One of the hotter topics in cricket over the last fifty years or so has been whether a player should walk when he knows he is out, or whether he should wait for the umpire to give him out. However minimal the contact, however faint the edge, a batsman always knows when he has hit the ball.
The professional game used to be divided into “walkers” or “non-walkers” and it was generally accepted that to walk when you knew you were out, even if you suspected that the umpire would have given you the benefit of the doubt, was the highest form of sportsmanship, and showed a high degree of moral rectitude. Because cricket was not only old-fashioned, but also had claims as the quintessentially English game, there was an expectation that an amateur or a gentleman would walk, because that was the “right” thing to do, but that a professional would probably wait for the umpires decision. In short, you could trust a proper chap to do the right thing, whereas someone from the lower classes could not be relied upon to have any moral compass at all.
Except it was seldom quite as simple as that, for I knew a few players who had wonderful reputations and were held to be absolute paragons who would cynically trade on that reputation. To establish a reputation as someone who would always give yourself out, but to then play on that to hoodwink the official at a critical moment is a pretty advanced form of cheating, but I saw it happen enough times to make me feel that the practice of “walking” should be removed from the game, and that all decisions should be left to the umpire.
If morality could be so easily manipulated, I came to believe that all moral judgements should be removed from sport. I have no time at all for those who claim the moral high-ground by dint of birth, status and schooling only to dissemble and gain advantage by unfair means. The law is the law, and better to stick to the letter rather than the spirit, if those that genuinely try to be honest are disadvantaged by those who don’t. That is why I am so in favour of technology as it leads to better decision-making, and better decision lead to fairer results.
There is another article to be written about the whole issue of drugs and doping, and I have at times often wondered whether it would be better to just allow a total free for all, but that is for another day. For now though it is enough to say that sportsmen will always try to get away with what they can.
Rugby players learn quickly to play the referee, to work out what transgressions they can get away with, what laws a particular referee will not seek to enforce. So do footballers, and we know from watching The Arsenal how quickly rotational fouling is employed once a side senses they can get away with it. These are not on-the-field snap decisions: coaches spend plenty of time briefing players on who to foul, where best to stray offside, how off-the-ball runs may be most effectively and invisibly blocked.
I don’t have advanced knowledge of all sports, but would bet my life that all sports have their own nefarious practices: as players we quickly learn the dark arts if we wish to survive, for few things are as competitive as professional sport, and without carefully drawn-up laws and efficient refereeing games soon become a jungle. And that jungle becomes red in tooth and claw if you rely on the players to interpret the laws equally fairly.
Which I suppose brings me quite neatly to that bite, which has caused predictable outrage, and an outpouring of moral relativism not often seen in such magnitude beyond A-level philosophy essays.
It seems to me that if you support Liverpool FC or Uruguay it is perfectly appropriate to claim that there are plenty worse things than a not altogether friendly nip that go unpunished: career-ending tackles and casually swung elbows have been paraded with enthusiasm as justifications for why biting an opponent is not that bad. Equally, if you do not support Liverpool or Uruguay, and especially if you feel that as an English-speaking white man you are the sole guardian of moral rectitude in a dangerously immoral and worryingly foreign world then the bite is seen as a mortal sin and one that can only be adequately punished by eternal banishment. And I am not certain how those two positions can ever be properly reconciled, because both carry so much baggage with them that it is perhaps just best to acknowledge that sometimes there is no absolute right and wrong
What does interest me rather more is the way that just as most societies have their own set of taboos, so too do most sports and I find it fascinating to see what is and what is not considered to be acceptable. Biting, for example, is not especially frowned on in Rugby Football, and while it is probably best not to know everything that goes on in the scrum, I have seen enough nibbled ears to realise that cannibalism is alive and well in the Home Counties. But should a player stick out a foot to trip up a flying three-quarter then all hell breaks loose in the rugby world. It is just not done, and anyone that maintains such behaviour is soon hounded out.
Likewise in cricket: a bowler may legitimately seek to kill a batsman by bowling short-pitched bouncers , and this is seen as an acceptable and admired part of the game; should the same bowler seek to do so by not pitching the ball at all but aiming it full toss at the head then that is strictly off-limits.
A boxer may rain un-defended blows on his opponent’s head and reduce him to a vegetative state and he will be considered a hero: throw a punch below the belt and he’ll soon be cast as pantomime villain.
Footballers lie and cheat on a regular basis: they claim throw-ins and corners, they dive and simulate injury and this is not only all fine but actively encouraged. They may seek to break their opponent’s leg, and that is OK too, but they must not punch, gouge or bite, for that is not OK.
Taboo trumps relativism, and societies (and the football society is no different) police those taboos strictly and seriously. However ridiculous and logic defying it might be, anyone that seeks to defend the breaking of a taboo will be seen to be so far at odds with the values of that society that all their opinions will, by extension, be deemed risible.
The point about Louis Suarez is not that what he did was particularly bad, but rather that he was unable to stop himself doing something he knew was considered wrong by the rest of his tribe: that he immediately sought to divert attention from his behaviour by feigning injury was proof enough to me that he realised he had crossed an invisible but all-important line.
Today’s post was given to us by @foreverhaedy (Ex professional cricketer)
Positively Arsenal 
lol..what an exceptional sentence
“Equally, if you do not support Liverpool or Uruguay, and especially if you feel that as an English-speaking white man you are the sole guardian of moral rectitude in a dangerously immoral and worryingly foreign world then the bite is seen as a mortal sin and one that can only be adequately punished by eternal banishment.”
encapsulates all the dark humour and hypocricy ……… the sole guardian of moral rectitude? ahahahah just brilliant ! oh well …dont forget suarez biting is worse than the 45 min dossier….lol
i dont know much about cricket but as footballis concerend…money, pressure, personal ambition, all those sacrifices make players have “take no prisoners” attitudes.
bloody hell really good article….
“Footballers lie and cheat on a regular basis: they claim throw-ins and corners, they dive and simulate injury and this is not only all fine but actively encouraged. They may seek to break their opponent’s leg, and that is OK too, but they must not punch, gouge or bite, for that is not OK.
Taboo trumps relativism, and societies (and the football society is no different) police those taboos strictly and seriously. However ridiculous and logic defying it might be, anyone that seeks to defend the breaking of a taboo will be seen to be so far at odds with the values of that society that all their opinions will, by extension, be deemed risible.”
E. P. I. C
LikeLike
brilliant article, (thought you ended it a bit abruptly though), I am a big luis suarez fan, I think he is an exceptional player, that said, I cannot excuse his behaviour & have prior doesn’t help him one bit! (3 bites too far?) but I definitely won’t be taking the moral high ground(or low ground even) on this one….i’ll let the Flagrantly Incompetent Football Association(FIFA) deal with it & i’ll have not too much qualms with whatever ruling they conjure. great article again
LikeLike
Great article.
LikeLike
having* prior I meant
LikeLike
“Biting, for example, is not especially frowned on in Rugby Football, and while it is probably best not to know everything that goes on in the scrum, I have seen enough nibbled ears to realise that cannibalism is alive and well in the Home Counties.”
Biting in rugby not frowned on ? The penalties for biting when it happens in rugby, tend to be more than a slap on the wrist FH – as I said yesterday testicle tearing (!) and biting can earn you up to a four year ban;
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Rugby-player-tells-relief-ear-biting-rival-banned/story-11234318-detail/story.html (Three years ban)
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/sin-bin-the-longest-bans-in-rugby-1724109.html?action=gallery&ino=9 (19 months ban)
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-south-african-out-on-his-ear-for-biting-arm-1155062.html (18 months ban)
http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=40165 (Nine weeks)
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/mar/27/dylan-hartley-stephen-ferris-ban ( Eight weeks)
Well it clearly does not stamp it out, otherwise no one would get banned. Still these are serious penalties indicating a great big frown from the rugby authorities. I wonder what sort of ban they would give a repeat offender ?
LikeLike
Four months ? – shockingly lenient – I am appalled
LikeLike
*winks
LikeLike
Brilliant analysis Forever,
Sums up the hypocrisy in sport in general and in football more specifically. I think the sentence FIFA have imposed is totally innafective in stopping such behaviour. (see my Sunday post for a more preventative sentence) The whole issue of dangerous play has to be reviewed, and retrospective video evidence will eventually have to be brought into play when decisions are made. This is an ongoing issue, as Girouds elbow last night proves.
LikeLike
Anicoll
Testical tearing and biting? does that really happen outside of the bedroom?
LikeLike
You should try it NB – clear the tubes wonderfully
LikeLike
congratulations english media ….you can now bask in your first victory in the world cup…..suarez banned …..be proud!!!!!
next they will press international tribunals to arrest blair and cambell for war crimes ….surely ….. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks FH, glad you are still here.
Recent biters in football: Oliver Khan, Jermaine Defoe and of course Suarez.
I can’t recall these other two incidents but it had happened before.
–
Skimmed an article yesterday on US sports not on P.E.Ds but on various athletes getting addicted to painkillers and legal stimulants. Crazy scenes described, cues in dressing room in front of the club doctor where he has a row of syringes lined up, like something out of a Kubrick movie.
LikeLike
That will teach the Football Writers to choose him as Player of the Year H
LikeLike
appeal now…
adidas chairman official statement
” if you dont let suarez play in the world cup we will take away all the footballs”
haaa
LikeLike
That will teach the Football Writers to choose him as Player of the Year H
lol…. was he not?
LikeLike
And there is nothing better than a good clearing of the tubes…..
LikeLike
Interesting stuff Foreverheady.
If the bucktoothed freak had bit me during a game of football I probably would have planted one on him. This being the right and proper reaction of a morally superior (white) Englishmen when faced with a typically sneaky attack from one of yer shifty eyed, dusky looking native cannibal types.
Tedious media hoopla aside, we can all now be eternally grateful that £1 bid never actually activated the mythical release clause…
LikeLike
If the bucktoothed freak had bit me during a game of football I probably would have planted one on him…
finally someone talking straight.
and then you had to ruin it ( haa)
“Tedious media hoopla aside, we can all now be eternally grateful that £1 bid never actually activated the mythical release clause…”
im certain youd be burning in indignation when he would single-handedly destroy bayern manure chelsea etc ….
LikeLike
Hunter
It doesn’t matter, The Arsenal are a proud club with a proud history, we don’t need someone like Suarez dragging the club down to his level….. Liverpool may be able to accept it, but the Arsenal can’t.
LikeLike
I am disappointed with the Uruguayans reaction
I assumed they would be on their way home by now
LikeLike
Some of the excuses put forward on Suarez’ behalf have really been amusing. One Uruguay player has stated that the mark on Chiellinis’ shoulder was an old scar….. an old scar that looked justed like a bite mark and in the same position where Suarez put his mouth………… you just have to laugh.
LikeLike
someone like Suarez dragging the club down to his level…
oh absolutely…… adams keown…gentlemen..always played the game in a fair manner…. ethical sportsmen…not like arsenal ever had a reputation of being a bit brutal or rough or a tiny tiny tiny little bit dirty perhaps ??…..oh i seeeeeeeeeee….its the pashun….
are we kidding ourselves now? 🙂 …… come on…..
the man had an operation to play in the world cup and they ban him???? cowards…disgrace ..i hope for an appeal and a universal poll (the english excluded obviously and the italians) of football fans… not common people who aint got a clue and judge with totally different criteria … …we the fans of football demand that suarez remains and plays in the world cup.. as for england and italy.? ..crybabies…. have dropped in my estimation and respect big time…not that they care obviously..lol..
LikeLike
Hunter. Stop it. He deserves the ban. Dont be ridiculous.
LikeLike
Brilliant aren’t they NB. That last one in particular is borderline genius.
Hunter!!!!!
“congratulations english media ….you can now bask in your first victory in the world cup…..suarez banned …..be proud!!!!!”
Ffs. Oh, I can’t be arsed today.
LikeLike
I think this article provides some very telling insight into Suarez by investigating his early football career in Uruguay and the attempt to find out about a report/rumour of his head butting a referee. It is long but a very well written and interesting piece.
http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10984370/portrait-serial-winner-luis-suarez-soccer-most-beautiful-player
LikeLike
Sagna was quite good last night, possibly France’s best player on the night. Crossing was on the spot. But I still don’t think he will be first choice come the next game. Debuchy has the younger legs but is he as good a footballer?
I don’t think France can afford to drop Koscielny but I think DD will drop him too.
LikeLike
I argued over on ACLF all last summer that I was opposed to the Suarez bid. His amazing season made me regret those goals were for Liverpool and not Arsenal but I still felt we would have done great with a player like Higuain or other alternatives.
The major point I made was putting aside the morality issues of a player found to have racially abused another, a routine diver, cheater, serial biter, and so on, the fact was that he never accepted his outrageous behaviour as a problem or accepted responsibility for it. I argued that he was not in control of himself and would not be unless he dropped the persecution complex and tried to deal with his issues of self-control in big pressure filled situations where he has had these melt downs. I argued that this itself made him too much of a risk for Arsenal, counter to our club image and its marketing/our values and so on, and that he would likely miss lots of games because of bans for these sorts of incidences. Sorry to say but despite his amazing talent and huge goal scoring feats, we did the right thing in not getting him. The only circumstances in which it would have made sense is his arrival had coincided with a major effort by the club to get him the professional help needed to overcome these problems.
Now I hope he starts to face reality and realizes he is the big obstacle to himself and that he needs to get real help if he wants to avoid this happening to him again. He’s become a complete global joke, a bizarre global popcultural meme, and may be banned for four months and cost Liverpool getting to the group stages and the PL title for a second straight season.
LikeLike
haha just called arsenal to enquire for club level tickets and they got arsene wenger autospeaker…haha…
LikeLike
Hunter
There is hypocrisy in football, but at the end of the day, football is played with feet, arms, legs and heads and can sometimes be rough and dangerous………….. But football is not played with yer ‘ampsteads.
LikeLike
Amend that, I don’t think his ban last season actually contributed because Liverpool did well and Sturridge started fast early in the season during his ban for biting Ivanovic. But it might cost them next season. Of course his great play lifted them to contention. Double edged sword.
LikeLike
Plodders gets the start for Germany. That’s an exciting front line.
With Schweinsteiger finally fit enough to start in place of the equally injury riddled Khadira this is a slightly more creative line up for Germany in the big show down between the two managers.
LikeLike
Looks like a good read there Lime, perhaps providing some much needed background info on the upbringing that has shaped the man. A little context goes a long way. Ta for the link. Devote some time to it later when I get the chance.
LikeLike
lol…what you all on about? whose been making the biggest noise demanding life long bans and shit??? ….
he might deserve it allright …no objections to that…but after the world cup…not now…stop being cruel..judge him on his football ability.
LikeLike
Yes your honour, I did shoot him, but can I go to Jail after my holidays.
LikeLike
Hunter
I would like to judge Jimmy Saville on his DJ work, TV work and ability at charity work, but unfortunately, something in his psychological make-up puts all that good work into the background and now he has to be judged.
LikeLike
WHAT???????? raping children vs biting the shoulder of a defender in a football game???
OK………
LikeLike
im sorry are you two equating real actual crimes with reactions on a football pitch?
are you serious?
LikeLike
Hunter. Biting someone is a real crime. Try doing it on a night out and see what happens.
LikeLike
You’ll have to dig the fucker up first, NB….
Nice one George!
Off now now to watch ze Germans..
They’ve got Arsenal players. So I root for ’em. It’s wrong, I know, I know…
LikeLike
That is a great article Limey although – in line with the English media conspiracy line – it was rehashed in the Guardian this morning.
My antipathy toward Suarez goes back to the Evra incident
If the (hypothetical) test is that in order to win the PL AFC have to sign Suarez I’d leave it – too high a price
LikeLike
Hunter. Biting someone is a real crime. Try doing it on a night out and see what happens.
wait…not so fast….. to who? to some bastard provoking me or my company ? …yeah ill bite him…what will happen you reckon?
the bite didnt come out of the blue….surely he overreacts..but chielini does throw an elbow/shoulder to impede his run ….
LikeLike
Its illegal to bite anyone. Its a crime.
LikeLike
“what will happen you reckon?”
You will be charged under with assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH), a criminal offence which is governed by Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
The maximum penalty for a Section 47 offence is currently five years imprisonment.
Assuming it was a first offence and you pleaded guilty a custodial sentence would be unlikely. For a repeat offence and conviction however it is probable you would jailed.
LikeLike
George
You ain’t gonna win……… let Hunter get over his rage, then he’ll calm down and return to normal and calling everyone cunts 🙂
LikeLike
sorry… I put a smiley in there by mistake.
LikeLike
Great skill from Ozil there early on to set up Plodders’ early half-chance. Incredible.
What a player! And he plays for Arsenal.
LikeLike
well done Anicoll…… read my Pre-sentence report on Sunday. Actually, it’s maximum sentence for GBH I think. But for a repeat violent offender 5 or more years would be the norm.
LikeLike
I think Suarez next contract will be a very interesting read.
LikeLike
The difference between ABH and GBH is ‘breaking of skin’ ie: with a weapon that can piece skin… like a glass, a bottle, a knife………. or teeth!
LikeLike
i wouldnt go as far saying suarez was defending himself but the example of the night/bar is about defending yourself in case things escalate…..
you talk about about the scenario of some crazy man just walking inside a bar and biting the first person he sees….
thats not what happened in uru-ita and thats not the equivelant scenario of the case on the football pitch….
two players ..fighting for space/position…competition, nerves, heart rates pumping, an elbow… a bite…… two kids rolling on the floor…..
how does that compare to your bar/night fight examples? context people…. one is talking about saville the other about shooting….anyway….. enjoy the games…no point continuing this… we are too far apart in this case…
LikeLike