A slippery slope?

In what has to be considered a bizarre sort of Judgment of Solomon, FIFA has decided that the entire first leg of the playoff between Uzbekistan and Bahrain for fifth place in Asia and a spot in the playoff with CONCACAF's fourth team for a World Cup bid must be replayed after the Uzbeks complained about the results of the match, which they won 1-0 in Tashkent on Saturday. Uzbekistan maintained that they should have scored a second goal on a penalty kick that was disallowed when the referee judged that the Uzbek player taking the kick hesitated over the ball before striking it; Bahrain was subsequently awarded a free kick and managed to hold the Uzbeks off the board for the rest of the game.

Of course, this decision is likely to make Bahrain happier than Uzbekistan. As one quote in that article says, "The referee stole our second goal and now FIFA is stealing our first goal." It's hard to expect FIFA to order the game started from the 38th minute - it's rare enough that official decisions are overturned, but the only example I can think of where play was resumed from the botched call was in the bizarre incident of the Pine Tar Game. Still, where's the precedent for voiding the whole game based on a technical error? Is this it, right here?

Here's the problem, as I see it: part of sports has always been the human element, particularly in the officiating. Yes, people complain about bad calls constantly, in every sport, and bark for instant replay. But that's one thing. Sure, let's get some instant replay in there if we have to. Replaying the whole game? I know it's more important in soccer where every goal is critical, but knocking the whole game off the scoreboard? That just seems bizarre to me. And is this part of a slippery slope? Will losing teams attempt to protest now if they think they have been victimized? It's true that this particular case involves a mishandling of the rules (FIFA's rules state that if the player taking the penalty violates the rules of the game in taking the kick and scores a goal in the process, he is to retake the kick; if he misses, which the Uzbekistan player did not, the defending team gets an indirect free kick - incidentally, I saw nothing in those rules prohibiting a hesitation during a run-up), while cases like, say, Liverpool's "phantom" goal against Chelsea at Anfield in last year's CL semis involve judgment calls. Still, one suspects this judgment will open the gates for more complaints, especially from losing sides.

Botched calls have provided some of the most memorable moments in sport, particularly soccer, even if they're infuriating. Everyone has one go against them at one time or another. Calling in the world council and declaring games null and void because of an error? I don't know. Would it be as bad if the team that was hurt more by a replay was the team that already lost? Possibly not, but then I don't see how that would work. Yes, Uzbekistan asking for a 3-0 forfeit wasn't going to happen, but punishing the team that actually won? What if Bahrain turns around and wins the replay? You've punished Uzbekistan - the team that won despite the ref's mistake - for the error. That's just not good. And maybe Uzbekistan just goes out and wins 5-0 and puts it all to bed. But maybe they'll be too distracted. The fact that the possibility exists at all is a little alarming.