Different standards, double standards

There’s nothing like a bit of controversy to spark a debate about what different sports regard as acceptable within that particular sport’s culture. Recently, in an A League football (soccer) semi-final between Sydney FC and Wellington Phoenix, a striker attempted to head the ball into the goal, missed with his melon but managed a tidy little handball into the back of the net and duly celebrated the goal in typical football style. The defenders indignantly protested but the match officials did not see it and the goal was allowed, even though replays showed a blatant foul.

Following on from the infamous Thierry Henry incident from last year in the World Cup qualifying game against Ireland, it was interesting to note that the Sydney player was relatively unfazed by the controversy surrounding his actions, yet the Wellington coach was furious, even likening it to that famous underarm bowling episode, adding to New Zealand’s list of injustices committed by Australian sportsmen.

I was discussing this incident with some of my university students in a sports philosophy context and we got on to the topic of the curious nature of morality in sport. Why and how are some actions just totally unacceptable in terms of fair play and yet, some other dubious practices are given immunity from the ‘cheating’ tag with the responsibility for the decision ultimately being ceded to the referee/umpire? There exists a duality of morality not just between sports but also within sports. And in some cases, the boundaries of morality actually change according to broad regional differences in the perception of what is acceptable or not.

The handball incident, if likened to cricket, is probably akin to a batsman nicking the ball (and knowing he nicked it) and continuing to bat on if the umpire gives him not-out. The cricket world has always been split on this issue and some of the history can be traced back to cultural myths or truths. It was generally thought that Australians don’t walk and Englishmen did and broadly speaking, there was a consistency to it some years back. I’m not sure if that really applies anymore but some people still stick to those (seeming) stereotypes. And it’s probably fair to say that the cricket world is still split on whether that practice is acceptable or not.

Yet, if a fielder catches a ball that he knows has bounced, it is universally accepted to be poor form to claim the catch. There is a strange gentleman’s code that still permeates cricket globally that generally accepts this unofficial code of behaviour. How has cricket arrived at that moral duality? Isn’t it much the same – if you know that you nicked it or the ball bounced, does it matter what the umpire thinks? Why does a nick to the wicketkeeper or a close-in fielder have a different moral obligation than the fielder who caught a bump ball? IF the guilty party knows (and I concede that in many cases there is genuine uncertainty), what's the difference? What can cricket historians tell us about how these traditions developed?

Similarly, why does cricket not really have a problem with fielders appealing for catches that are clearly not out? Why is that essentially less shameful than claiming a bump catch? I mean, if you know that the ball bounced or the batsman did not nick it, again, what’s the difference? LBW’s are a bit harder for players to judge because it is often a judgement call, except of course if the fielders know that the batsman edged the ball on to the pad. In that instance though, how did cricket come to shrug its shoulders at an inside-edge lbw decision but adopt a pious stance on the bump catch?

What other sports have this inconsistency of philosophy entrenched into its very fabric? Clearly, football in the modern world is a cut-throat business where no one really feels any moral compunction to come clean on handballs or faked injuries or diving or whatever. Are there any ‘special’ rules that demand the honour call in football though?

Golf has a long established code of players calling shots on themselves, even when no one else may have noticed. Are there any other minor forms of cheating that is allowable so long as you can get away with it?

Rugby has recently seen a shift in culture where players will celebrate tries when they know full well that they haven’t cleanly grounded the ball. If the referee doesn’t pick up a knock-on, players will happily play on without any suggestion that this is morally wrong. What’s the difference between that and a bump catch? What special rules does rugby have that should never be crossed? For example, eye-gouging is apparently a shameful act but knocking someone unconscious with a punch that could potentially kill is seen as less heinous. Strange isn’t it?

I’m not sure what moral codes govern tennis etiquette. Perhaps someone can educate us on that. Does the code change depending on whether there’s an umpire or not? If you’re playing tennis without an umpire or linesman, are players morally obliged to make honest calls?

What about issues like sledging? Why is it not OK to claim a bump catch but the same player is fair game to copping any sort of abuse as a legitimate way of dismissing him? “Gosh chaps, we’re too honourable to claim that catch but if you can question his parentage or his sister’s virginity, fire away with all barrels and let’s see if he plays a daft shot”.

Perhaps professionalism has changed sport’s basic historical rules governing etiquette (although golf is about as rich as it gets and still appears to hold on to those Olde Worlde ethics). In my experience, cricket too has some invisible lines that instinctively do not get crossed. For example, I’ve played in League games on Saturday afternoons - bitterly contested - with only the umpires standing between total anarchy and mayhem and yet, the same combatants can play the next day in a ‘jazz hat’ game for Sunday XI’s like The Arabs or John Paul Getty’s XI or MCC (and a million other examples I’m sure) and the tenor of the game changes without any real need for the captains to even mention it. It’s almost like we have the ability to dance to a magic tune that plays silently but can be clearly heard only by our conscience.

I suppose mankind has always grappled with notions of nobility in the midst of unspeakable cruelty. Many an honourable duel was fought with strict adherence to the customs but the end result was still the same. Dead is still dead, regardless of whether you were shot in the back or front. As long as the ball finishes up in the goal, who cares if it was a handball? I mean, it's only called FOOTball? It’s just not cricket!