I'm an American, and I dislike soccer. But not for the usual reasons Yanks cite. What gets my hackles up is the role of the referees and goes back to the sport's origins. Soccer began as a rich boys' game in England. The early matches were held at public schools (the equivalent of private schools in the U.S.--even in this, we are opposites). The early referees were teachers at these wealthy schools, and the "rules" of the game evolved largely as a way for a teacher to reward or punish a boy, depending on the teacher's inclinations. The rules are a thinly disguised way to empower the teachers (sorry, referees), who were destined to less power and money than their charges, the sons of Wealth. I know of no other sport in which the referees can so determine the outcome of a game (unless of course the NBA actually enforced its rules, but that's a different essay). The reason soccer gets my goat is that it remains a game to empower a ruling class (teachers/referees), and not the huddled masses (players), and that, my friend, is anti-American.
Look at FIFA's rules, and you'll see that little has changed. Fouls are based on wording of whether a player does something like trip "or attempts to" (in the judgment of the ref). Also forbidden are "jumps at an opponent … charges an opponent … pushes and … tackles." Again if the player is charging the ball and not the opponent, the ref can nonetheless call a foul. It's all his judgment.
More telling is the small print. Other players that teachers (sorry, refs) can lord over (sorry, call a foul on) are those who: play "in a dangerous manner," "impede" an opponent, or (most damning of all) "commit any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player" — meaning if you, the ref, stop play, it's automatically an offense. You can invent them!
Needless to say this all goes very against the grain of the Yanks who threw off the idea of an aristocracy or anyone who could lord over anyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment