The rules, which aim to standardise games, are often open to interpretation, for instance in cricket the umpire must decide in a matter of seconds weather a ball, travelling at 100 miles per hour is definitely going to hit the stumps, dependant upon where the ball pitches, deviation and distance from the stumps, this rule is often not adhered to correctly and the incorrect decision is given frequently. These decisions can determine whether a team who are clearly superior to the opposition, may lose the game. It would not be appropriate to class the winning team a ‘team that played unfairly to win’, because the result was due to poor umpire decisions. It would also be totally unprofessional for a batsman to walk from the crease, if he had hit the ball and been caught out by the wicket keeper. The player is entitled to wait for the umpires decision and invariably it is a very tough decision, as the deviation of the ball from the bat is minimal. This has been illustrated recently in the Ashes test series between Australia and England, when Michael Vaughan didn’t walk when Justin Langer caught him out.
During an average F.A Premier league football match the referee will make numerous incorrect decisions, for example deliberate and accidental handball. Is the team, who have been awarded a penalty acting unfairly by accepting the penalty awarded, even if they agree that the handball was accidental. A competitive game is governed by sets of rules which cannot be broken, i.e if the whole ball crosses the goal line into the net a goal is awarded. This is a rule which is hard to referee, human error is part of the game yet not stated in the rule book. If a team were to score a legitimate goal which the referee rules out, later for video replays showing the ball clearly crossing the line, is the winning team instructed to replay the match because of an unfair advantage.
Any situation which is officiated by humans will incur non consistent ruling, as a result of human error. Players will always take advantage of this, as ween in the quarter finals of the world cup. Diego Maradona scored the winning goal, but replays show that the ball was deliberately handled in projecting it over the England goalkeeper. Argentina went on to win the World Cup and will be remembered as the champions of ’86. The only nation to remember the incident is England.
Ole gunner Solskjear(Manchester United) was chasing Robert lee (Newcastle United) in the last minute of a game, which Manchester united were leading by a single goal. Realising that he wasn’t going to get the ball fairly solskjear committed a deliberate foul. Newcastle were awarded a free kick and solskjear was sent off. In breaking the rules Manchester United won the game. Yet in the same game many other fouls were committed by both teams so the same rule had been broken a number of times, upholding the theory that if everyone is breaking the rules then the game is fair, winning is the sole purpose of a football match.
To suggest that breaking rules is unfair cannot be argued convincingly as sometimes rules are not broken and still a team is deemed to have not have acted in a ‘fair’ manner, Sheffield United Vs Arsenal F.A Cup. In this instance the ball was played over the touchline for an Arsenal player to receive treatment. The unspoken rule states that player throws the ball back to the opposition ‘sporting behaviour’. Arsenal disregarded this and from the resulting throw Arsenal scored. Even though no rule was broken Arsenal were still seen to be acting unfairly, therefore fairness cannot solely be associated with rules.
Australia have the best facilities for coaching cricketers, the cricket is well funded at junior level and the coaching aids are more advanced than most other cricketing countries, this together with a favourable climate coalesce to ensure the Australians are superior to any other cricketing nation. It could be argued that this gives them an unfair advantage over other cricketing nations who are less affluent and therefore unable to supply the same level of facilities. It would be unfeasible to ever suggest that a game was perfectly fair between two teams in a competitive situation. This suggests that games begin unfairly so why should rules not be broken to ‘even the contest’.
In 1978 F.I.F.A, the international football governing body, introduced an award known as ‘the Fair Play award’. This was intended to encourage teams to play the game in a manner, which displays respect, sportsmanship and adherence to rules. In the seven tournaments which have occurred since, only twice has the fair play award been won by the winning team. This statistic supports the old adage that ‘nice guys finish last’. The world cup is a tournament played by professional sportsmen, whose aim is to win the tournament. The question a coach must ask before the tournament begins is one of priority. Which award brings a nation more respect, winning the world cup or achieving second place but winning the ‘F.I.F.A Fair Play Award’?. The question is rhetorical. The theory can be supported by asking anyone who won the fair play award at the previous world cup chances are the answer will be ‘don’t know’. In contrast asking the question ‘Which nation are the current World Champions?’ most people are likely to answer ‘Brazil’. Therefore it is tolerated that the best teams don’t always abide by the rules.
Conclusion
The fundamental motive, which drives professional athletes to participate in activities, which are outside the laws of the game, is money, the second most influential aspect associated with foul play is that high level competitive sport is very competitive and the standard is much higher, this drives athletes to discover ways in which they can gain an advantage. (www.sportengland.org/whatwedo/research/mpeople/briefs/young_people_breifs.html)
