Monday, June 9, 2014

Five feature stories about Brazilian futebol


"A tournament unlike any other" by Gabriele Marcotti (ESPN FC, 30 May 2014)
Barbosa's mistake still haunts Brazilian football culture so there's no way that this World Cup isn't also (and perhaps mostly) an opportunity for the Great Comeback.

"Review of David Goldblatt's Futebol Nation" by Richard Williams (The Guardian, 5 June 2014)
An in-depth review of a book that's getting a lot of attention by one of the world's leading sport historians. Williams is insightful, careful, and relates Goldblatt's work to other scholarship. A good read.

"Deromanticizing Brazil's relationship with the Selecao" by Roger Bennett (ESPN FC, 9 June 2014)
Another take on Goldblatt's book, but arguing for a more nuanced view of Brazilian futebol.

"O Canarinho: Brazil's iconic jersey that epitomizes football and the World Cup" by James Carew (The Score, 25 May 2014)
A pretty standard, but still educational, review of Brazilian football history through its trademark jersey.

"Game of two halves: the ugly side of Brazilian football" by Simon Kuper (The Financial Times, 9 May 2014)
Another excellent, if too brief, overview of several intersecting social realities related to football. Also check out this other interesting piece by Kuper, author of the delightful Soccernomics and the landmark Football against the Enemy.

.
.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Ten essential reads to understand the World Cup protests


1. "No, I'm not going to the World Cup" by Carla Dauden (independent, 17 June 2013)
The first clear statement in English of anti-WC protests, by a Brazilian. An excellent, concise, and well-researched video.

2. "Brazil's bread and circuses" by Emma Elliott Freire (The Moral Liberal, 7 May 2014)
An overview of the major issues that are being talked about recently. I do not support the blog on which this is published.

3. "The Brazil behind the cup" by Mateo Pimentel (Dissident Voice, 30 May 2014)
He thinks that the World Cup will give protesters a global forum. I've heard that before. When the sporting starts, the talk stops (South Africa, Sochi, etc). Doesn't have to be like that, though.

4. "'There will have been no World Cup'" by Rodrigo Nunes (Al Jazeera, 30 May 2014)
A philosopher discusses why "World Cup protests" is a misnomer: long-standing social unrest is only recently focusing on the WC as the (rightful) epitome of its frustration.

5. "Generation June" by Wright Thompson (ESPN Magazine, 3 December 2013)
A splendidly written feature story focusing less on the politics and more on the young populists that are engaged in constant protests against Brazil's government, from Lula to Rousseff. My personal favorite among all of these articles.

6. "Brazil's World Cup is an expensive, exploitative nightmare" by Vic Verikaitis (Daily Beast, 30 May 2014)
Vanishing money, slave work, and an all-present bureaucracy. Again, sounds like Russia. Or Italy. Or Greece. Or any one of these soon-to-be Third World economies.

7. "Labor protests ramp up as World Cup nears" by Vincent Bevins (Los Angeles Times, 17 May 2014)
Same as above, with an emphasis on union protests.

8. "Brazil's World Cup party can't hide the country's tensions" by David Goldblatt (The Observer, 24 May 2014)
Focusing on the role of football in Brazil's broader sociopolitical context, especially as concerns race.

9. "Beyond samba, sex, and soccer" by Khaled A. Beydoun (Al Jazeera, 28 May 2014)
A critical race theorist casts Brazil's perennial social unrest in terms of racial warfare and only secondarily as a set of economic grievances.

10. Pictures of protests by indigenous people (The Huffington Post, 28 May 2014)
It is hard to find extensive critical commentaries on this side of the protests, so pictures it is. Really good pictures, too.
.
.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Preliminary World Cup analysis, discussion, and predictions



group analysis
I have already written about this and not much has changed, so I will mostly repeat myself here.



The hosts have been relatively lucky, though there are no dead weights in this group. More importantly, Croatia, Mexico, and Cameroon are all at more or less the same level, and in few groups will the second spot be so hotly contested. Also, Brazil should beware of racking up three lopsided wins and become overconfident going into the R16, when the real World Cup begins.
Projection: BRAZIL and CROATIA


The first Group of Death, for Australia anyway: the Socceroos are practically out, while Spain, Netherlands, and Chile will fight for it. This group has both finalists from the latest edition: Netherlands and holders Spain. This also happened in 2010, when Italy and France were in the same group, and both went out in the group stage. I don’t see that happening to Spain, but the Oranje? Why not. In my view Chile have a leg up. This will be a lot of fun to watch.
Projection: SPAIN and CHILE



One of two easiest groups, though this one too will be interesting due to the four teams being roughly even. I give a slight edge to Colombia and Ivory Coast, but Japan’s fizz and Greece’s bus-parking abilities ought not to be underestimated.
Projection: COLOMBIA and IVORY COAST


The second Group of Death and the only one with three previous World Cup winners! So much football history. These three have met recently in major tourneys (Euro 2012 and Confeds 2013) too: Italy have always prevailed, but on penalties after very close matches. However, I trust Italy’s historic ability to play better against their equals than against their inferiors, and the very weak English roster should prove fatal to them.
ProjectionURUGUAY and ITALY



The easiest group by popular consensus, so the French have scored big. Of course, France are themselves very weak lately, and I think that no amount of last-minute good luck will change that. Still, given the field, they ought to pass. Also, I think that Switzerland will surprise. While they’re no Belgium, they are slowly rising as a new force of European football. Let me put it this way: for the first time, Switzerland at their best should prove equal or better than France at their best.
Projection: FRANCE and SWITZERLAND



Argentina got lucky, as they had been the last few times around too, and always cruised; as usual, their problems come later. Bosnia and Nigeria will contend the second spot, and frankly I think that much will depend on the Bosnians. They are a young team with extremely promising talents, and if they’re in the mood they can do great. As a Roma fan, in Pjanic I trust! Iran are glad to be here (and they should be proud: great new team, but far too inexperienced to succeed).
Projection: ARGENTINA and BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA



The third Group of Death, and in my view this is the real killer. Unlike in B and D, here there are no cushion teams and all four have a genuine shot. Surely the USA look weakest on paper, but I would not discount Klinsmann and an overall experienced team. Conversely, Ghana do not look as good as they used to, but neither does Portugal I mean Ronaldo. With the exception of Germany, this one is up for grabs.
Projection, based on prudence: GERMANY and PORTUGAL



Belgium were lucky in the draw, and I am glad, because they deserve to be in the knockout rounds and we deserve to see them play at the highest level. I think they are not a fluke, and they remain my Euro 2016 favorites. Russia are the obvious candidate for the second spot, but watch out for the ever-resourceful Koreans, who while not as brilliant as one might have predicted 12 years ago, they are still dangerous.
Projection: BELGIUM and RUSSIA



odds analysis



(Data from Odds Checker). Bookies agree that Brazil are the clear favorite for the final victory at 3/1, closely followed by Argentina at around 4.5/1. A little too closely, perhaps, so there may be a little wishful thinking that we get to see a Brazil-Argentina final—I’ll admit I wish that too!. Germany and Spain sit together at around 6/1 or 7/1. These four are way ahead of the pack and might well reach the semis; all do in my bracket below. If so, it would be an epic Europe vs. Latin America showdown comprising the best of the last 12-16 years of world football.
The next four sit closely together: Belgium (18-20/1) slightly ahead of France (22/1), Uruguay (26/1), and Italy (26/1). I do not understand what bookies see in les bleus, an inexperienced and disjointed team. I basically agree with the other odds, though perhaps everyone is being a little generous with Belgium; more about this in the team analysis.
What lowers the odds so much for Italy and Uruguay is they cannot reach the semifinals without defeating either Brazil or Spain. As concerns the rosters, they are not five times lesser than those teams, but of course odds assess the likelihood of winning, not the worth of the team.
The next four to have a realistic chance are England, Portugal, Colombia, and the Netherlands, and I use “realistic” loosely. All the others will be lucky to make it out of the group stage. Honduras, Costa Rica, Iran, and Algeria trail far behind as the standard “cushion teams.”
It makes no sense to offer my own odds given the general agreement among the experts, of which I am not one. If I were to name the eight quarterfinalists, I too would pick those eight: Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Belgium, France, Uruguay, and Italy. I find this to be a far more sensible exercise than calling the Cup winner: at that stage, luck and circumstance begin to play a big role. It is also a big accomplishment to reach the quarters, and a lot of teams will call their World Cup campaign a success if they get that far.





top squads analysis

Some of these squads are definitive (23 players) while others are merely provisional (30 players, with 7 to be removed later after training camp: Ian Darke says "that should be illegal," and I agree).

Graphics taken from Eurosport, translated, and prettied-up.



I am shocked by the exclusion of Tevez, this year’s Serie A top scorer. Argentina could use the goals: Kun has been in regrettable form and Messi tends to choke in big events. I want the Argentines to do well because Messi needs World Cup success to cement his reputation as the third-greatest of all time. Ideal starting 11: Romero; Fernandez, Zabaleta, Campagnaro, Demichelis; Mascherano, Di Maria, Rodriguez; Aguero, Messi, Lavezzi.




A generation of young prodigies, but maybe too young, which is why many commentators eye Euro 2016 as their true goal. But much can change in two years, so they will want to strike while the iron is hot. Plus, there’s enough international experience among the veterans, especially in the back. Ideal starting 11: Mignolet; Vanden Borre, Kompany, van Buyten; Fellaini, Dembele, Witsel, Hazard; Lukaku, Mertens, Mirallas.





The usual refrain is that “Brazil can only lose.” That’s even truer this year. Their football is not what it used to be: I think it’s better. With only one star striker, a solid defense, and an intelligent midfield, this is the best Seleçao in years, and the home field advantage cannot hurt either. Ideal starting 11: Julio Cesar; Dani Alves, Thiago Silva, David Luiz, Dante; Ramires, Oscar, Gustavo, Hernanes; Neymar, Hulk.





England are like Argentina: big teams, small results. Except this is not a big team either, with an underwhelming roster and only one in-form striker (but very young). And given England’s group, I would not be surprised by a first-round exit. Would it have hurt to bring veterans like Cole and Terry to strengthen this loose bunch? Ideal starting 11: Hart; Cahill, Jagielka, Johnson; Barkley, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Sterling; Rooney, Sturridge.





Always a question mark. This year’s roster is even weaker than usual, though many of them are untested youths who could pull off a surprising performance. As it is, I predict (against some of the odds) that France will not advance past the round of 16, if they’re lucky to get that far. Ideal starting 11: Lloris; Debuchy, Koscielny, Evra; Cabaye, Pogba, Matuidi, Valbuena; Benzema, Ribery, Giroud.





Germany have not won a World Cup since 1990 and have failed to reach the final in all but one occasion since, despite always being the heavy favorites. While slightly less impressive than in past years, this is still a highly respectable roster that can beat anyone. No surprise exclusions. Ideal starting 11: Neuer; Boateng, Lahm, Mertesacker; Ozil, Khedira, Kroos, Schweinsteiger; Schurrle, Gotze, Reus.





While I generally agree with Prandelli’s philosophy of “out with the old,” I would have brought in-form veterans like Gilardino and Totti. The exclusion of Florenzi and Osvaldo is also hard to understand, especially with this paucity of strikers. With that said, Prandelli’s Italy rarely lose, and they have excelled at Euro 2012 and at the 2013 Confederations Cup, so some trust is warranted. Ideal starting 11: Buffon; Barzagli, Bonucci, Chiellini; Aquilani, De Rossi, Pirlo, Montolivo; Cassano, Balotelli, Rossi (or Destro, depending on form).





I have nothing to say about Portugal, except: Ideal starting 11: Ronaldo; Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo; Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldo; Ronaldo, Ronaldo. Actual starting 11: Beto; Coentrao, Neto, Pepe; Veloso, Meireles, Carvalho, Moutinho; Ronaldo, Almeida, Postiga.





It is fashionable to say that Spain are “through” because other teams have figured them out. That’s an exaggeration. They are slightly more beatable, and they’re older, but this is still by far the best roster at this World Cup, and the machine is still well oiled. I agree with the odds that they are the most likely non-American team to win. Ideal starting 11: Casillas; Juanfran, Ramos, Pique; Alonso, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Silva; Costa, Villa.





One of my favorites to watch, Tabarez’s team embodies Argentina’s brilliance and Italy’s resourcefulness. There is no weak spot to this formation and the star strikers have enjoyed the best season of their careers. But a tough draw and either Spain or Brasil at the quarterfinals stage will make a final run very unlikely. Ideal starting 11: Muslera; Lugano, Godin, Maxi Pereira; Gargano, Gonzalez, Silva, Rodriguez; Cavani, Suarez, Forlan.




bracket

Just for fun. And yes, I will put money on this. ;-)



Saturday, April 12, 2014

Premier League predictions with 5 matches to go

Wild guess: Chelsea will win. I'm saying that 90% because I'm a Chelsea fan and 10% because I think it's the most likely scenario! In all honesty, this title is Manchester City's to lose. But it can't hurt to hope. Let's just say that IF Chelsea are to win, this is the most likely (only) way that it could happen...


Friday, April 11, 2014

2014 Champions League semifinals: analysis and predictions

ATLÉTICO MADRID – CHELSEA
The rematch of the 2012 European Super Cup between the winners of the 2012-2013 Europa League and Champions League. Atlético routed Chelsea 4-1 then, which matters only relatively since the ESC is basically a summer exhibition match. The only other previous matchups are from the 2008-2009 Champions League group stage: 4-0 to Chelsea in London and 2-2 in Madrid. In short, there hasn’t been enough to predict an outcome. Based on this season alone, this looks to be a very tough matchup for both teams. Atlético are one of Europe’s better offenses and toughest midfields. Chelsea are an astute football machine engineered to take on opponents with higher pace and quality. Simeone is full of power and aggression; Mourinho is a tactical master. If Costa and Hazard heal in time, the midfield battle will be epic. Other than that, it could go either way. I hope Chelsea because I’m a fan, but as a bookie I would recommend Atlético. They have better shape and confidence overall. Chelsea’s only advantage is playing the second leg at home: while not as intimidating as the Vicente Calderon, Stamford Bridge can be a pretty daunting place to play in (“Champions of Europe, we’ve done it before!”).

Atlético-Chelsea, 1st leg – Tuesday, April 22nd  Madrid, 20:45 CET (2:45 p.m. ET-US: Fox Sports 1)
Chelsea-Atlético, 2nd leg – Wednesday, April 30th  London, 19:45 GMT (2:45 p.m. ET-US: Fox Sports 1)

---

REAL MADRID – BAYERN MUNICH
A rematch of the 2012 semifinal, won by Bayern in Madrid after penalty kicks (they would go on to lose to Chelsea their second straight final). That was but the last in a long list of meetings between the two. Bayern now leads 8-5 in wins, with only one draw in 2004. All meetings have taken place in the Champions League, including three semifinals before this one (Bayern is 2-1 in semis). As for the current season, Bayern are at the top of their game, even above last year when they seemed to dominate. While they have struggled a little at Old Trafford, in my view Guardiola’s men are still Europe’s best overall team and should prove no match for Real’s aging and too often inattentive defense. I predict a fairly comfortable Bayern victory, especially since the return leg is played at Allianz.

Real-Bayern, 1st leg – Wednesday, April 23rd  Madrid, 20:45 CET (2:45 p.m. ET-US: Fox Sports 1)
Bayern-Real, 2nd leg – Tuesday, April 29th  Munich, 20:45 CET (2:45 p.m. ET-US: Fox Sports 1)
.
.


Friday, March 28, 2014

Two analytic arguments against offsides and penalty kicks in association football

The debate over the offside rule is almost as old as the rule itself, so my contribution will not be new. Rather, it is an assessment of why the arguments in favor of the rule's abatement succeed and those against it do not. As for penalties, few people argue seriously that there should be very few, or even no, penalty kicks during regulation time: I am one of them.

In short, I argue that: (1) the offside rule should go because it runs contrary to the very nature of football, it is unjustifiably arbitrary, it no longer provides benefits to defenses or audiences, and it causes excessive and avoidable controversy; (2) penalty kicks should only be given for extremely severe fouls in the box, such as denied goal-scoring opportunities -- which would therefore no longer result in red cards -- whereas all other fouls in the box should be sanctioned by indirect free kicks.



------------------
Against offsides
------------------

The purpose of the offside rule was to prevent the fastest and tallest strikers from stationing by the goal and kick or head in high crosses coming from the sides, from the edge of the box, or even from their own half. In the past, this made sense. The two-player offside rule we have today has been in use since 1925; previously the number of players between striker and goal was three or even four, and some leagues had even stricter limitations. The idea was to have less and harder scoring, not to curb entertainment but to give defenders a fighting chance. So the rule was part of the basic structure of the game and contributed to its characteristic balance along with the rest of the 17 laws.

But football has moved past the need for these strictures. The most obvious difference 90 years later is physical conditioning. The game is fast and physical in ways that were literally unimaginable to amateurs that by today's standards were poorly trained, tactically unrefined, and borderline malnourished. Now defenders can cover the box's 18 yards in under three seconds and most goalkeepers are 2 meters by 80 kilos, so the threat of the "isolated tall guy" camping by the post is not daunting. Indeed, the importance of defenses has increased in the last decades, and no successful team has been able to field a star offense while disregarding the back lines as it used to happen. This is no doubt because most improvements in both tactics and physical conditioning have been geared toward goal-scoring.

Relatedly, the offside rule forces both offenses and defenses to meet artificial constraints that they should not have to worry about. Offsides curb offensive play by introducing a kind of consideration for the opponent that is alien to the nature of the game. The philosophy of an offense is to advance the ball and to place their players in the best possible scoring position -- it is not to advance the ball and place their players while considering that certain areas of the pitch are off-limits because of some completely arbitrarily valued movements performed by the defenders. Compare the offside rule with children playing hide-and-seek. The hider jumps out when the seeker is not looking, goes for goal and touches, but he scores no points because the seeker had moved too far away from the goal. Clearly it was the seeker's responsibility to both seek and guard the goal: that is the whole point of the game! Why should it be different in football?

It is important to realize that this is not the argument that offenses are free to disregard defenders altogether: the only way to do that would be to eliminate defenses! Rather, the point is that offenses must be allowed to regard defenders only as defenders, as players along the way to goal who must procure on their own a fair chance to stop them. In other words, a defender's position should only determine his possibility to counter the attack, and nothing else; surely not whether an attacker is on- or off-side. So the offside rule deprives attackers of their playing autonomy and excessively facilitates defenders by imposing a constraint that is arbitrary and contrary to the nature of the game.

I must say something about arbitrariness, which is not the crux of my argument. Of course, all laws of the game are arbitrary in a sense. Football is non-arbitrary only if all rules are off and anything goes: kick, punch, shove, stab, ride a car, etc. For that matter, there is no such thing as a "natural" and non-arbitrary game at all, for the very concept of a game is, to some degree, constructed. I have no problem with arbitrariness itself. I have a problem with arbitrary constraints that fail to respect the (itself arbitrary) nature and spirit of the game. That is, I have a problem with arbitrary constraints that are self-contradictory.

The nature of football is, offensively, to score without unfairly hindering the ability of the opponent to stop you from scoring; and, defensively, to stop opponents from scoring without unfairly hindering their ability to score. Of course, a prohibition against "hindering" simpliciter would be self-contradictory, because trying to prevent scoring already is "hindering" by definition. Hence, the need to outline "unfair" hindering, which again happens through arbitrarily chosen limits: not too much violence, no hands, etc. It is unimportant which limits are fair or unfair and whether they are arbitrarily so, because "being offside" fails even the minimum requirement of being a hindrance, let alone an unfair one by any definition of "unfair."

When a member of the offense is offside, the defense's ability to stop him from scoring is unhindered; more precisely, it is unhindered by the offense itself, by something that the offense did. The defenders are not being held back, fouled, deceived, or anything of the sort; and surely they are not being treated illegally by any of the other 16 laws. Offside positions are but a result of the defenders choosing to be where they are while the attackers follow the nature of the game of procuring the best goal-scoring positions for themselves. Why, then, should the offense be penalized? Again, in the past the rule may have made sense because it was too easy for the offense to score, which would have been an unfair hindrance to the defense's ability to keep them from scoring. But as I've argued above, that is no longer the case.

One objection to this argument is that many defensive tactics, which are centered on the so-called "offside trap," would be rendered useless if the rule were abated. My quick response -- for the objection deserves no more -- is that it doesn't matter: let defenses reorganize accordingly, as they did in the early 1990s when back passes to the goalkeeper were outlawed. In other words, that is their problem (but I will say more about this below).

Another objection, which is similar in some ways, is that while the offside rule was designed to prevent easy scoring, over time it has indirectly affected many other aspects of the game. For example, the advent of all-court wingers (lately called "wing-backs") can be attributable to a less urgent need to cover defensive sides. However, first, wing-backs became prevalent only after the total-football revolution in the 1970s and 1980s, which is over six decades removed from the institutionalization of the offside rule. Second, wing-backs are likely to result from a more generally offensive mentality and a more pressing need to bring threats from the sides, given the decreasing popularity of pass-and-run football in favor of penetrative tactics (and, relatedly, once training regimens and the rising professionalization allowed for more offense-centered football; that is, once it became clear that the "division of labor" did not need to be quite so compartmentalized as it used to be). So I seriously doubt that the abatement of the offside rule would deprive the game of one of its more treasured tactical assets.

Yet another objection may be that wing-backs would not have risen to fame at all if offside hadn't been a factor, and that if the offside rule is removed they will be forced to be more cautious and fold back, which would result in a less spectacular, more defensive-oriented game and the loss of a major innovation. Here my reply is twofold. First, and again: so be it, and that is their problem. If they know they can no longer count on offsides, defenses will optimize their need to cover their three-quarters while also providing offensive push; in short, it would lead to just another (relatively mild) restructuring of the offense-mid-defense balance, which is not the end of the world. Second, it is extremely unlikely that the game will slow down or become duller as a result, not with so many trequartistas these days.

A little history will help here. The rise to prominence of the trequartistas (= in Italian and Spanish, "those who play in the third quarter of the pitch," between midfield and offense) is the crucial tactical innovation of the last few decades. In the mid-1990s, the traditional offensive setup of one play-maker behind either one or two strikers (think Maradona, Romario, Baggio) slowly gave way to multiple play-makers and fewer pure strikers. Ancelotti's Milan, twice UCL finalist, played Kaka, Pirlo, Seedorf, and Serginho behind the lone Shevchenko. Today's Barcelona and Real Madrid are vivid examples, for none among Ronaldo, Bale, Di Maria, Benzema, Alonso, Xavi, Messi, Iniesta, Fabregas, and Neymar is a pure striker: each team in fact plays with five trequartistas. This is but the continuation of the total-football revolution, mixing and watering down pure roles into general areas of competence with increasingly technically savvy players who can kick, run, and shove. While there is no reason to believe that this mutation will expand to the rockiest midfielders or defensive geniuses (it is difficult to imagine very successful teams without a Gerrard or De Rossi, a Puyol or a Kompany), it has surely already expanded to wing-backs. What role does Dani Alves play? Is Maicon a defender or a striker? What about Cole and Alba? And why is Lahm wherever he is at any given time? Once again, my point is simply that wing-backs are far too important and too ingrained in modern football tactics to be affected by the simple elimination of the offside rule.

Of course, an alternative to the removal of the offside rule would be to install microchips in the ball and in each player's shoes, and leave it all to the computer. However: (a) good luck with that; (b) LOL; and (c) it would only solve the excessive controversy, while leaving untouched the main problem of the useless and unfair arbitrariness of the concept of "offside."



-------------------
Against penalties
-------------------

This is a less popular position, and with good reason, because it's not as clear-cut. I argue this point with less confidence than the offside view. Nonetheless, I think a case can be made, not for the elimination of penalty kicks altogether, but for a drastic reduction of their frequency during regulation time.

I begin with three factual observations that, I believe, are incontrovertible. First, a penalty is a very severe sanction, one of only two that almost always results in scoring, a much higher chance of victory, or both; in this sense it is equaled, perhaps, only by red cards, which I also discuss below. Second, footballers 'fake' primarily to win penalties, no doubt in part because of the near-certainty of scoring; red cards and time-wasting account for most other instances, which have different motivations. Third, save for obstruction fouls, there is no differentiation among the kinds of fouls that warrant a penalty: a kick, a push, a handball, a headbutt, or a dangerous tackle all receive the same disciplinary action if they take place in the box.

I have little to say about the first observation and I will not debate the concept of what a penalty kick is: I'm fine with it being a solo shot from 12 yards out. The second observation is a key motivator for my argument, though by itself it is insufficient. At most, it supports a case for dissociating penalties as adequate sanctions for fouls in the box, given how easily fouls can be faked and how seldom referees detect fakes. Dissociation need not be for all fouls, either, which leads to the third observation: we need better criteria for when a foul in the box is to be punished with a penalty kick and when it is to be punished in other ways.

To propose one such criterion, it will do to go back to the basics, as I did when discussing offsides: what is the purpose of a penalty kick? Why does it exist at all? Two reasons: one, penalty kicks are supposed to restore a clear goal-scoring opportunity; two, they are supposed to deter foul play in the box, given that the spirit of the game (no unfair hindrance) is especially at risk while in the box, where antagonism is highest.

Based on these reflections, I suggest that penalty kicks only be given according to the same rationale used for showing red cards to defenders: only in case of a denied "clear goal-scoring opportunity" that happens in the box when there are no further defenders between defender and goal.

What constitutes a clear goal-scoring opportunity remains, of course, the exclusive purview of the referee. A handball on the goal line obviously qualifies; so does incapacitating a striker who is shooting on goal when there is an unobstructed line of sight between him and goal; and others yet, no doubt. This criterion would guarantee that not just any box foul can be sanctioned by the extremeness of a penalty kick, because not just any box foul does deny a goal-scoring opportunity. In fact, most do not.

When a player is kicked or pushed down at the edge of a full box, which is often the case, there are 18 more yards and a lot of defenders who can still intervene. A player who is tripped along the goal line, but far from the goal post, has virtually no chance of scoring from such a narrow angle. Most pushes and shoves are easy to resist and do not hinder goal-scoring opportunities significantly. Obviously, the knowledge that a penalty will probably not be given except in exceptional circumstances is likely to push players to fake less and to be a little more resisting to physical challenges in the box. Surely that might motivate some to procure precisely those circumstances so that a penalty may be more likely to be given... but those are worth procuring for their own sake anyway, for clearly one is then in a position of actually scoring, so that worry is unfounded.

The only major downside I see to this suggestion -- and the reason why I argue for it with less conviction -- is that it allows even more subjectivity to a refereeing system that is already the focus of infinite pressure and controversy. At least one element in the current criteria for assigning penalties admits of no discussion: if the foul is in the box, it's a penalty. While it is still debatable whether it was a foul at all, it is very rarely up for serious debate whether it happened in the box. My proposal takes away that one item of certainty and replaces it with more subjectivity: not only whether it was a foul at all, but also if it was a foul that denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity.

In partial defense of my proposal, I reiterate that this is the same kind of subjectivity that is currently expected of referees with red cards: they must evaluate whether it is a foul and, if so, whether it is serious enough to warrant a red (on many accounts of "seriousness," of which "denial of a goal-scoring opportunity" is only one: intent, brutality, danger, retaliation, etc). To the extent that referees are already used to evaluating along these lines, it is not outrageous to ask them to apply those same evaluative procedures to penalty kick decisions. Not to mention that, implicitly or otherwise, referees already take circumstances into account when deciding whether to assign a penalty: we often see a foul that would be called everywhere else on the pitch not called in the box because the referee feels that a penalty would be too severe a sanction. On my proposal, referees have more liberty than just "call it or not call it."

What happens, then, in case of fouls in the box that do not deny clear goal-scoring opportunities? I suggest that they be punished according to the old "indirect free kick" doctrine: a free kick in the box for the offense that: (1) requires two touches of the ball by two different offensive players; and (2) is defensible by the defense with a wall inside the small box, or even on the goal line. Indirect free kicks have a much lower likelihood of resulting in a score than penalty kicks, but much higher than regular play. Currently they are reserved merely for dangerous tackles and illegal obstructions, but I think that their disciplinary potential remains mostly untapped.

Thus, my proposal boils down to the fact that when a foul is given in the box, the referee must decide whether the most appropriate sanction for that specific foul is a penalty kick or an indirect free kick. Since those are already options that referees have (in the case of dangerous tackles and obstructions), my proposal would "move the line" so that many (most?) fouls in the box fall on the side of indirect free kicks and not on the side of penalties.

One final note concerning red cards. In some cases, when a penalty kick is given a red card is also shown to the defender if the foul also denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity. As many have already argued, including prominently Ian Darke, that is far too severe a sanction: one (likely) goal down and one (sure) man down is draconian and often constitutes a point of no return for the defending team. All of that for one foul, especially one that is so easy to fake? While I understand the necessity of deterrents, I understand even more the need for curbing dishonest play motivated by excessive rewards for its successful application. In modern football, that is a far more pressing concern than violent defenders.

---
---