There is a lot of truth in people trying to get their team to win at all costs, but the consequences handed out by the judges and juries are pretty heavy, especially at the highest level. Example: Eduardo, a player for Arsenal, decieved the referee through simulation (diving) in a Champions League qualification match, earning his team a penalty. Arsenal went on to win that match. UEFA, the governing body for soccer in Europe, handed him a 3 match ban after the video evidence proved him guilty. So although the authorities are a deterrent, people will still do whatever it takes to win that particular game. That doesn't mean that either team blamed the referee though; they blamed the player for cheating.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Sporting Officials?
I've been a soccer referee for 8 years and I have to say that I strongly disagree with the preceding post. People will appreciate calls that go their way, but the only time they hate you is when you make the wrong call, or don't make a call at all. In today's age of video replays, there is no real room for opinionated officiating. Either you saw it or you didn't. The legal system isn't quite like this; how many crimes come tailor made to trial with video evidence? Even the most minor sporting infractions have a set penalty, but there's nobody standing there with an HD camera to record how fast you were really going when you got that speeding ticket.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with this post. It is very true that trials and sporting events are very different in the aspect that there is no instant replay of the crime- because if there were- then then would be very little reason for much of our legal system. There would be very little reason for jury trials in particular. An instant replay of crime would cause criminals to need to be a lot more clever (as are the athletes who in this day and age manage to cheat without getting caught). Because a lot of people who commit crime are in some other way screwed up (aka- drugs) - crime control would be significantly increased- and I believe that crime rates would drop significantly.
ReplyDeleteCriminals are a lot like cheaters in sports; they are just cheaters of the law.
My question is it true that there law breakers are really just cheaters. Many individuals who break the law do not have respect for the law. Maybe they look at it and say the law does not mean anything to them or maybe they are so bad off that they must break the law to survive. Its hard to say if criminals who were under the influence of drugs would be deterred by increased surveillance. The problem with increased surveillance is that the crime rate probably won't decrease, but in fact increase because there is a lot more eyes and we can see many more crimes.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see the comparison between a cheater and a game and someone who doesn't obey the law--I never really thought of it that way. But, anyhow, yes I agree I think you are right.
ReplyDelete