Back in January, Pope Benedict XVI opined that soccer was the perfect vehicle to teach young people moral lessons, “a tool,” in his words, “for the teaching of life’s ethical and spiritual values.” Since then, soccer players have been going out of their way, it seems, to prove him wrong, led by New Mexico women’s soccer player Elizabeth Lambert. A viral YouTube clip shows her repeatedly mugging opponents in a recent game against Brigham Young University, and in the most infamous moment, yanking a player’s ponytail so violently that it’s amazing her head stayed on. (Lambert has been suspended indefinitely.)
More controversial, however, was a pivotal play in a recent soccer game between France and Ireland to qualify for the World Cup. France won on a goal resulting from a play in which a French player touched the ball with his hand, which should have negated the goal. French star Thierry Henry, who made the illegal pass, admitted as much after the game.
The Irish press and other commentators instantly pronounced Henry a cheater, and referee Martin Hansson an incompetent or worse, a pro-France conspirator.
Calling Henry a cheater for touching the ball is clearly unfair. He touched the ball instinctively, and would not have done so intentionally because such a blatant hand-ball is usually called and penalized. Calling Henry an incompetent is less objectionable, though even the best refs can make mistakes, and do. Soccer is a difficult game to call; on the other hand (no pun intended), this was an important game, and mandated Henry’s best work, not his worst.
The key ethical issue is whether Henry, or any other French player, had an obligation to admit the infraction and thus invalidate their own winning goal (and presumably have to spend the rest of their lives in the French Soccer Turncoat Protection Program, where they would be given new identities as Portuguese immigrant truffle farmers in Burgundy.)
Most team sports do not require or approve of players correcting refs and umpires on erroneous calls in their teams’ favor. Unlike golf, an individual sport in which the honor system reigns, or is supposed to, team sports culture holds that the players are not responsible for correcting the referee’s mistakes, even those that a player may have intentionally facilitated, as when an outfielder in baseball traps a ball but pretends that he caught it on the fly. Thus a football player who knows he stepped out-of-bounds while catching a pass will happily take the yards if the ref calls a completion, and a catcher getting an “out” call at home plate when he knows he missed the tag won’t tell the umpire that the opposing team’s run should be counted.
Much of the reason for this tradition is pragmatic: if refs and umpires are going to be the authority figures that run the games, they can’t be constantly corrected by the players. Furthermore, there is the problem of which bad calls a player would be obligated to correct. Pitcher: “Excuse me, Mr. Home plate Umpire, but that ball you just called “strike three” was an inch wide of the plate and should be ball four. My bad; send him to first!” Lineman: “Ref, sir? I got carried away and clobbered the quarterback while he was throwing…it’s clearly roughing. You missed it. Give the other team the penalty yards, please.” Would the obligation attach only on important plays? What would be the standard for “important”?
The most persuasive of all the reasons for the tradition, I think, is the fact that self-reporting would undermine team loyalty, trust, and inevitably interfere with player relationships with teammates, coaches, owners and fans. Put all the responsibility for getting the calls right on the referees and umpires; that’s their job. Let the players play, without burdening them with making tough judgment calls about whether a referee’s call in their favor is one that needs to be corrected by undoing their own team’s apparent success. The culture of team sports could have evolved differently; sandlot baseball games, played without umpires, often require players to call plays against their teams. For better or worse, however, the ethical culture in team sports, especially professional team sports, is that whatever the ref or umpire calls is the way it is. You can argue with the call when it goes against you and your team. But refuse to accept the benefit of a bad call? Never.
Blogger Mark McGuire agrees, but asks this: If Referee Hansson had asked Henry, before officially calling the goal, perhaps, whether the player had touched the ball with his hand, what should Henry have said? Would his ethical obligation be to lie, in support of his team? Should he have admitted his infraction, since he was asked directly? (In the legal profession, it is considered ethical not to correct certain errors in court, but if the judge asks a direct question, the ethics rules require that the lawyer answer truthfully, even to the detriment of his client.) Should he have devised a deceitful or devious response that wasn’t strictly a lie, but wasn’t honest either? Or should he have simply refused to answer?
What do you think? (I’ll give my answer in the comments, after some readers weigh in.)
Here’s the question as a Multiple Choice:
Question: If the ref in the France Ireland soccer game asked Thierry Henry whether he touched the ball with his hand in the game-winning play, how should Henry have answered?
Answers (Choose one):
A. “Absolutely not!”
B. “Yes, I did.”
C. “I did nothing wrong.” (“Wrong” implying actual moral wrongdoing, whereas if, and I am only saying if, I indeed touched the ball, it was inadvertence and not true wrongdoing by any respected philosophical standard.)*
D. “Hey, you’re the ref. I’m not doing your job.”
E. Play? What play?*
* This would be Bill Clinton’s answer.
** A version of Jimmy Durante’s famous reply in the musical “Jumbo,” when he was caught in the act of stealing an elephant by a sheriff who demanded, “Where do you think you’re going with that elephant?” Durante’s answer: “Elephant? What elephant?”
Ethics Alarms 
As a self-described hobbyist ethicist, I cannot help but laud your point. People should do the right thing. The realist in me, however, knows that the vast majority never will. We live in a world of diploma mills, spam, Nigerian schemes, and cheaters. As far as the word “should” is concerned, you shouldn’t say should.
Well, what “should” you say instead? The fact that most people “won’t” do the right thing is no reason to stop reminding, exhorting, shaming or demanding those who may, might, or will, given a nudge or a kick in the ass. We also live in a world of kind, generous honest people, and the objective needs to be to encourage the latter and make things as difficult, contentious, and unpleasant for the cheaters as possible. “Should” is correct. I didn’t say “must.” But I’m tempted…
There are those who do know about sportsmanship and those who don’t. Regulation will not change the ones who do and might begin to alienate the ones who do by implying that they cannot regulate themselves.
Exactly. And of course, if it’s required and enforced with sanctions, it isn’t sportsmanship. The limitation of rules and regulations is unavoidable: people who want to get around them will, and those who practice sportsmanship don’t need the regulations. In other words: what you said.
I follow the game of soccer, i’m a huge fan of the sport, and Thierry Henry is one of France most beloved players. He has never struck me as a cheater but he is a tough competitor who is going to get the job done, even in his (to some people) elder and slower years as a player. I know Henry did not mean to touch the ball with his hand, but if you ask me, the goal was given, appologize later. Sadly Frace would have crucified him for being honest. Anyways he didn’t score the goal with his hand, like Diego Maradonna and his famous hand of god goal. So, even if he wanted or must have spoken up and told the truth, he did the right thing (in the social sport world) for the time being.
Yes, I should have been clear: he didn’t score the goal with his hand like the infamous Maradonna goal. I tried to link to the video of the goal but it sems to have been taken down. Thanks for weighing in.
What do you mean he never meant to touch the ball with his hand!!!!!thats a ludicrous statement!touching the ball with your hand is not instinctual in a guy who has been playing football everyday of his life for 30 years!of course it was a concious effort to cheat…his instinct would be to pull his hand away from the ball!
Carl—I haven’t seen the actual play, I’m sure it still is visible somewhere, but lots of links have been taken down. Several reports said it was ” a reaction play.” Maybe “instinctual” is the wrong word. Still, I would think trying to cheat in high level soccer by using your hand is like trying to get away with using stilts in a basketball game: it’s obviously illegal, it is likely to be called, so why do it intentionally?
But even if it was intentional (like dozens of plays in any basketball game where there is technically illegal contact, double dribbling, goal-tending, traveling and under the radar fouls…if it isn’t called by the ref, it didn’t happen, and I’m not even sure “cheating” is the right term for many such infractions. Each sport’s culture is different, but if all the players are trying to slip technical violations by the refs, and the game doesn’t tighten the regulations, at some point what would otherside he “cheating” becomes “gamesmanship.”
I am in complete agreeance with you on that! “…didn’t mean to touch the ball!” If that was teh case then he would’ve called himself out and forfeit the goal, but too bad gentlemen sportsmanship doesn’t exist too much in the world of professional sports.
The correct answer is clearly “F”. Now, you have to understand, I haven’t seen the video of the incident yet. Was the hand-ball blatant? If it was… my answer changes to “B”.
But if the contact was just a bit more than incidental, answer “F” would be to answer as honestly as possible and might go along the lines of “Honestly – I think I touched it with my hand, but I’m not 100% positive.”
I agree that it’s not the player’s position to correct refs & umps – and for the following reasons:
1) Many plays happen too fast and the players sometimes don’t know what happened. If a catcher is trying to get the ball and tag out the runner at home, he’s concerned about getting the ball to the runner as fast as possible. To try and honestly determine his success will slow him down and possibly create a different outcome. With players focused on performing and not judging, Judging is allocated to individuals who are tasked with observing.
2) If a player self reports – he may be wrong about his infraction and now he’s taking undeserved penalties that harm his team.
3) Fate / Karma / The Powers That Be.
Officials are imperfect because man is imperfect. We use officials because to self report everything would A) Take too long B) Be imperfect because players are human C) Cause controversy over whether or not someone should or should not have self reported.
Using officials makes sense because they are impartial and are dedicated to observing as much as possible. Their goal is to observe and judge. Taking away the responsibility from the player to self report makes the player more focused on performing and being his best. (hmm….this doesn’t sound too ethical now…imagine a wall street stockbroker who performed his best, never judging his own actions and waiting for someone else to step in. In life, there are no officiating crews.)
Teams have relinquished judging responsibility to officials and have agreed to abide by the good and bad calls. They know some calls go in their favor and some calls go against them. They expect in the end to have a Karmic balance of bad calls for and against.
It seems I’ve written too much and might even be a little incoherent. I apologize.
On the whole, players in all sports are engaging in their activity for The Love Of The Game, not to make a political statement or because the uniforms look good. That love of the game is what leads to “sportsmanship” and the message that’s being overlooked is that players today aren’t being taught the love of the game. Instead they are coached to “Win At All Costs” either through direct training or indirectly by coaches who accumulate wins from their player’s uncorrected bad behavior. When I was growing up my coaches (football, basketball, baseball) and my daughter’s coaches (soccer) all shared the same passion for The Game. The Game came first. You didn’t sully it with cheating; if you can’t win fair and square you deserve to lose. Coaches pulled players from the game if they (or the refs) observed them cheating – it was a point of honor for the coach and the team. We wanted to beat the other team convincingly, without the stain of “you wouldn’t have won if you hadn’t cheated.” If the other team cheated and the refs didn’t catch it that’s just part of the game. The breaks don’t always go your way but half the time they do and it all evens out down the road. We were taught to respect the game, respect the refs even when they’re biased against us (disrespecting a ref was the quickest way to earn an unfavorable bias!), and take our lumps as a team. No whining allowed; in fact, whining was the quickest way to extra abuse at practice (as in life, generally). However, it seems these days that cheating and whining, led by the coaches, has become an important facet of “The Game” … which is sad, because no one loves “The Game” anymore… only “Winning At All Costs.” What it is costing us is our humanity. As far as the France-Ireland soccer match, Thierry has admitted it was an inadvertent hand touch which should have been called but wasn’t. If it is going to strain international relations, why not play the game over? If I were Thierry and the French soccer squad, I would jump at the chance to prove we *earned* our berth at the World Cup instead of being handed a free pass by the ref. Even if Ireland prevailed in the rematch, honor would be restored all around, and everyone would be ennobled by another chance to be a part of The Love of The Game. Of course, if Win At All Costs is the rule, a rematch would never happen…
Chris, I like the sentiment, but disagree with the solution. Officiating errors are part of the game, always will be. This wan’t cheating, and accepting the good fortune of a bad call isn’t cheating either, because neither the standards of sportsmanship for that sport, nor tradition, not rules dictate that the player needs to correct a bad decision.
I do think outrageously bad calls harm the integrity of the game—some have said that the French win was fixed—but the lack of finality also harms the integrity of the game. When it’s over, it should be over—you can’t pull the rug out from under fans like that. No game can survive the sense that wins and scoring plays can be undone.
My caveat was that if international relations… i.e. geopolitical stability… was threatened, there is a middle course: the do-over, just like in sandlot baseball. The Love Of The Game respects and needs the finality of closure, bad calls, cheating and all. I’m not suggesting undoing the existing results of the already-played game; instead I’m advocating a rematch to settle the question of which is the better team. France is going to the World Cup thanks to a blown call and that can’t be changed, nor should it. What can be changed is the appearance that Ireland wasn’t good enough (as indicated by the results of the match) and that can be redressed by an exhibition game which has no consequence except to restore both team’s honor. Then everyone can go out and have a pint and celebrate their love of The Game instead of flinging hot rhetoric across the Channel. Surely in ethics there is a situation where a do-over is the appropriate response to resolve an injustice or ambiguity?
I have no problem with the do-over, in theory. It would be a sportsmanlike, ethical solution to this kind of situation, where the result seems undeserved, or at least unjust. I’d like to see a tradition develop that would embrace such a solution. In boxing, of all sports, this has happened…after a particularly close and controversial match, the winner is almost obligated to accept a re-match. (Rocky II!) It is tougher to apply in sports where games are scheduled in advance. But yes: it’s a good idea, it would be great theater (which is what sport is all about, really) and good ethics. And fun!
Unfortunately, there are probably too many stake-holders in a team setting to get a consensus to risk waht has already been “won,” however unjustly.
There had been situation in this game, where there was a rematch between two teams which was caused by this ethical problems.
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/ars-ne-wenger-offers-fa-cup-rematch
This, however, happened in the English Premier League. There have been no report of a rematch on an International level, so far.
There was so much resting on the result of that game, no player would have admitted the handball. It would have meant, potentially, denying yourself a spot at the World Cup. Expecting honesty from professionals could never work, or at least never work consistently. That is why video replays can be so useful.
One example of a player ‘owning up’ was Robbie Fowler, several years ago. He had challenged for the ball with the opposing goalkeeper and fell. The referee gave a penalty. Fowler stood up and explained that he hadn’t been fouled. The referee stood firm, and still gave the penalty. Fowler took the penalty himself, it was saved, but Fowler’s teammate, Jason McAteer, scored the rebound. So honesty didn’t really work on that occasion…
Interesting post.
In professional and collegiate sports there is too much riding on the outcome to base decisions on whether players will tell the truth or not. I think soccer should increase the number of referees (as is done in every other sport) to reduce the number of cheap shots and improve the accuracy of calls.
Great example. The Refs don’t WANT players challenging their calls; that’s a real factor. They would rather be wrong than shown up on the field.
That’s the right solution, I think. Better refs, more refs, better calls.
Pingback: Is there such a thing as an ethical do-over? « Oz-mosis
The chicken and egg question is which came first, the behaviour of soccer players or soccer fans. There’s a connection there somewhere.
The chicken and egg question is which came first, the behaviour of soccer players or soccer fans. There’s a connection there somewhere.
I very much enjoyed this article but im afraid “He touched the ball instinctively, and would not have done so intentionally because such a blatant hand-ball is usually called and penalized”
couldnt be further from the truth, theres nothing instinctive about touching the ball with your hand when your a soccer player… infact playing as much soccer as he does means you instinctively pull your hand away from the ball not toward it…this was a completely concious deliberate attemp to CHEAT (and no im not Irish) he was seeing what he could get away with and yes he got away with it!If FIFA wants to set a precedent for sportsmanship the game should be replayed. I dont blame Henry because if you watch any high level soccer match nearly all the players try and cheat by either diving or rolling around on the floor like they have been shot…it has unfortunately become ‘part of the game’. Its become accepted to claim a throw in when it was never your ball to claim…or to try and build your defensive wall for a free kick 8 yards away instead of 10. The list goes on!Soccer is not the sport of the honest and until Fifa crack down it never will be. Look to Golf for your morals!
I think most “evil” is “organizational” (for lack of a better word). It is perpetuated in the light of day under a tacit understanding which is diametrically opposed to what is actually advertised, that which is overtly stated. This allows the appearance of goodness while evil is allowed to flourish.
The organizational players in the Elizabeth Lambert episode of evil are legion. They include Lambert herself, her teammates, her coach, the referees, the college, the league, and probably a whole lot more.
Things should be different. But they won’t be. Little blips on the radar like this get some attention which leads to minor corrections which are quickly forgotten and absorbed back into the system.
It’s bad, but not THAT bad. Cultures change. The key is not tolerating “evil,” in games, or anywhere.
And two forwards were offsides to begin with…
http://www.usdailysports.com/videos/view/50787,France-1_1-Eire-_-Ireland-_Gallas-goal-and-Henry-hand-pass_.html
Anyone who has played sports knows people screw up. Hopefully it was only a desire to win at all cost in that one game and won’t happen agian. It’s not the first time, and as much as we hate to admit it, it wont be the last! So let’s all move on and teach our kids how to be better.
Instinctively touched the ball, not once, but twice. Don’t think so.
All in all, a sickening day yesterday.
However, on the plus side, I was struck by the generally reasonable response of Irish fans (no trouble, rioting, blood curdling demands), sections of the French public (disgust at the cheating), and the Swedish press (criticism of the match officials).
And (apologies if this has already been mentioned) there is an alternative approach, exempified by footballer (soccer player) Robbie Fowler, who rushed to tell the referee that he had not been fouled by the opposition goalkeeper, and had in fact merely slipped. The referee was adamant though, and Robbie took the penalty and scored.
henry did the exact right thing. telling the referee what he did would have meant betraying his teammates and their fans. in soccer, you are a team. so it would be clearly egoistic to betray your team just because of your conscience.
I don’t think his conscience dictated any outcome, or should have. His actions were consistent with culture of the game.
Henry did what was right for winning his team. Not necessarily right for the future of this game. It’s true, He did admit it was a handsball, but not later until the whistle was blown, where the decision is final. It’s like cheating with someone else’s wife and admit the whole thing when it’s all in the open.
This isn’t the way the game is supposed to be played. Call it selfish, cheating, well-played, fair or unfair, one things sure, I’ve lost some degree of respect to the talent of this player. And not only myself, but maybe all of the millions who watched it..
I’m sorry to say this but I think he did the right thing. I’m sorry but I did see the play on ESPN and he did not blaitently touch the ball. The ball bounced up and touched his hand, which would discount the goal, but it went in. If a baseball player told the up that the runner was safe he would be considered a horiable baseball player. Soccer chooses not to have instant replay, they don’t want it, and because of that it’s not cheating, and it’s not his responsiability to be his own referee.
Why are you sorry to say that? I think you are correct.
But what should he have answered to a direct question from the ref?
B. (If Henry had put his priority straight, the Fair Play and sportsmanship on top)
C. (If he put his nation’s pride and glory before the sportsmanship of this game)
Whatever the outcome, He should know that the world was watching and they would react.
A do-over game would be the worst thing the league could possibly do. It would mean every time a ref made a mistake a team would call for a rematch. That’s utterly ridiculous.
Look, this isn’t the court of law we’re talking about, Soccer is a game. The players are paid to win, and part of any sport is fooling the refs as much as possible. From hockey to ping pong, from tennis to football, players are constantly attempting to fool the refs. It’s a GAME! Fool them and lie to them as much as you want, but when they make a call, that’s the call and there should be no going back on it.
If a league relies on a handful of humans to make decisions about events that happen in a split second, then they are going to have to accept that mistakes will happen, and that is part of the game. The players should accept that as well. Give me a break, if this were in the reverse, France would be protesting, and Ireland sitting on its win. As would any team in either position. Refs are part of sports and like players they will make mistakes.
I’ve seen my NFL team lose on a bad call. That’s it. They lost. Was I pissed? Hell ya. Did I go throw a hissy fit? Hell no. I went and got a beer and waited for next year.
I am waiting for Next match series.
There has been one instance of a World Cup qualifier being replayed after a poor refereeing decision: http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/ireland-cites-uzbekistan-bahrain-decision-in-appeal/