At the end of the Brazil-England match yesterday, the referee crossed himself Catholic-style, and Lucy disapproved.
I asked her what the problem was. I wondered if it had something to do with him compromising his neutrality. A referee should show no signs of bias. But what is an overt, public, religious gesture if not a statement of affiliation? Referees should be on the fence. Catholics aren't on the fence.
He's being partisan in a couple of ways. Firstly, in the case of yesterday's game, he was suggesting a preference for the more Catholic of the two countries. That's Brazil. They've even got a massive Jesus. The English, on the other hand, are heathens. Or - at best - mixed. Any Catholic worth his salt would be rooting for his fellow believers. He might have given Brazil a key penalty, as a way to placate their mutual God. He didn't, but he might have.
The second way that the referee was partisan was in favouring Catholicism over all of the other religions. Neutrality doesn't just apply to the teams playing on the day. It also applies to everything else. If he wanted to make a Catholic gesture, he should also have made the gestures of the other major religions: Islam (praying towards Mecca), Judaism (shrugging), Sikhism (thumbs up), Scientology (sofa-jumping), Paganism (blood sacrifice), and Hinduism (venerating cows).
If he can't do all of those things, he should be an atheist. All referees should be atheists. Rationality and objectivity are valuable attributes in an official. You don't want a referee ruling on a tricky handball decision based on superstition. You don't want a linesman refusing to adjudicate a borderline offside because it's the sabbath.
Of course, the requirements to make only evidence-based decisions would require the introduction of video replay technology. And some might argue that the scientific assessment of truth would make the game sterile, halting and lacking in unpredictability. Much like the ruthless logic of atheism makes human existence become lacking in nuance, passion, and female circumcision.
It's an interesting parallel. I suppose there's a middle ground. Goal line technology is going to be introduced, but not - or at least not yet - video replays for everything.
Similarly, atheism can play some role in regulating the idiocy of religion, but that doesn't mean we have to burn down all synagogues to make room for supercolliders.
Yes, it's an interesting parallel. Luckily, my argument has been well thought-through, and not at all meandering and contradictory. I could adapt this for the New Humanist, or FourFourTwo magazine. For money.
Also, referees should be impartial on non-religious matters, like the Coke-Pepsi debate, or whether people should tuck in their shirts. (They are allowed to have an opinion on whether Family Guy is better than The Simpsons however - we don't want them to be IDIOTS.)
This all stems from the referee's simple gesture.
But Lucy said no, it's not that. Maybe you should have let me finish before launching into that whole thing.
And I said sorry.
And she said should we be using quotation marks?
And I said no.
And she said it's not an issue of neutrality. It's one of authority.
By making the sign of the cross, the referee has tacitly implied that there is a higher power. In this case, it's some form of Christian deity. That is something a referee should never do.
If you want to officiate a football match, the buck stops with you. If a player senses that you're not entirely in control, they'll show dissent, they won't retreat the full ten yards at free kicks, and the game will descend into anarchy.
The referee - Wilmar Roldán is his name - has, by that one single gesture, abdicated responsibility. Why should we listen to him? Why should the players obey his commands? He's simply a middle man. If God is so powerful, why doesn't he referee the game? God's been around for ages. He must have refereed before. I bet he's got all the badges.
He's omnipresent too, which would mean that goal line technology would be unnecessary. You wouldn't need linesmen either. Though if you wanted to maintain the pleasant symmetry of the flags, you could enlist the Son and the Holy Ghost (the team of officials are usually all from the same country).
Roldán isn't even a priest, as far as I know.
The reasons discussed are probably why he saved his gesture for the end of the game. If he'd done it at the start - and he might have; I didn't check - all hell would have broken lose.
You'd never see an English referee doing anything so stupid. English referees are aware that, even after the final whistle, their conduct is under the microscope. To be fair, Graham Poll did once do the pretending-to-pull-off-your-own-thumb illusion. But on that occasion, both teams were composed of wizards.
Hand gestures may seem insignificant, but look how long this blog post has been.
I hope Wilmar Roldán never referees another professional football match.
After this rant, Lucy paused and took a drink of water. She was quite worked up.
Or it might have been me. It's difficult to remember these little details. In fact, it might not have been the sign of the cross that the referee did; he might have been signalling for someone to collect the corner flags.
But the point remains
