If the fall-out from "Bollockgate" /"Stampgate"/ "Carvalho’s-testicles-gate" (or whatever you want to call it) is proving one thing, it’s that certain sections of the English press (and some fans) take alarming comfort in blaming a “greasy dago/wop" 1 for their woes.
Eight years ago it was Diego Simeone who was held up as the epitome of Latin skulduggery, cunning and deviousness. This year, however, the poster-child for "Un-English" gamesmanship and Un-Fair Play is Portugal/Man Utd’s ‘master’ of the 750 stepovers: Cristiano Ronaldo.2
While one could understand the antipathy generated by Simeone’s excessive reaction to a weak David Beckham kick, the vitriol being heaped on (the admittedly irritating) young Ronaldo’s shoulders is far harder to justify. Not only that, but the loudest baying seems to be coming from those suffering from self-congratulatory nationalism and casual xenophobia.
What, exactly, was Ronaldo’s great crime? Well, after witnessing his Man Utd team-mate recklessly stand/stamp on Ricardo Carvalho’s family jewels, he ran over to the ref, pointed at his prone compatriot, and seemed to say: "Holy Shit! Did you see that ref"…or (Portuguese) words to that effect…
At no stage did he brandish an imaginary card - as many sources seem to be suggesting/implying - nor did he react badly to Rooney’s gentle shove. Steven Gerrard - a fine player and friend to Mr. Rooney - summed up the case for the prosecution:
I saw what Ronaldo did…I saw him going over to the referee and giving him the card and I think he was bang out of order. If he were one of my team-mates I would be absolutely disgusted with him. After Wayne was sent off he [Ronaldo] winked at his bench and his team-mates and that just about sums him up as a person.
Sorry Stevie G, but I’ve watched the incident a number of times and Ronaldo clearly doesn’t "give the referee the card". The winking is interesting and important. To those who routinely holler "Cheatin’ Foreign Bastards!" at the TV, the wink conclusively proves dastardly forethought and premeditation. It was all part of the game plan apparently: getting the volatile young Wayne so riled up that he’d lose the head…and then making sure (through cajoling and pleading) that the ref would send him off. Those evil geniuses!
Rob Smyth, of the Guardian, responds for the defence:
What exactly was Ronaldo supposed to do? Rooney stamped on a team-mate of his. Was he supposed to stand and admire it? Chuckle at the bulldog spirit of his Manchester United colleague? If Ronaldo had stamped on Gary Neville in similar circumstances and Rooney had piled in, we'd have salivated over the all-for-one-one-for-all spirit of England. That's all Ronaldo did. He was then pushed by Rooney, a gesture which he didn't seek to magnify by going down, and the ref decided to send Rooney off. That's the ref's fault for overreacting quite pathetically to the push, not Ronaldo's.
A couple of key points there. I fully agree that if the shoe had been on the other foot (or testicle) then at least one England player would have remonstrated with the ref and drawn his attention to (what appeared to be) violent conduct….and what would be wrong with that? The whole issue of players attempting to cajole referees has become so overblown, and laced with self-righteous sanctimony3 that it’s now deemed vile to get a bit irritated when you see an opponent drive his studs (accidentally or on purpose) into your pal’s balls. Perfectly understandable if you ask me.
Smyth’s defence of 'the wink' is a tad weak, but at least it demonstrates how such gestures are open to interpretation. The slant we put on them depends, of course, on our individual proclivities and biases:
Ronaldo's knowing wink after Rooney went off was not especially edifying, but then this was hardly a Diego Simeone-style set-up, so if he was winking to anyone it was as likely to be out of nervousness or a misplaced eagerness to please than to be the action of a criminal mastermind smugly acknowledging the brilliance of his sting.
Someone who doesn’t acknowledge that the incidents surrounding the red card are open to interpretation is Tottenham manager Martin Jol:
When Rooney trampled on Ricardo Carvalho, he didn’t do it on purpose. Before that he was being impeded and should have had a foul anyway. The referee blew his whistle and paused and was thinking of what to do when Ronaldo ran over and asked him to show a card. It’s how Ronaldo always behaves, trying to influence referees, and it turns my stomach when players do that.
Nothing but slanted guess-work here I’m afraid. How does Jol know (with such certainty) that Rooney’s stamp was accidental? Equally, how does he know that Ronaldo was asking the ref to show a card? As I said before, he [Ronaldo] certainly didn’t mime the much-derided ‘card action’, so it’s possible he just responded angrily (and spontaneously) to an apparent assault on Carvalho’s squishy bits (without thinking the consequences through).
Jol is right about one thing though. The referee did appear to pause (after the stamping), as if assessing the situation, until Rooney pushed Ronaldo away. I’ve yet to hear the referee’s explanation for his actions, but if he sent off Rooney for the (tiny) push - and nothing else - then he’s clearly a cretin. If, however, he saw the stamp and was trying to decide if it was intentional or not, then one can readily understand the red card being produced (In the close-up replays it certainly looked bad…and intentional).
Perhaps the push decided things for him…perhaps not. Whatever way you look at it, it takes a leap of faith (or bigotry) to assume that Ronaldo ( & Co.) master-minded the whole thing. Sadly that leap is one that the "Cheatin’ Foreigner!" brigade are only too happy to make…
- Not my own choice of language I hasten to add. [back]
- Whose Wikipedia page currently says this: "Due to vandalism, editing of this article by anonymous or newly-registered users is disabled". [back]
- See Alan Shearer’s (puke-inducing) "England never do that to referees by trying to put pressure on them. I don't know…are we too honest?" rant for details [back]
Horacio Elizondo, the referee at the centre of the incident, seems to be suggesting that the red was for the stamp and nothing else:
July 4th, 2006 at 11:04 amI think you’re spot on Fústar:
Most teams and their fans enjoy scapegoating when the lose. As an Irishman, I remember bewailing the Israeli goalkeeper who seemed to spend most of his time on ground, writhing in pain, after every Irish foray in to the Israeli penalty area. It was easier to focus on this rather than the ineptitude of Ireland in front of goal, especially after having thrown a two-nil lead away. Harder to recognise that Israel had played impressively and got a well deserved point.
The aftermath of the England and Portugal match has shown that the press are just as prone to the ‘we was robbed by them and their cheatin ways’ as the fan on the street is. I think your analysis of the incident as it played out on camera is accurate. There is little doubt that Ronaldo did not brandish an imaginary card: whether the red card was for the push or the stamp is less clear but you rightly acknowledge that Ronaldo did not overreact to Rooney’s shove.
It’s odd, in my life I have seen quite a few World Cups but I remember those from ‘86 on the best. England have participated in all but one (’94) since then. In that time they have had three players sent off (Wilkins ‘86, Beckham ‘98 and Rooney ‘06) and in each case they were sent off for perceived petulance/indiscipline (if we accept that Rooney walked for ‘the push’ and not the nut-cracker). In my opinion, Wilkins was sent off harshly however three reds in five world cups is a trend that needs addressing. Oddly enough, in each game where the red cards were flashed England were being frustrated by their opposition. If the question is one of ‘cheating’ I think you have to look no further than the odd scrotal stamp or a post-foul push: behaviour that usually results from frustration at playing badly.
The press will ever prefer to treat the symptoms and not the disease!
July 4th, 2006 at 12:39 pmYou accuse Jol of slanted guess-work then write you’re sure: ‘at least one England player would have remonstrated with the ref and drawn his attention to (what appeared to be) violent conduct’.
No slanted guess work from you then…..
July 7th, 2006 at 5:15 amJo,
My suggestion that “at least one England player would have remonstrated with the ref and drawn his attention to (what appeared to be) violent conduct)” is based on experience of seeing this kind of thing happen many times before. I’ve never seen an act of violent conduct on the field that didn’t elicit some kind of response from the opposition (English, Portuguese, or otherwise).
Jol’s confident statement about Rooney’s definite innocence is based on what exactly? I don’t see how he can be sure that it was unintentional when the replays seem to point at just the opposite.
At least I’m relying on what usually happens (quite understandably) in such situations, rather than engaging in speculation that seems based (almost entirely) on - in this case - Jol’s own biases.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:41 pmyou go girl!
July 7th, 2006 at 6:35 pm