THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I think it’s cheating.  Suarez took a 100% goal and turned it into a 78% goal.  He traded a red card for 0.22 goals and 1.00 wins.  And he did it intentionally. 

If you haul somebody down on a breakaway in hockey (up to 0.33 expected goals), it costs you a penalty (0.2 goals) if he wasn’t in the clear or a penalty shot (0.33 goals) is he was.  You certainly can’t get 0.22 goals back - and that’s in an environment where goal-scoring is 2-3x higher.

How about pass interference in the end zone in the NFL? Particularly when that occurs at the end of a half and you don’t get the benefit of four downs from the one.

I can probably agree that it’s not sporting, but I don’t see how anyone can get on their high horse (not directed at anyone here) and say they shouldn’t do it, as if what Suarez did was morally wrong. There are SO MANY ways that athletes try to take advantage of the rules, and are encouraged to do so, that I personally don’t think are sporting. But you’re right, you just have to penalize those things if you want them out of the game.

By “sporting” I think a decent definition would be “something acceptable in a friendly but competitive amateur game.”

Intentionally fouling in basketball is definitely not sporting. You would get into a fight and be a jerk if you did that a lot.

Throwing over to first base more than once or twice probably isn’t even sporting in that definition, but then again I think there should be a penalty in real baseball for throwing over to first too much.

I don’t think the Suarez play was certainly not sporting, or even necessarily a loophole.  In soccer, they know full well that happens, and they just don’t want to change it.  They are fine with having it be extra difficult to score a critical goal in a last second pinball frenzy in the box, and fine with the rules promoting defenders trading a red card for a PK in that situation, and fine with the fact that every single player on the pitch would do the exact same thing.  It’s just how they choose to set up the rules, and if you don’t like the way the rules are set up, you can be personally turned off by it, but it doesn’t make the play certainly unsporting or a loophole that was unintended or that should be closed.

Suarez undoubtedly operated instinctively in the situation.  Even if Ghana had scored and he had been red carded (either in the “instant rules reinterpretation” way or because he failed to stop it with his hand), I think he still does what he does, if only for the small chance it doesn’t get called.  This is the ultimate situation, much like the pass interference in the end zone at the end of the half when the defense only has to make one stop.

So the question is, was Suarez the one being unsportsmanlike, or the goalie for even attempting to stop the penalty kick?  One is done in hot blood; the other is more like the timeout in the commercial Poz wrote about.

In my eyes, nothing can be cheating if there is a specific consequence in place, within the same game as the infraction, for it.

I.E. handballing a sure-goal.  There is a documented protocol (red card, down a man for the rest of the match, penalty kick).  Tripping a player on a breakaway.  Throwing your glove at a ball.  Etc.

If an action requires punishment outside of the game in which it occurred, I’d call it cheating.  Like the Patriots getting caught with cameras.  Deliberately injuring a player (according to post-game review) in the first game of a 7 game series.

I’m honestly baffled that one could even consider this handball a cheating act.

Two questions:

1. Is it cheating if the ref did NOT call a penalty? That is, do you consider it not cheating because he was caught?

2. Did Thierry cheat?

It’s not cheating if the ref doesn’t call it anymore than any other missed call would be.  Suarez wasn’t trying to get away with anything.  He fully expected to get caught, as anyone does when they do that.  If the ref doesn’t see it, which would be pretty unusual since everyone knows exactly what the defenders on the line are trying to do, and they are pretty blatant about doing it, then it would be a terrible break for Ghana, but it doesn’t make Suarez a cheater.

It would make a lot more sense to call Henry’s play cheating than Suarez’.  Henry was trying to get away with something he hoped wouldn’t be seen, and he had absolutely no reason to do it if he were to get caught.  Suarez’ play was just a case of deliberately taking the penalty and accepting the consequences outlined in the rules of the game.  Henry’s was to try to be sneaky and get away with playing through a deliberate infraction.  Unlike the Suarez play, where Suarez was trying to trade the penalty for the prescribed consequences, there was no possible benefit to Henry’s infraction other than simply to try to get away with it.  Unlike the Suarez play, which every player in the game would repeat in those circumstances, and which is encouraged by the rules of the game, Henry’s play is not accepted within the game and is discouraged by the rules.

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, score tied.  Deep fly ball.  Outfielder is sure it’ll go out.  He throws his glove and knocks the ball down.

If the umpire thinks it would have gone out, he calls it a home run and nothing is lost.  If the umpire (incorrectly) thinks it would have stayed in the park, he calls it a triple and the game is saved.

Either way, the outfielder can’t lose.  He can only break even.

Is that cheating?  Is your answer to that the same as your answer to the soccer case?

Speaking of technicalities ... isn’t there a catch-all rule that allows the umpire to use discretion on any case not specifically in the rule book?

For instance, rule 7.05 awards a home run “if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel.”

Seeing a ball is about to go over the fence, the outfielder pulls a big bag of steroids out of his back pocket.  He throws it, defects the ball, and makes the catch.

Obviously, a bag of steroids is not “apparel”.  Can the umpire say, “screw it, it’s a home run anyway”?

If not, if it counts as a catch ... well, in this case, I’d say the player has violated a code of sportsmanship by taking advantage of this particular technicality. 

But, why don’t I feel the same about the soccer case?

"But a soccer player using his hand to stop a ball at the goal-line in the dying seconds of a game?”
--------------------------------------

It could also be a natural human reflex in response to a ball kicked at your head.

When i watched the replay I wondered why he didn’t just head the ball. It seemed to be going right at his forehead.

It did also appear that both guys at the goal line were determined to stop the shot any means possible. The other guy had his whole arm extended reaching for the ball. Suarez pretty much just put his forearms in front of his face.

Again, I don’t see why he didn;t just head the ball.

Cheating, often, includes some premeditation. Otherwise we generally view it as an accident or unintentional. Any breaking of a rule could be viewed as “cheating” (by definition). But, generally, cheating = premeditation.

Hmmm… that’s a great question.  Intent sure does matter, I guess - not intent to break rules, but intent to get away with it.

I don’t think the recent handball goal was cheating (even if he got away with it).  It was calculated and obvious - I think he fully expected to get penalized.  If the ref misses it, so be it.  I don’t think he was trying to get away with anything.

Thierry I’d say was not cheating.  Like A-Rod slapping Arroyo’s glove, I’d call it an unfortunate human instinct.

Though both the recent handball, and A-Rod, both tried to weasel out of it when interacting with the ref/ump afterwards.  That’s the true character issue in my eyes, if we’re going to be making judgments.

I think Poz is right when he says the problem is with the word cheating.  It has such a negative connotation but can mean so many different things.  Cheating the game.  Cheating on your spouse, taxes, etc.  At some point the word starts to lose meaning.

I find it interesting that the soccer world outside the USA seems to view the handball with more disdain than Americans do.

I can’t say I wouldn’t have done the same thing as Suarez, but I’m encouraged that we’re even having this discussion because it suggests that many people still value sportsmanship, even at the most competitive, cut-throat levels of sport.  It’s always better to win honorably without resorting to exploiting loopholes in the rules.

IMO, the game has rules, and with respect to those rules, there are violations, and for those violations there are prescribed consequences/penalties/sanctions.

Handball in the penalty area?  Penalty kick.

Excessively violent tackle?  Free kick and yellow card.

Second yellow card in same game?  Red card.

Kick the ball out of bounds?  Opponent gets throw-in.

If one is outraged at the fact that the Uruguayan player used his hands to stop a goal (which is agianst the rules, and has a prescribed consequence), where is the outrage when a player intentionally kicks the ball out of bounds (which is also against the rules, and also has a prescribed consequence)?  Why is that not considered bad sportsmanship?

Greg, do you make a distinction between a foul being caught, or not?  That is, did Thierry cheat, or not?

Well, I just went and looked at it again, and I don’t think I would call it cheating - it was a reflex action on his part to stick his hand out, I don’t think he had time to premeditate doing it.  So I’d call it a clear violation, in that his hand went to the ball, and it of course should have been called, but my opinion is “not cheating”.

Now, I remember from a long time ago watching a Celtics game where Chris Ford caught a pass, looked down at the three point line and saw that both his toes were on the line.  He then shuffled first one foot, then the other, back behind the line and fired up a shot that went in (no dribbling at any time).  Clearly a traveling violation, clearly intentional, I’d call that cheating.

So maybe that makes my position, “if the player forms an intention to violate the rules and/or decieve the ref into allowing it, he has cheated.” If a player violates a rule through a reflexive action, not cheating.  Now, for the Uruguay handball situation: I recognize that others may disagree, but I think his handball was reflexive.  He put himself on the line to try to stop the ball, true, but he never had any time to decide to use his hands - the ball was screaming at his face, he just threw his hands in front of it.

If anyone disagrees, I’m OK with that, but I recommend you watch this Sport Science video on soccer penalty kicks, and pay attention to what it says about how fast the ball is moving, and how long it takes to make decisions and take conscious action…

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5303359

Say a guy who slides into 2B, ten feet off the bag to break up the DP, but the ump doesn’t call it… cheating, or not?

It’s my opinion that Suarez reaction was both intentional AND reflexive.  Soccer players (non-goalies) are very often put in a position on the goal line to prevent goal, on corner kicks for example, and almost never blatantly handle the ball in this way.  It is my belief that Suarez as well as the other Uruguayan players were communicating with each other to stop the ball from going into the goal “by any means possible”, just prior to the corner kick.  When the ball came towards Suarez’s feet the first time, he blocked it away with his legs.  When the ball could only be cleared off the line by use of the hands, that is what he (and the other Uruguayan player also) tried to do.

I doubt he makes that 2-handed reflexive save that way if he had not intended to include it in his set of possible actions, before the play started, just as he would not have made that same play during a corner kick in the first few minutes of the game.

If a guy slides close to the bag, but not quite able to touch it, I’d give the benefit of the doubt and say “violation, but not cheating”.  Ten feet, though, that’s cheating - no way you can end up that far away from the bag without intending to.

Let me add another couple:

- hopping up and down when a pitch hits the dirt next to your foot, but did not touch the foot: cheating.

- corking your bat: cheating

- scuffing the baseball: cheating

- trapping a ball on a diving catch, but pretending you caught it: cheating, but only if you know it bounced.  If you’re not sure (and that’s possible, if your glove is on the ground and the ball hits just inside the webbing), not cheating.

- neighborhood play at second base on DP turn: not cheating, unless you were so far off the base that you know you were off (it’s tough to know for sure exactly when the last little bit of your own foot left the base)

- slapping the ball out of the pitcher’s glove as he tries to tag you: cheating.

- demolishing the back line of the batter’s box before you step in for your first AB: cheating

I consider a lot more things are “cheating” in baseball over other sports because, in baseball, there are usually no penalties for doing so.  In other sports, they’ll call back the play and disadvantage your team somehow.  In baseball, they’ll just reset the play to what it should have been and keep going.

If the penalty for “demolishing the back line of the batter’s box” was that you were immediately called out, I’d be less inclined to call that cheating.  Or, at least, less severe cheating.

That’s what I like about baseball—no play is called back, and punishment is by the commissioner, not on the field.  Which means, you’re expected to be sportsmanlike and follow the rules, because there’s with no rule book provisions, MLB is saying that it refuses to even anticipate, or condone, that it might be routine for a player to break those rules.

Maybe that’s why there are so many unwritten rules: lack of formal consequences for breaches of sportsmanship.  If Chris Webber calls timeout one time too many, he loses the NCAA title game.  In baseball, someone who does that gets nothing from the ump, but a pitch between the shoulder blades from his fed up opponent…

Greg/15 wrote: “If one is outraged at the fact that the Uruguayan player used his hands to stop a goal (which is agianst the rules, and has a prescribed consequence), where is the outrage when a player intentionally kicks the ball out of bounds (which is also against the rules, and also has a prescribed consequence)?”

It’s a matter of degree. Suarez stopped the game-winning goal; intentionally kicking the ball out of bounds simply can’t ever be a cheat of the same magnitude.

And I think that this is generally a fair way to evaluate these things - what fairly earned advantage has the infraction cost the opposing team? And then the penalty should suit what’s been unfairly lost by the opposition.

Giving possession of the ball to the opposing team when it’s kicked out of bounds in soccer? Seems like a totally appropriate response - the team awarded the throw, by virtue of gaining possession, has almost certainly improved their chances of scoring. But responding to the illegal stop of a ball that was 100% likely to score, and replacing it with a penalty kick that’s only about 80% likely to score, is effectively a penalty - and a penalty against the wrong team.

Btw, in response to this controversy, FIFA apparently announced earlier today that they won’t reconsider this rule.

They will, however, finally take a look at goal-line technology of the sort that would have awarded a goal to England.

One has to wonder what would have happened if their positions were reversed and it was England that lost in the quarterfinals on a hand-ball…

Neil, I think you need to tally up all of the benefits and costs.

Uruguay exchanged a very high likelihood of a goal allowed (not 100%, though, the ball may have hit Suarez’ forehead/face and stayed out) for an 80% likely goal on the PK.  actually, maybe we should say > 80% because there was no guarantee when he touched the ball with his hand that it would keep the ball out, although it did in fact.

However, they also paid by losing a player for the balance of the game (not a long time in this case, of course) and losing that player for the subsequent game.

Now, I think I agree with you that in this particular case (end of extra time, tie game), Uruguay had more to gain than lose by doing this (although I still think it was reflexive).

Maybe that is a bit unfair, but I think in other games, and at other times in those other games, this consequence balances things out pretty well, and you can’t change the consequence just some of the time…

As for the part about England and the handball, are you implying that FIFA would do something different if England were the victim?  Seems to me that England has suffered from a goal-scoring play on a handball in an important match before, with no subsequent action from FIFA… hmmm… when was that? 

I just don’t understand applying the word “cheat” to a play that is clearly defined in the rulebook with specific consequencs.  How does the magnitude of the play or the fact that it was the end of the game change that it was simply an infraction of the rules that should be treated according to the rulebook?  I don’t see a legitimate basis for objection, rather it appears as a “we don’t like the end result it contributed to” situation to me…

For instance:

“But responding to the illegal stop of a ball that was 100% likely to score, and replacing it with a penalty kick that’s only about 80% likely to score, is effectively a penalty - and a penalty against the wrong team.”

Yeah, so you’re objecting to the rules.  But those rules are no different than say, a ground rule double where a guy from 1st would have scored, or a fastbreak layup where the guy would have scored 2 points, got fouled and missed one of the FT’s, or a holding call on a play that would have been a 15 yard sack, or any host of other examples....you might not like the rule, which is fine - you can object to the rule all you want and try to get it changed, but for now that IS the rule, and the player played within the rules, and the penalty was enforced correctly, so...where was the cheating, exactly...?

Greg/25 wrote: “this consequence balances things out pretty well, and you can’t change the consequence just some of the time”

Well, clearly, this result was evidence that it doesn’t balance things out well at all. 20% of the time, the shot will be blocked or miss. And the result is that Ghana’s win expectancy is reduced from something around 99% to roughly 50%. I’m holding my position on this - the ‘penalty’ to Uruguay served to actually penalize Ghana.

I’m also going to join others in agreeing that it wasn’t reflexive. Soccer players are trained to keep their hands down, reflexively, even. If his arms were in such a position that he was able to knock the ball down with his hands, it was because he consciously decided to use them beforehand. And given his bragging after the fact - he certainly didn’t claim that it was reflexive or accidental - I’m even more comfortable in making this claim.

Greg: “As for the part about England and the handball, are you implying that FIFA would do something different if England were the victim?”

Certainly. But your reference to the 86 finals (i assume) doesn’t work. The issue in the Uruguay/Ghana game is whether the hand-ball rule, when seen and enforced, was still inappropriate to the severity of the infraction; the issue in the Argentina/England game (like the France/Ireland game months ago) was whether the referee saw the hand-ball in the first place. Totally different animals.

26/I agree 100%.

You play the games living with the set of rules.
You break the rules you are penalized.

I can get behind Greg’s definition of cheating:

So maybe that makes my position, “if the player forms an intention to violate the rules and/or deceive the ref into allowing it, he has cheated.”

Let’s go with that.

Now, does that necessarily mean that cheating is worse than unsportsmanlike plays?  Clutching and grabbing in NHL and NBA and soccer and NFL are not done to deceive the ref… they are simply pushing the boundaries to see what the ref will call, and if they overwhelm the ref, maybe end up changing the playing landscape (aka Broad Street Bullies).

The implication of Joe’s original post was that cheating was bad, the worst.  But is it?  If it’s not, the what’s the point of labelling it cheating?  Why not put everything under the umbrella of unsportsmanlike conduct?

***

FIFA not having a rule similar to NHL Rule 26, and having already decided this week to not have such a rule is really the problem.  It’s out in the open, and FIFA is effectively promoting more of this situation to happen.  It’s a bad rule that is intentionally left to stay there.  From that standpoint, I don’t see that it could be unsportsmanlike for a non-goalie to use his hands to stop a goal.

I absolutely agree with Tango (29) that now that FIFA has implicitly endorsed the rule as it stands, handling the ball on the goal line is now fair play.

The only argument against it in the first place was that handling the ball is SO taboo that it shouldn’t be incentivized by the rules, and exploiting the loophole is poor sportsmanship.  That is, even though there’s no rule, there’s an implicit rule.

Once FIFA has decided the loophole will stay, the behavior is now implicitly allowed, instead of implicitly prohibited.

I’m going to reiterate that it’s not a 20% bonus for the defense, because there is far from a guarantee that deciding to use your hands eliminates the goal on the original play (unless we’re talking about a really soft header or a chip over a sprawling goalie, but in this case it was a tattooed 50+ mph kick right at someone’s head from less than 10 feet away).

Most of the time, the consequence is going to be net negative for the offending team (goal on either the original play or the PK, plus a man down, plus a lost player in subsequent match). 

Occasionally, and I think very rarely, it may work out to a net positive (no goal on original play or PK, loss of player in game doesn’t cost you the game, loss of player in subsequent game doesn’t cost you that game (now argue whether this is true for Uruguay!)).

How often each of these outcomes (net negative, net positive) take place is fertile ground for debate, but I don’t know how you can reasonably ask for a consequence to be written into the rulebook for a situation like this that always, 100% of the time, ends up hurting the offending team more than the offense helps the offending team.

And to anticipate one response to my last statement, I don’t think there should be a rule giving an automatic goal to the offense when a non-goalie uses his hands on the goal line.  Sure, in this case, it might have been fair (although I still maintain his head may have stopped the ball if he hadn’t thrown up his hands), but as sure as day follows night, wait a bit and you are going to have some poor defender trying to defend without using his hands who gets hit in the hand (or elbow, or shoulder) by a shot, and there will be an automatic goal awarded, when a PK or possibly even “play on” might have been more appropriate.  Then we’ll just be on the other side of the coin in the quest for perfect rules that are 100% and always fair…

Intent is irrelevant, with regards to handball.  If not for your hand, had the ball gone in, it’s a goal.  It’s that simple.

What’s wrong with NHL Rule 26, applied to soccer?

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26310

@29 - I think I can get on the “intention of deceiving the ref” part of that, I’m unsure about the “violate the rules” part - there are definitely times when a player in whatever sport will make a conscience decision to take the consequence of a penalty (like fouling on purpose in basketball) rather than the alternative, and it seems to be acceptable enough to everyone involved.

“Once FIFA has decided the loophole will stay, the behavior is now implicitly allowed, instead of implicitly prohibited.”

Good point, that does make sense.  On the other hand, I would caution against the whole implicit/unwritten rules stuff:
http://morganensberg.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/the-unwritten-rulebook/
Just seems it’s often a matter of one’s perspective whether it’s actually a “rule” or not.  I’m sure there are situations where it really is accepted by everyone, but there are also situations where some people think it’s an unwritten rules and others do not.*

*I’m not taking the time to find examples to support all my blanket statements, but if you really want me to, I can.

Tom #32:

It’s that simple.

It’s not always that simple, though.  Suarez’ hands were in front of his face.  If not for his hands, it probably hits his face.  Or suppose a player turns to the side and the ball hits his elbow, behind which is his torso.  Goal or no goal?  Or what if it hits his foot, then his deflects upwards and hits his hand, and the path through the hand leads to the crossbar.  what then?

What you wrote is a simple rule with an impossibly difficult implementation.  Which is not to say that the current situation is easy to interpret, either, but what you’re proposing certainly does not get rid of any of the current complexity and difficulty in consistent application…

I have competed for many years in contract bridge tournaments at a fairly high level.  There has been much debate around whether the Laws should try hard to restore equity, which can be difficult, or to use simpler rules which are easier to apply.  While these simpler rules on average would be harsher to the offending side, sometimes they might not go far enough.  FIFA clearly prefers to go with simplicity.
I wonder if part of this represents a lack of confidence in the ability of the refs to make judgment calls; and thus a desire to avoid giving even more things to judge.  Of course they already have to make many judgment calls, such as whether there was a handball or not.  Something that I think would be much harder, and much more common, than judging if a goal would have scored without the violation.

The link in my name is a tangent, but I don’t think I’ve heard of left-right bias before.

You can post the link in the body, without the http colon slash-slash.  Just start with www.

In the most famous game in NBA history, Phoenix-Boston 3 OT game, Phoenix was down 1 point with 1 second to go. They intentionally called a time out they didn’t have, which resulted in a technical. THe Celtics made a free throw to go up 2, but it allowed the Suns to get the ball at half court rather than under their own basket.
Gar Heard made the Shot, and the game went into the next overtime.

So, was this cheating? The Suns used the rules to their advantage

In the NHL, for the longest time, they used to allow the backup goalie to warm up if he came in during the game.  A nice and sensible thing to do.

That is, until some coach decided to do multiple goalie switches during the game to ostensibly call timeout.  I think it was Mike Keenan.  If it wasn’t, well, I’m sure he’s pulled other d-ck moves.

So, there you have a game where the original goalie and the backup goalie would each go back and forth during the game, each getting warm ups.

Unsportsmanlike?  Yes.

Cheating?  Well, as I noted, it may actually be irrelevant if you subclassify the unsportsmanlike category into cheating or not.

The NHL very quickly put in a rule that the backup goalie is to get NO warm up shots after entering a game.  What was a sensible rule (warm ups for a cold player) turned into a loophole or cheating by one coach.

Whatever you want to call it, it was unsportsmanlike.

***

They could have made the warmup rule stick.  For example:
- “Goalie substitution is considered legitimate for warmup purposes if change in goalie occurs immediately following a goal allowed.”

This is almost always when true goal switches are done.  A goalie just gave up a 5th goal on the 9th shot, and they switch.

Still missing from this is an injury exception, but, we don’t want to fake those.

Good interview by Dave Berri on the author of The Baseball Codes

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/the-baseball-code-a-question-and-answer-with-jason-turbow/

@38 - I don’t think any basketball player I’ve ever known would consider that either cheating or unsportsmanlike (I played competitive basketball for a long time myself).  That’s brilliant coaching.  It’s really no different from intentionally fouling - you understand the consequences, and you accept that it’s your best option - there are a number of examples in basketball where this happens, and there’s never any sort of objection from anyone, it’s commonly accepted strategy.  Once you start delving into the intent to get away with breaking the rules without punishment stuff, though...that’s where it starts to head towards the bad sportsmanship/cheating stuff (though it’s still largely on a case-by-case basis).

Greg/34: Suarez’s hands weren’t in front of his face. Here are two perspectives, both of which make it clear that he HAD to reach out (and, incidentally, that his teammate had the exact same strategy):
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2010/07/03/image6644136.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01671/suarez2_1671849c.jpg

For my money, though, it doesn’t matter whether the hand ball was strictly unnecessary, and whether the player would/could have blocked it legally. If a shot on net, in the box, is stopped by a hand ball, it should automatically count. If the NHL could figure it out, so can FIFA.

OK, Neil, I see that.

I don’t know how FIFA will be able to implement a rule like that without one or both of a) replay, and b) goal judges.  They seem pretty opposed to the former, maybe they will consider the latter…