valuable time or draw important fouls and free kicks.
Michael Carrick, or any other player for that matter, has absolutely no reason to believe any injury during the course of an important match is legitimate. There is zero credibility, and therefore he is absolved of any responsibility to play the ball out of bounds on behalf of the fallen player.
From a slightly different angle, ask yourself why there are match officials and why there are fouls? Infractions, and punishments, exist because players are driven to succeed, to do whatever it takes to win. Their job is to cheat the offside line, come in a bit higher in the tackle or use arms for leverage or as a blocking surface. Sportsmen, ironically, are seldom particularly [i]sporting[/i] at all. Think about it. You would not trust Craig Bellamy to keep himself onside, nor would you trust John Terry to admit pulling his man to the ground on an important corner. There are simply too many advantages in ignoring the rules for the honor system to be effective.
So then why are those same players counted on to administer, without seeking unfair advantage, the stop and start of play as it relates to in-game injuries? There isn’t any sense there.
Responsibility should rest exclusively with the match officials. If a player is injured to the point that play needs to be stopped immediately – Alan Smith’s unfortunate injury springs to mind, as does Djibril Cisse’s of last season – then any one of the officials on the park will be able to recognize it and bring the proceedings to a halt. If it is his decision that there is no serious danger, then play should continue at its own pace, the game stopping whenever chance allows.
This is how it works in hockey, and under such a system the average soccer fan would be exposed to a strange set of sights… players staying upright, fighting through challenges and, perhaps most shockingly, displaying a little bit of character.