What a thrill it was to watch the United States soccer team pull out a win yesterday in the final minutes of their match against Algeria. Now it’s on to the field of sixteen and a chance at destiny. However, the team’s success in the World Cup thus far has not been without controversy. In their game against Slovenia last week, they were robbed of a victory by a referee who inexplicably disallowed what should have been the team’s third goal. And in yesterday’s game the U.S. team was ripped off again through a phantom off-sides call.
For a long time I’ve been critical of the game of soccer, at least as regards how its design and rules make scoring so difficult. Now, to be clear, I do not favor higher scores in soccer just for the sake of fan satisfaction. Rather, the problem is that where there is so little scoring this amplifies the effect of bad officiating. One blown call can easily decide an outcome of a close soccer match, as we saw last week and as would have happened again yesterday were it not for Landon Donavan’s winning goal in the 91st minute.
Of course, in all sports a game can turn on a bad call by an official. And even historic accomplishments can be nullified, as was Armando Galaragga’s perfect game three weeks ago. But the point is that soccer rules and design make this far too common, much more so than in any other sport.
The saddest thing of all is that the problem could be easily solved with a simple rule change (e.g. legalize off-sides) or design change (e.g., slightly increase the goal size). But, alas, I don’t expect we’ll ever see such adjustments made, even though it would dramatically improve the sport. Not only would it make the game more interesting for viewers but it would make the game, well, more just. Sporting events should be decided by the players’ performances, not officials’ misjudgments. And until the game of soccer is somehow altered to correct for the frequency of the latter, it will remain a significantly flawed game.
Last week Amy and I were back in Chicago, this time for her best friend’s wedding. We stayed high atop the downtown Holiday Inn overlooking the Chicago River. Just outside our 17th story window an Orb Weaver spider (Araneidae family) was perched in the middle of a giant web, which we measured at 3 x 2.5 feet. Judging by the spider’s bulky appearance, s/he had managed to catch plenty of bugs way up there. Early the next morning I marveled at the massive buildings in downtown Chicago. In doing so, I looked through that Orb Weaver’s giant web, and then it struck me. Both were magnificent feats of engineering, and they shared some of the same structural features: footings, girders, and symmetrical design. And both ultimately testify to the genius of our common Creator.
This past Memorial Day I was just as disinterested when somehow the topic of Danica Patrick came up in a conversation with Jim. I innocently raised the question of whether she was really that good and how much her looks had to do with her status in the racing community. It seemed fairly self-evident to me that her appearance (and her willingness to exploit her “assets”) had to have played a part in her prominence. I was rather surprised when Jim quickly came to her defense, touting statistics regarding her accomplishments, etc. After making a mental note to suggest he cut back a bit on his ESPN talk radio (stats about football, hockey, baseball—all acceptable, but what will come next? Men’s water polo?), I retorted that though I didn’t doubt Patrick’s talent, I just couldn’t buy that there weren’t plenty of other women out there just as talented who would never be given a chance simply because they looked better with the helmet on than off. Surely she had been given opportunities and advantages that others had been denied. Perhaps this is unfair of me, both to Patrick who is obviously skilled (though I would feel less sorry for her if she would wear that driving suit all the time rather than some of the other less modest apparel I have seen her wearing) and unfair to those who are as talented if not as attractive. But as the saying goes, “life’s not fair.”
As a woman, and now especially as my daughter’s mom, I often wrestle with the issue of appearance and the role it plays in our crooked and crazy world. When Maggie was born, I was shocked at how instinctive it was to praise her appearance. I find Jim and I both struggle to balance our compliments, following up on a “You look so pretty!” with a quick “And you are so smart!” Why is it that we can praise the Grand Canyon but blushingly we praise our daughter’s outward form which comes from the same source, the eternal outpouring of God’s own beauty? Should I feel pangs of guilt when I mull over which outfit choice to make in front of my ever-impressionable girl? 
As you watch the video, note the horse lagging at the rear for the first half of the race, some twenty lengths behind the leader. Well, that’s Mine that Bird, mounted by jockey Calvin Borel. His strategy was to lay back, hug the rail, and push hard at the end. By hugging the rail, of course, the horse has a shorter distance to run overall. But the challenge is finding a path through the tangle of horses in the homestretch. Well, Borel brilliantly guided his diminutive colt through the equine mass and finished first. Not only that, but he won handily—by almost seven lengths, the largest margin of victory in the Kentucky Derby in over sixty years!