See the player in the blue t-shirt? She is Dr Emily Ryall, Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Sport at the University of Gloucestershire. She is a committed, competitive sportsperson and a University lecturer, thus embodying the Corinthian ideal of amateurism. As a girl with a Ph.D. who plays rugby, she is reshaping the myths of womanhood. Discovering Dr Ryall, and that there are entire University departments dedicated to the Philosophy of Sport, are some of the few good things to have come out of the Thierry Henry handball incident.
BBC Radio 4 had a story last week on Henry's handball. It featured Simon Barnes, the chief sports columnist for the Times, and Dr. Ryall. Both of them let Thierry Henry off pretty lightly. Neither of them focused on the thirty seconds immediately after the goal, when the Irish players were animatedly appealing to the referee, when Thierry Henry had ample opportunity to 'fess up.
Simon Barnes thinks "sport is no longer about building character, it reveals character"; so Henry's handball was a part of the great spectacle of sport because it gives us an insight into Henry's flawed genius. Dr. Ryall thinks intent matters: the fact that Henry did not intend to cheat makes a difference to her. Which is a very interesting moral argument. For instance, the business leaders who destroyed Enron (or Lehman Brothers for that matter) surely did not intend to do so. Unlike Henry, it is not at all clear that anyone at Enron cheated. But does positive intent absolve them of blame? Things are certainly not working out that way, certainly not in the court of public opinion.
Personally, I find the lack of censure for Thierry Henry, in the court of public opinion, more shocking than the handball itself. People, in all walks of life, will always have opportunities to cheat. Some people will always take the opportunity and cheat. But overall, people will cheat less if they are constantly reminded that cheating is bad, and that honour matters.
Dan Ariely, the behavioural economist, demonstrated this in a neat experiment. One group of students took a test, and were paid according to the number of correct answers they self-reported. Another bunch of students took the same test after having sworn not to cheat. The bunch who swore not to cheat consistently gave themselves lower and more accurate scores than the "control", despite having exactly the same incentives and exactly the same opportunities to cheat.
Many people describe Henry's handball as "understandable", which is true, it was understandable. But in being understanding of Henry's understandable behaviour, we, collectively, are diluting the social norm that cheating is bad.
3 comments:
Sins of omission vs. Sins of commission...I think we're all agreed that sins of comission are worse - they imply 'intent'.
Not sure about sins of omission though. Personally, I'd agree with you, but to expect that in a fiercely competitive environment, players would do more than follow the letter of the law is asking too much. Very similar to 'walking' in cricket - those who do do so driven by a inner yardstick that is perhaps higher than the rest, but I don't think you could censure those who don't.
Couple other points - the lack of widespread criticism and the tendency to see Henry's actions as 'understandable' are also to do with the fact that this was France. If it had been an Asian, African or Latin American team, you would have plenty of vitriol spewed in the Anglo Saxon media.
Also, Simon Barnes is a twit. He writes with flair, but goes consistently over the top, has a very superficial understanding and zero insight on many sports and is remarkably inconsistent in his views.
Maybe the sport matters as well. Football is not cricket.
Thanks for this blogpost (which I've just found). Yes I would agree that I let Henry off pretty lightly. Here's my reason why: Looking at the footage, Henry's action seemed unintentional. Or at least, it appeared that he wasn't trying to deceive the referee. He may have thought it was so obvious a handball that the referee would call halt to the play but carried on playing because that's what players are 'supposed to do', i.e. 'play to the ref'. After the ref had awarded the goal, what could Henry have done? Told the ref that actually he had handballed it and that it wasn't really a goal? Are you kidding? Of course he couldn't. It appears that Henry was both confused and ashamed. With the eyes of his nation on him, and the expectation of getting through to a World Cup, it would take a man of immense moral courage to stand up and argue that the goal should be disallowed. And the likely effect? That the ref would have been embarrassed or angry that his authority and decision making was being called into question. It would be likely that Henry would have actually been criticised by MORE people if he had done that as he would have been called naive, unpatriotic, stupid, etc.
So that's why I let Henry off the hook. He may well have been a great actor able to disguise his malicious intent but I don't think so. I think it's one of those situations where we have to look at the context to really understand what's going on. So no, I don't think it was an example of cheating.
Post a Comment