‘Therefore, he should have signalled “goal” to the referee, explained the situation, allowed his side to lose the match and the point they gained for the draw, and allowed Tottenham Hotspur to gain the additional two points they would have got for the win. But it didn’t happen. Carroll got away with it.
‘Now the debate is about whether or not the linesman and referee were at fault and whether or not we should use video technology. Absolutely no part of the debate is concerned with the question of morality. Carroll’s cheating is wholly acceptable to football.
‘No one expected Carroll to admit that the ball had crossed the line. Such an idea has not even been considered. The answer to man’s faults, football tells us, is not by applying morality but technology. That seems to me a rum state of affairs. But then, of course, we have to ask the question: what would you do?
‘In Test-match cricket, it has long been accepted that no batsman walks. But now the Australians, who invented the whole concept of non-walking, have started to walk. No one likes it: not only are Australia the best side in the world, they can now — justly — claim moral superiority as well. Nobody is following suit. It wouldn’t be fair to everyone else.
‘Cheating is now a part of football. You could blow a whistle at every corner and award a free kick or penalty, depending on choice. (Referees, being timid by nature, invariably opt for the former.) There is no moral censure for most forms of cheating in football: pinching a few yards at a free kick, delaying a free kick, tugging, pushing, blocking, obstructing. Players constantly seek to con the referee and praise those who succeed: “He used his experience and went down under the challenge.”
‘If referees blew the whistle for every offence, we wouldn’t get a game. Football is not played according to the rules, but to a vague consensus of what is and is not acceptable. Only deliberate, career-threatening violence is considered seriously immoral.
‘Carroll would have needed the courage of a martyr to call “goal”. We do not know what was in his mind at the time, but it is not as if his position as Manchester United’s No 1 goalkeeper is all that secure. Owning up would have threatened his standing in the team and his place in the professional game. Hardly surprising if this was too much for him.’
A good point it may be, but why is Carroll being crucified while many other examples of cheating, Pires’ dive in the match with Portsmouth for example, pass with the smallest of comments? Could it have something to do with the name Manchester United?