Today there is a great discussion of rules vs. norms because it applies to something people REALLY care about: World Cup football. Uruguayan player Luis Suarez illegally blocked a sure Ghana goal with his hands, a goal in the last seconds that would have won Ghana the game. He was ejected according to the rules and Ghana awarded a penalty kick, which they missed, and then Uruguay subsequently won.
Did Suarez cheat? An article on GhanaWeb says yes. Others say no. A major neutral, the Wall Street Journal (which now has a surprisingly good sports section) backs Ghanaweb: Uruguay cheated “big-time.” One side would say Suarez realized his team would surely lose if he let the ball go past his hands and lawfully and rationally chose to take the penalty to give his team a chance; the other side says intentionally breaking the rule to prevent a loss was unforgivably unsportsmanlike.
One possible fix is to perfect the rules. If it pays to break the rules, they must be bad rules. The rule could be changed to give an automatic goal in this situation. However, it’s not that easy – it’s impossible to have perfect rules. (The “automatic goal” rule would have worked here, but general application would inevitably lead to new disputes about whether the ball would really have gone in.)
The other solution to imperfect rules is to supplement them with norms. With strong norms in business, a businessman who exploits a loophole to cheat another businessman will often find himself ostracized and will lose a lot of future business, so he doesn’t cheat. Norms can handle complex situations more flexibly than explicit rules, so they are an essential complement to rules.
Unfortunately for Ghana and for a lot of cheating victims in business, norms have to reflect a wide and deep consensus of what is right and a willingness to punish the cheater. If everyone agreed now that Suarez had cheated and will ever after see him as the equivalent of a thieving child-beater, then maybe he would not have used his hands in the first place. Unfortunately, as often happens in developing countries, neither the rules nor the norms were strong enough to prevent cheating and we are the worse for it.
38 Comments
I immediately thought about the same analogy after watching the match. I often point out to people that having rules and laws in Africa is only half of the equation. The other half of the equation is the enforcement of those rules and laws. The constitution of many African nations should be written on toilet paper because that’s about the only good use for it.
Michael – with respect, that’s a ridiculous comment. It’s nothing to do with Africa, it’s the case in all developing countries.
This reminds me of “the hand of god” by Maradona. That was Argentina versus England in 1986 (he couldn’t get a header, so he punched the ball into the goal with his fist.) Later, Maradona calmly described how these things happen all the time, so when his head couldn’t reach the ball, he simply used his hand. Today Suarez is claiming “the hand of god now belongs to me!” It doesn’t sound to me like shame matters much in this sport if you win the game.
http://tiny.cc/snz18
For more evidence, Google: Ronaldo flopping
http://tiny.cc/snz18
I really don’t see the issue here. There are plenty of similar examples in other sports where players intentionally break the rules to prevent the other team from scoring. Think of the football DB who drags down an open receiver to prevent a touchdown. Hockey players have been known to do the equivalent of what the Uruguayan did and hockey awards a penalty shot as well.
I don’t think it is “cheating” to use the rules to your advantage. It might indicate that the rule is a bad one, but as Bill points out, no rule is perfect and trying to improve on the existing one will just raise new problems. The odds of missing a PK are very small, so the number of times this strategy would pay off is very low, which suggests that the best way to read this is that Uruguay took a rational risk even given its low probability of success and the dice turned up just right.
It’s not cheating, and there’s no reason to change the rule. It’s how sports works sometimes.
Adam – with respect, Bill’s posting made reference to an African country. That was the focus of my comment. I did not intend to exclude corruption and injustice in other developing countries. That type of behavior also happens in “developed” countries too. Power and greed know no nationality.
A longer version of my point above is now posted here: http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/07/cheating-vs-rational-rule-breaking.html
Dear Prof. Easterly, as a long-time fan and practitioner of football I find the notion of ‘cheating’ in this context as nonsensical, despite how unfair we deem the final result. I am afraid your post reflects excessive faith in the power of rules to provide solutions in situations where conflicts of interest are involved. As you well know, it’s not advisable to have too much of a good thing.
Steven, glad you took up the discussion!
So you wouldn’t mind being mugged as along as the rule-breaker did not try to evade the penalty for mugging?
:>) Bill
Steven – What is cheating if it isn’t breaking the rules for your own advantage?
Manuel,
the conflict is only after the fact of a particular rule violation. Ex-ante, both sides (and their fans) would prefer good rules and norms that prevent cheating.
Bill
Touche’ Bill. But the analogy is worth exploring for a moment.
Your response shows the limits of the analogy between sports and the social world as well as how we have to be careful about using the word “rules” to cover both of what Hayek termed “the catallaxy” and the “organizations” that comprise it.
That said, under what circumstances would a mugger say “I’m going to mug Horwitz over there and please come arrest me and throw me in jail for doing so?” That’s what Suarez did, by analogy. It’s not just a matter of “not evading” the punishment, but of clearly intending to BE punished, as the punishment is perceived to be preferred to not breaking the rule. Perhaps our mugger friend is homeless and hungry and thinks jail would be a better deal? Like the soccer game, most likely a rare circumstance.
No doubt the “victims” of rational rule breaking don’t like it (and here is where there’s a difference between losing a game and being coerced by a mugger), but as you ask in your original post: what exactly can we do about it if changing the rule only creates more problems? No one likes to be the victim, but sometimes that’s just the price of the imperfection of rules.
I’m not sure how many muggings would count as “rational rule-breaking,” and you definitely don’t have the kinds of repeated play and wide publicity that you get in sports. Suarez will face near-certain retaliation if Uruguay plays Ghana again in the next couple of years, and even post-World Cup he might be face retaliation in club games. I think David Friedman and others discuss examples in which they ask about the ethics of stealing someone’s gun if that’s the only way to stop a crime–I can’t remember if it’s in Machinery of Freedom or not, but it’s worth a look.
I think this is also a pretty clear example of the institutions working well. FIFA doesn’t have a rule to address this particular black swan, but they do have a disciplinary committee to review it and determine if Suarez’s handball constituted “egregious” unsportsmanlike conduct.
While this isn’t directly related to the issue at hand, Steve’s piece “Competition and the Limits of Sports Analogies” is at least instructive. And I have to wonder: were the editors trying to be funny by including a picture of the St. Louis Rams with the article?
michael, the posting was about two teams, one from lat am, one from Africa. i was offended, disappointed by your posting and then your defense of it.
all, it was cheating and the plea “that all the other kids do it” never worked with my father, nor me.
despite the heart breaking loss, which team had the better role model for kids: cheat, winning is every thing or even if you miss the game winning penalty kick, come back, with class and courage, for the first tie breaker kick?
Steve and others, I think you are making it too complicated, limits of sports analogies aside. I think we’ve all implicitly agreed it’s desirable that the rule is observed. Then if the rule design and the underlying norms still make it pay to break the rule, then the original objective is NOT achieved. It’s different to say that it’s impossible to achieve a perfect system of rules and norms, and to express approval for rule violations.
Returning to the World Cup analogy, it’s good for the sport and the teams ex ante that the results be perceived as “fair play” by all sides as much as possible. If cheating pays, then the sport will suffer in the long run.
Similarly, in development, it’s preferable ex ante to have rules and norms that prevent cheating for both sides, to make possible lots of gains from trade.
From my perspective, calling what Sanchez did “unfair play” or “cheating” begs the question. I simply don’t think it’s “cheating” to recognize that openly and willingly breaking a rule and accepting the consequences is sometimes the best “play.”
I also think it’s here where the sports analogies break down. Art linked my column on these analogies, and one of the key points there is that sports rules are designed for a game that is zero-sum. There’s a winner and a loser. Social rules promote positive-sum outcomes. The distinction between cheating and rational rule breaking I’m making seems much more applicable to sports where zero-sum behavior is much more common than to the positive-sum world of the catallaxy.
In other words, you may well be right about the social world, but that result can’t be engineered back to be a criticism of Suarez because the “game” in question is of a different sort.
Much as I respect Bill Easterly, I am not sure that I agree that Suarez cheated Ghana. To be sure he broke the rules by using his hand, but the rules provided two appropriate remedies for this act: Suarez was expelled from the game and Ghana was given a penalty kick. Not all normative rules are the same. A person who intentionally kills or disables another in football or elsewhere in life has done a bad act that should be punished. In Suarez’s case, his infraction seems more like a person who intentionally violates a contract and then is required to pay damages. The contract violation may be thought to undermine the market system, but completing the contract in some circumstances could have devastating effects on the violator and little benefit to the person expecting performance. Usually a monetary remedy is sufficient to maintain the market and a court would not order specific performance. I do not think anyone would have raised the issue of undermining the norms of behavior if Ghana had scored on the penalty kick.
Uruguay did not cheat. Suarez was perfectly cognizant of the rule, exploited it and it paid off. It is not even a question of enforcement because the existing rule was enforced and it still meant victory for Uruguay. The problem is obviously the rule itself. There is no way in hell Suarez would have lain a finger on the ball if a deliberate handling of the ball directly in front of the goal line was punished by a forfeit of the game. FIFA desperately needs to shed its fossilized approach to football and incorporate technology like tennis and cricket (with Hawk-Eye) have done. What happened to Ghana was an outrage but is indicative of a larger malaise in the sport.
It’s worth noting that in ice hockey if Team A has pulled its goalie and Team B has a breakaway on the empty net and then a member of Team A commits a penalty that prevents B from scoring, Team B is automatically given a goal without the need to take a penalty shot (the normal remedy when there is a goalie in net).
That situation is rare enough in hockey that the “automatic goal” rule works. I suspect what we saw this week is not nearly as rare in soccer, setting up the problem of interpretation that Bill raises.
One other point: baseball provides a really interesting case – the infield fly rule. That rule is there *precisely* to close a loophole in other rules, namely intentionally dropping a catchable ball to get a double play. Now one could say dropping a catchable ball isn’t “breaking a rule” but it certainly is taking advantage of the rule that you have to tag up on a fly ball to your advantage by doing something counter to the normal action of the game. Baseball closed that loophole with the infield fly rule.
I don’t like the sports analogy here, because lots of people (including myself) would agree with the general principle that “it’s preferable ex ante to have rules and norms that prevent cheating for both sides” but not consider rational rule breaking in sports to be cheating.
At the end of a basketball game where one team leads by a few points with a few seconds left, it is understood by everyone that the trailing team will probably intentionally commit a foul. In this case, it is worth allowing your opponent to shoot free throws in order to gain the benefit of stopping the clock from running down. This is considered completely ethical and acceptable.
A less common example would be in American football where a team decides using up time is more important than field position (e.g. end of game, leading, punting from opponents 40). In this case, it is considered acceptable to use up the playclock and accept a delay-of-game penalty.
It really comes down to what the norms are for the rule in question. But as an American sports fan used to seeing intentional fouling in the NBA all the time, it didn’t even occur to me that Suarez’s play could be regarded as anything other than the correct strategic move.
Dear Prof. Easterly, I agree with you that “it’s preferable ex ante to have rules and norms that prevent cheating for both sides, to make possible lots of gains from trade”, but I also believe that rules and norms that are too strict can also suffocate trade. This seems to me particularly true when prevention works through punishment enforced by a third party. If you run the risk to be severly punished by incurring into a minor infraction you may as well decide not to participate.
Thus, I find your analogy flawed, because Suarez did break a rule and (what is considered in football a) harsh punishment was enforced. Football norms will not punish Suarez severely because all the events that make everyone judge the final result as unfair (penalty kicks failed and scored by both teams) did happen after Suarez was punished.
Any comments on the personal vs. group responsibility and actions vs. consequences dimensions of the analogy?
Suarez did what every other footballer in the world would have done
FWIW (and slightly off the substantive point of the post): In Rugby they award penalty tries when a professional (deliberate) foul is committed for the purpose of stopping a likely try.
It works well, if imperfectly. What’s more it works in the face of more ambiguity than would be the case should the same rule be adopted in football (really pretty simple in football – deliberate handball on or near the goal line = penalty goal).
Uruguay won within the rules of the game. But wasn’t a sporting victory. I reckon it’s worth changing the rules if it prevents this in the future.
Uruguay did NOT cheat Ghana. Both teams played hardly, showing strength, power and domination. Both deserved to win. What Suarez did had its consequences: he was punished, Ghana had a penalty opportunity that eventually failed to score, and, in this sense, Uruguay paid for what Suarez did. Ghana had its chance to score and it failed. It’s true that Suarez made a mistake, but – I insist – he has already paid for it. Uruguay has also lost one of his two best players for the next match against Netherlands, since Suarez along with Forlan have scored 3 goals each.
Do you really think that rules and punishment are weak in undeveloped countries? Maybe you should get out from your bubble and analyze which are the reasons behind under development in these countries. From natural resources plundering to political intervention (CIA) the list is long.
Ok everyone, im from uruguay and im sick of this bull****. Suarez is a hero and please, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7wcInhtW48
and another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaV46PmyvOU
I wonder whether this is really a problem of developing countries or just a football feature. Just two experiences coming to my mind: Germany-England 2010, where the German goalkeeper knew it was a goal and pretended it wasn’t, denying England a deserved goal. That’s cheating by Germany. The opposite happened in 1966, when England pretended it went in but it didn’t. That was England cheating. Zidane’s head punch in the 2006 final is also ‘cheating’ by someone of a rich country. The list is too long… everytime a German, Dane, Dutch, English dives it is ‘cheating’ in the same was as Suarez’s was. And there are thousands of those. So is it underdevelopment or is it just football?
There was no foul to start with and the guy that headed the ball was offside when the free kick was taken, so the penalty shouldn’t have existed at all!
From the video it’s clear that Suárez wasn’t really gonna admit what he did unless the referee said anything. This is obvious from the “What? Moi?” expression Suárez made when he got the red card. To me his actions after the fault prove his intention to cheat. He was just walking back to his position after miraculously saving the day. A “hero” would have walk out of the field right away, conscious of his fault.
You don’t have to go so far to find examples of benefits from breaking rules. Ghana players during the 120 minutes of the game throw uruguayans players to the ground each time they could, to stop their game; several times inside the penalty area, expecting the referee would not sanction, wich happend once and again. Breaking rules is an accepted cost/benefict part of soccer. In the otrher “hand” maradona’s goal was hidden; not Suarez’s.
its the “wide and deep consensus of what is right ” that Easterly speaks of that creates the debate here. Just the complexity of establishing what is right in the game of football indicates how difficult this would be to establish in the world of business. Making a rule is much easier than establishing a norm. How rules are valued is important to establishing norms. These career footballers that earn obscene amounts to pay professionally, play for something quite different in the World Cup, national honour is no small part. By Suarez breaking the rules, Ghana lost but kept its honour and the team will be national heroes. Suarez will forever have hero/villain status but his split second decision to handball a goal block has proved that it pays to break the rules. We now get to debate what should be the norm in this situation while Uruguay gets another day to kick the ball in pursuit of winner takes all honour as is typical of a capitalist paradigm. Is establishing norms based on what is “right” even possible in world football when it is promoted by the morally corrupt draconian institution that is FIFA, that seems more interested pursuing capitalist interests than the spirit of the game.
There was no fault from Fucile to begin with! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUwhRR5HKuY&feature=player_embedded
Mauricio, thanks for these other examples. There was some misunderstanding — I did not intend to draw a distinction between players from rich and poor countries. The reference to inadequate rules and norms in poor countries was about their social systems at home, not about their football players; the former is regarded as one of the leading explanations of poverty of poor countries. Regards, Bill
PS Although having said this, there IS some fascinating research by economists Ted Miguel and Shanker Satyanath that draws a link between history of violence in the home country and the propensity of football players from that country to get yellow cards in international competition.
Whether it’s an infraction against another player, or arguing with the referee, or using your hands to redirect a ball, there is a consequence. Players decide, or react, in the best way for the sake of their team. When a referee misses a violation, because his line of sight is blocked or he doesn’t see what happens, a player can get away with an infraction, or even an intentional deception. Such is the case of Germany’s goalkeeper who admittedly took the ball from inside the goal area and quickly kicked it back into the field to mislead the referee and deprive the English team of a scored goal. THAT is cheating. When a referee recognizes an infraction, he applies the rules. Suarez’ much talked about actions were understandable to anybody who knows soccer. Yes, a rule of the game was broken. And so Suarez was expelled and suspended and the opposing team granted a penalty kick. Situations like these occur all the time at domestic and international matches, they are a part of the game’s dynamic and, as long as the players are held accountable for their actions and corrective measures are taken, the game’s outcome cannot be questioned or condemned. I didn’t hear such an outcry at the German goalkeeper’s cheating. Is it because it wasn’t the last minute of the game? Is it because he was from a European team? Is it because we are supposed to let an African team into the semifinals at whatever cost? Uruguay has been playing soccer forever. We are also the last in our continent fighting for the Cup, also third world, also disadvantaged. Stop listening to the media. This is what the world cup tournament is like, if you are going to get bent out of shape when your team is out, don’t watch. Whether we move forward or not, is irrelevant to the argument, we do our best, like everyone else, and hope for the best too.
“Unfortunately, as often happens in developing countries, neither the rules nor the norms were strong enough to prevent cheating and we are the worse for it.”
Two words: Confirmation Bias.
I have two words too: sore loser
Germany is no developing country and they cheated like the best. And that’s just one example out of so many you can find in soccer history including violence against the other teams’ players and flagrant fouls.
I have covered your argument here in my blog:
http://readeconomics.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-reply-to-discussion-on-recent.html
The “Uruguay cheated” posture only shows a completely lack of information about soccer rules…. is penalized sometimes with “yellow card” if it was “unintentionally” or sometimes with “red card” if it was “with intention”…. At the end, depends on the judge. The “cheating” concept doesn’t apply…. the regulation exists and works perfectly fine!!! Suarez sacrificed himself on behalf of the team…. Ghana “cheating posture” and supporters go and cry somewhere else!!! VAMO URUGUAY CARAJO QUE NO NI NO!!!!!
8 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by William Easterly. William Easterly said: Rules vs. norms in development. More importantly, did Uruguay cheat Ghana? http://bit.ly/9LGIUZ [...]
[...] Esta célebre jugada le ha salido a hacer competencia a la de Maradona en el México de 1986, cuando propinó un gol con la mano a Inglaterra. Si con eso nació “la mano de dios”, la de Luis Suárez quiza sea “la mano del diablo”, por sus implicancias decisivas. El debate ha sido intenso y hasta The Wall Street Journal titula su nota ¿Quien dijo que hacer trampas no vale la pena?, así como Developmen Research Institute: Rules vs. Norms in Development, or more importantly, Did Uruguay cheat Ghana? [...]
[...] Esta célebre jugada le ha salido a hacer competencia a la de Maradona en el México de 1986, cuando propinó un gol con la mano a Inglaterra. Si con eso nació “la mano de dios”, la de Luis Suárez quiza sea “la mano del diablo”, por sus implicancias decisivas. El debate ha sido intenso y hasta The Wall Street Journal titula su nota ¿Quien dijo que hacer trampas no vale la pena?, así como Developmen Research Institute: Rules vs. Norms in Development, or more importantly, Did Uruguay cheat Ghana? [...]
[...] Easterly posted some good analysis on the question (it’s also where I got the photo). See full post here. The basic argument: Suarez (and that other guy with the outstretched hand) knew the penalty for the [...]
[...] Esta célebre jugada le ha salido a hacer competencia a la de Maradona en el México de 1986, cuando propinó un gol con la mano a Inglaterra. Si con eso nació “la mano de dios”, la de Luis Suárez quiza sea “la mano del diablo”, por sus implicancias decisivas. El debate ha sido intenso y hasta The Wall Street Journal titula su nota ¿Quien dijo que hacer trampas no vale la pena?, así como Developmen Research Institute: Rules vs. Norms in Development, or more importantly, Did Uruguay cheat Ghana? [...]
[...] Esta célebre jugada le ha salido a hacer competencia a la de Maradona en el México de 1986, cuando propinó un gol con la mano a Inglaterra. Si con eso nació “la mano de dios”, la de Luis Suárez quiza sea “la mano del diablo”, por sus implicancias decisivas. El debate ha sido intenso y hasta The Wall Street Journal titula su nota ¿Quien dijo que hacer trampas no vale la pena?, así como Developmen Research Institute: Rules vs. Norms in Development, or more importantly, Did Uruguay cheat Ghana? [...]
[...] Bill Easterly, who draws analogies between all current events and development, addressed the issue in a short post: [...]
[...] Bill Easterly uses the Ghana-Uruguay soccer game's ending in which a Uruguayan player intentionally stopped a sure goal with his hands leading to a penalty kick that the Ghanans missed, sending the game to penalty kicks, to riff about rules and norms. [...]