Irish Cricket Robbed by ICC

Just when Irish sport was recovering from the wounds inflicted by Sepp Blatter comes a new blow: the ICC - their abilities would make even FIFA blush - has decreed that there is no place for Ireland at the next cricket World Cup. This is baffling not only because of Ireland's excellent performance in this edition of the Cup but because the event has always been regarded as a vehicle for promoting the game beyond the test playing countries. One only has to look at India's case to see the effect that a strong performance in the World Cup can have on the development of the sport in a country. Before India's unexpected victory in the 1983 World Cup, Hockey was very much the national sport although India had Test status. Cricket captured the national imagination behind that one victory and dominated the sporting landscape in a way that is to be seen to be believed.

Irish cricket needed all the help possible. Instead of rewarding the country for exciting performances - like the terrific victory over England last month - the game's administrators have dealt a massive blow not just to Ireland but to cricket fans everywhere. This decision must be reversed.

Moral Compensation - It's Blatter Again!

The media has been agog with reports about Mr. Blatter suggesting that Ireland should be given "moral compensation" for being cheated out of a chance to play in the World Cup. However, he is "insist[ing that] a monetary reward for the FAI would not be appropriate."

The reports are thin on detail and it is hard to determine what Mr. Blatter actually means by "moral compensation." One thing is clear: By suggesting compensation, Blatter appears to be admitting blame. After all, there is no question of compensation unless there is fault. Since France has not authorized him to admit fault, one must assume that Blatter is admitting blame for FIFA's actions.

What are moral damages? The term has been frequently employed in international law; scholars have pointed to article 31 (which establishes the principle of full reparation for wrongful acts) of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility as allowing moral damages. The commentary refers to damage to a state's prestige, honour and dignity as constituting moral damage. In the Rainbow Warrior arbitration between France and New Zealand, the parties agreed that "Unlawful action against non-material interests, such as acts affecting the honor, dignity or prestige of a State, entitle the victim State to receive adequate reparation, even if those acts have not resulted in a pecuniary or material loss for the claimant State." Even if article 31 establishes a basis for moral damages, it only applies to internationally wrongful acts committed by states.

There is also a growing body of law on moral damages in investment disputes. This is characterized more by uncertainty and confusion than by clear principle. The one bit of clarity that can be gleaned from these awards is that moral damages are typically for intangible losses.

None of this is of much help to Mr. Blatter because Ireland did not suffer any loss to "honor, dignity or prestige"  because of the handball. Further, the harm suffered by it is not of an intangible nature or hard to measure financially. It suffered very real pecuniary harm, and this must be compensated by hard cash if FIFA is at fault.

Talk is cheap. Mr. Blatter must put his money where his mouth is.

Blithering Blatter

I've previously blogged about Blatter's foot-in-the-mouth affliction. But good ol' Sepp is a gift that keeps on giving. Check out the latest from this master wordsmith:

"I appeal to all the players and coaches to observe this fair play. In 2010 we want to prove that football is more than just kicking a ball but has social and cultural value...So we ask the players ‘please observe fair play’ so they will be an example to the rest of the world.”

As I predicted earlier, nothing has changed in the rules to address the problem of referee-error : "Fifa ... said there would be no change in the way matches would be officiated at the World Cup next year, with a plan to have two additional referees behind each goal not sanctioned at today's extraordinary meeting of the Fifa executive committee."

All the tohu-bohu over the last few weeks was just sound and fury signifying nothing.

More Blather from Blatter

Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, is quoted by the Independent as saying ""Naturally they [Ireland] were unhappy with what happened and asked very humbly whether they could be team number 33 ...I will bring it to the attention of the executive committee but if we do that, we will also have to bring in Costa Rica." The report contains more gems from Blatter: ""On one match it is decided if you are in or out and this is not the spirit behind this World Cup. We must have a look at this. There is so much at stake."

This is utter tosh. As noted in my previous post on the topic, the rules are very clear and the referee is the lord and master on the pitch. The game was France's after the appalling referee-error, and much as we would like Ireland to be in the World Cup, Blatter's blather won't result in any miracles.

RTE is also reporting that Blatter is considering adding extra officials to prevent such incidents in the future: " The item contains several pious pronouncements from Blatter: "It's possible we will make additional officials for the World Cup but we have to see if it is feasible or realistic. Something has to be done in terms of match control."

Why not go for the simpler solution and introduce video review? Adding more officials is more expensive and does little to solve the problem of human error.

The RTE report contains more blather from Blatter: "How can it happen that all over the world, through tv cameras, we have seen through a cheating handball that a pass was given for a goal? Everyone is asking what is and what isn't fair play. The highest crime in football is touching the ball with the hands." Lessons on ethics and fair play from Blatter? It would be hard to find a more dubious source!

If your appetite for Blatter's blather is not completely sated after all this, have a look at this excellent post at the One Team in Ireland blog.

FIFA's No to Rematch is a Tough Pill to Swallow

As the media has reported widely, FIFA ruled last Friday that there will be no rematch. The decision, hard as it is to accept, is a correct interpretation of the rules. FIFA's rules give enormous power to the referees and make them the final arbiters of almost everything on the soccer pitch. According to the Laws of the Game, specifically Law 5, "[t]he decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match."

Given how quickly these match-altering decisions are made, it is foolish to concentrate so much power in one individual. Further, even if the referee is able to appreciate that he has made a mistake amidst all the brouhaha, he is not compelled to change his decision. The Law only says that he "may" change his decision. In addition, even if the other officials spot an error and bring it to the referee's attention, and all the spectators see that the decision is wrong, he is allowed to use his "discretion" and stick to his decision.

While there are strong arguments to give the referee the necessary authority to ensure that the game is not interrupted unduly and delayed by constant quibbling, this is a step too far. No human referee is immune from mistakes in the cauldron-like atmosphere that characterizes big matches, and giving them the aid of technology to get decisions right can only be good for the game. A system of challenges, perhaps with each team being given one challenge, which would be lost upon an incorrect challenge would be a step in the right direction. The referee would be required to look at the video replay if there is a challenge and the game would stop only for a few seconds. This disruption is a small price to pay for getting the decision right. If other sports can accept such innovations, why not football?

What then of Mr. Henry's actions? As the video footage clearly shows, he deliberately handled the ball. Law 12 is clear about the consequences: "There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:
•   deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession
•    attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball."

Should players take more responsibility for their actions? Would it make life easier for referees? The answer has to be yes if the expectation of sporting behaviour has to have any meaning. Yet, players resist at every turn. Even in that most gentlemanly of sports - cricket -  the great Australian wicket-keeper batsman, Adam Gilchrist, who has been known to walk when out despite the umpire missing the catch, is a lone exception. Footballers are no different. Players will try to get away with every violation they can unless FIFA takes the job of enforcing the sportsmanship norm seriously. Financial penalties must follow even after the match is concluded if there is evidence that a player has exhibited "unsporting behaviour." Since the sheer embarrassment of being caught out cheating on television appears to be ineffective, other avenues have to be explored. A code of conduct whereby players commit to putting their hand up and accepting responsibility for infringements might be one solution. If Mr. Henry had immediately gone to the referee and admitted to handling the ball, Ireland would not have felt so cheated.

It would be a travesty if everyone forgot about this incident after a few days and FIFA is allowed to get away with a technical interpretation of its flawed rules. Ireland and other nations must overcome the familiar problems of collective action and work to change the rules so that spectators and players are not robbed of a fair sporting contest. The Laws state that "No alterations shall be made to the Laws of the Game except in the Annual General Meeting of the Board and then only if agreed by at least three-quarters of those present and entitled to vote." If nothing is done at the next AGM, it is the membership, rather than the much maligned FIFA, which must take the blame.