Chapter 128: Chapter 127: The Big Difference Between European and American Styles
Seeing Ronaldo eager to argue with the main referee, Deng Kai immediately stepped forward to hold him back.
In fact, Ronaldo’s fall inside the penalty box could have warranted a penalty kick.
But equally, you could argue that calling it a dive wouldn’t be a big problem either—the probabilities are even.
Because Ronaldo was in a state of "passive confrontation".
This is also the biggest difference between football and basketball.
Every so often, the NBA sees the emergence of some epoch-making players.
The four great centers.
Jordan.
The four positions.
James.
After them, two players changed basketball.
One is Curry.
He ushered in the era of the three-pointer.
One is Harden.
He ushered in the era of flopping.
Before Harden, drawing fouls in basketball was the same as in football—it was a head-on clash.
The person trying to draw a foul had to bear the brunt of the confrontation as well.
In that era, drawing fouls was a double-edged sword, one of the proofs of heroism, with a high gold content. But until the very end, few stars would choose to use this self-destructive tactic.
But the flopping style pioneered by Harden, with various proactive flopping, turned drawing fouls into a term with negative implications.
This style of play seems to comply with the rules, even exploiting them.
For a time, defenders dared not approach him within a meter.
Those shooting motions that were anything but natural repeatedly won him free throw opportunities and created space for ball-handling.
Essentially, this style of play is anti-basketball.
It is exploiting the passion and love the fans have for the sport of basketball.
It also significantly accelerated basketball’s entry into the "Glass Basketball" era, where physicality was reduced.
Since then, a breakthrough almost inevitably resulted in a foul—a change in degree.
In the past, most shooting fouls were for hitting the hand, but now when shooting, if you dare to defend, the opponent can almost certainly draw a foul—a change in intent and nature.
Such obviously problematic tactics, yet they oddly complied with the rules, to the point where the NBA struggled to find a way to curb Harden’s approach for a while.
It was only through enacting regulations like "Foul-baiting actions by leaning into defenders at abnormal angles during a shot attempt are invalid" that the league gradually changed the flopping trend.
It inevitably leads one to reflect on the issue—are we playing by the rules, or are we playing basketball?
This actually relates to a question many people didn’t understand in their childhood... Why can’t the police arrest bad guys when everyone, including them, knows who they are, allowing these bad actors to remain at large?
This is a classic debate that’s very hard to label as simply right or wrong.
When applied to sports, some things are not written in the rules, not because of an oversight in the rules, but because those actions are inherently not in keeping with the sport, understood by common agreement such that no one would deem them as acceptable. But unexpectedly, some have shamelessly exploited these unwritten understandings.
For various reasons, Americans, in this regard and many others, have already turned metaphysical, resulting in numerous farces.
But Europeans have never forgotten the original intent of football.
They do not allow exploitation of loopholes in the rules for personal gain.
Therefore, in football, some fouling actions are punished and some aren’t; aside from the impact of corrupt officiating and match-fixing, this is because the referee’s judgement on the players’ intentions is the deciding factor.
According to the American perspective, entering the penalty area, any contact between the defender’s leg and the ball handler, the ball handler falling over—it’s an absolute penalty.
Even if the ball carrier deliberately uses their foot to hook the defender’s foot, that’s still a penalty.
But in Europe, in football, the head referee believes if the ball carrier enters the penalty area and doesn’t have full control of the football, the extent of physical contact allowed is much greater than when you have control and the opponent challenges for the ball.
At such times, falling easily is considered a lack of your own ability to withstand challenges.
Or you enter the penalty area without any intention to attack, or you willingly fall to the ground within the normal range of challenging force, and so on.
None of these warrant a penalty decision.
So Ronaldo’s recent fall inside the penalty area qualifies as ’a penalty under the American ideology’ and also as ’a dive under the European philosophy’.
That yellow card he received was rightly deserved.
Many people debate which of these two attitudes towards the rules is superior.
These types of confrontations actually exist in every country, in every field.
’Strictly according to rules’, at first glance, appears very fair and quite persuasive.
But in fact, upon closer examination, it’s too idealistic, too vulnerable to being exploited, nothing more than a pie in the sky drawn by capitalists.
Any loophole in the rules that a normal person can exploit, a capitalist can also exploit. But while a normal person can only take advantage of it once within a certain time, capitalists can employ various means such as hiring and copying to exploit it countless times within the same period.
So who benefits more?
This semblance of fairness quickly turns into an absolute unfairness.
Therefore, on any public social platform, as time goes on and capital-backed bot accounts flood in, the voices of real users become almost nonexistent.
This is the absolute crushing of individuals by capital.
And ’subjective regulation’ appears unfair, fraught with trust issues.
But it can, to some extent, shield against the disruptions of capital, ensuring that an individual’s competitor is still an individual, which already grants ordinary people a significant opportunity.
Even if the regulators of subjectivity are corrupted by capital and engage in deception, in large-scale data, this is still a low-probability event.
It’s far better than capitalists being able to openly crush ordinary people through rule changes.
This is why in European football, memorable matches with poor officiating are numerous, whereas in American basketball, such matches seem fewer; but everyone knows that the NBA exerts far greater control over games than the top five football leagues.
That’s why many people love watching basketball when they’re young, but turn to football as they get older.
...
During the halftime break, Violante was brainstorming with the coaching staff.
They were trying to plan better ground coordination to penetrate Poland’s defense.
But Deng Kai believed this was unworkable.
The Polish defense was truly solid; ground infiltration was extremely difficult.
Moreover... the Portuguese had a better way.
"Actually... Almeida is very strong at heading the ball," Deng Kai interjected with his opinion.
The coaches looked at Deng Kai with a hint of doubt, as if to say you shouldn’t be here, you should be under the van.
You’re just a player, and this is a discussion for the coaches.
However, head coach Violante was silent, instead watching Deng Kai, indicating for him to continue.
Deng Kai went on: "There were several times in the first half when Almeida got to the ball with his head. Although the attempts weren’t of high quality, as long as he can reach the football, it’s just a matter of adjusting the angle and luck."
"Almeida is tall; even without jumping, he has a chance of winning headers."
"Ronaldo is good at jumping, and his heading skills are also pretty good."
"If the two of them can always compete for the same spot, then it will be very difficult for the opponents to defend. If they can mark one, it’s tough to mark both at the same time!"
"And in our team, there is more than one player who is good at crossing."
