Goalkeepers are the most protected species in soccer, and often for good reason. But long gone are the days when heavyweight forwards could get away with battering 'keepers during corner kicks and free kicks.
![]( "Dangerous: Germany's Harald Schumacher knocked out France's Patrick Battiton's teeth and left him unconscious during their 1982 World Cup semifinals. To add insult to injury, Schumacher was not penalised. AFP")
Sometimes, however, that protectiveness can go too far.
It happened over the last weekend, when Aldo Simoncini, the goalie of San Marino, recklessly charged off his line. He hit England winger Theo Walcott so late and so high with his bodycheck that Walcott spent the night in a hospital. Walcott was lucky that the damage appears to be no more than a bruised lung, which might keep him out of action for two weeks.
Simoncini was more than lucky that the referee gave no foul, no penalty and no red card for dangerous play.
Aldo Junior Simoncini, trained as an accountant, is his republic's goalie because nobody else fancies his thankless task of picking the ball out of the net more often than any other keeper in the world.
His country, an enclave surrounded by Italy, boasts a few more than 32,000 people, and if all of them had attended the game last Friday, they would barely have filled a third of Wembley Stadium in London.
Theo James Walcott is unquestionably faster than any player Simoncini has played against.
Simoncini is not a high-quality keeper. His timing -- and not just in that hit on Walcott -- tells you that.
We should accept that he is not a malicious person, and his contrition after he came out of his goal looked genuine enough.
His foot was high when he barged with his body into Walcott's chest, knocking the breath out of the Englishman. It triggered memories of Germany's Harald Schumacher, who knocked the teeth and the consciousness out of France forward Patrick Battiston in a 1982 World Cup semifinal.
The common factor was reckless disregard for an opponent's welfare. The response of FIFA referees has not changed a great deal in 30 years. Back in '82, the Dutch referee Charles Corver awarded West Germany a goal kick, and he failed to penalize Schumacher in any way. On Friday, the Lithuania match official Gediminas Mazeika gave a throw-in after play was stopped for five minutes so Walcott could be treated.
My view in '82 - and that has not altered, even after reviewing video replay of the incident this weekend - was that there was foul intent in Schumacher's assault on Battiston. It was a head-on bodycheck, long after the ball had passed him, and had it happened on the street, there would have been criminal charges.
Corver, one of the world's leading match officials, was later quoted as saying: "Looking back at the footage, you can see I was standing in line with both players. I watched the ball. When I consulted my Scottish linesman, Robert Valentine, he told me nothing had happened. Now I can see that it is a nasty foul."
Too late... 30 years too late. Germany won the semifinal, Battiston eventually recovered from spinal damage, and justice was lost.
Fast forward to Friday, and the San Marinese goalie's rash challenge. Quite likely, the referee, who these days is wired for sound to his assistant, gave Simoncini the benefit of the doubt because he is a part-time player who got his timing hopelessly wrong.
But why no penalty? Why no red card for dangerous play? Why should violence causing actual harm be condoned? There might be two conclusions: One that Mazeika was not up to the job, and the other was that he made allowances for a goalkeeper who was out of his depth, given the quickness of the opponent. If it was the latter, then the FIFA-registered match official failed to put the health of players first. If FIFA approves of such mistimed lunges during such mismatches of its own making, then the sport might as well be taekwondo.
England won the contest, 5-0. Walcott didn't know it at first, because he was in a hospital for observation. And the goalie? He was shown a yellow card 30 minutes later, when he again rushed off his line and brought down Danny Welbeck for a penalty that opened the scoring.
The second foul was nowhere near as dangerous as the first. His job is thankless because in the 28 matches he has played for San Marino, he has always been a loser and has conceded 119 goals.
Accountancy, if not accountability.
FIFA also has some responsibility for the inequality that brought Simoncini and Walcott together. They play the same sport, but England is ranked fifth in the world, San Marino shares 207th, and last place, with Bhutan and Turks and Caicos Islands.
The mismatch is enshrined in the policy of FIFA, and UEFA, to give the minnows every chance to be squashed in the name of progress. San Marino might argue that by playing at Wembley, and by keeping every man, bar one, garrisoned in front of their net, they did at least keep the score down when compared with a 13-0 loss they once suffered against Germany.
But they are accountants, students, bar managers and company representatives pitted against full-time multimillionaire sportsmen.
Astonishingly, the stadium was almost full last week.
Perhaps this spoke volumes for the English obsession with soccer, possibly it rewarded some astute lowering of ticket prices, or maybe the English could not resist a ritual hammering of a hapless opponent.
Sometimes, however, that protectiveness can go too far. It happened over the last weekend, when Aldo Simoncini, the goalie of San Marino, recklessly charged off his line. He hit England winger Theo Walcott so late and so high with his bodycheck that Walcott spent the night in a hospital. Walcott was lucky that the damage appears to be no more than a bruised lung, which might keep him out of action for two weeks.
Simoncini was more than lucky that the referee gave no foul, no penalty and no red card for dangerous play.
Aldo Junior Simoncini, trained as an accountant, is his republic's goalie because nobody else fancies his thankless task of picking the ball out of the net more often than any other keeper in the world.
His country, an enclave surrounded by Italy, boasts a few more than 32,000 people, and if all of them had attended the game last Friday, they would barely have filled a third of Wembley Stadium in London.
Theo James Walcott is unquestionably faster than any player Simoncini has played against.
Simoncini is not a high-quality keeper. His timing -- and not just in that hit on Walcott -- tells you that.
We should accept that he is not a malicious person, and his contrition after he came out of his goal looked genuine enough.
His foot was high when he barged with his body into Walcott's chest, knocking the breath out of the Englishman. It triggered memories of Germany's Harald Schumacher, who knocked the teeth and the consciousness out of France forward Patrick Battiston in a 1982 World Cup semifinal.
The common factor was reckless disregard for an opponent's welfare. The response of FIFA referees has not changed a great deal in 30 years. Back in '82, the Dutch referee Charles Corver awarded West Germany a goal kick, and he failed to penalize Schumacher in any way. On Friday, the Lithuania match official Gediminas Mazeika gave a throw-in after play was stopped for five minutes so Walcott could be treated.
My view in '82 - and that has not altered, even after reviewing video replay of the incident this weekend - was that there was foul intent in Schumacher's assault on Battiston. It was a head-on bodycheck, long after the ball had passed him, and had it happened on the street, there would have been criminal charges.
Corver, one of the world's leading match officials, was later quoted as saying: "Looking back at the footage, you can see I was standing in line with both players. I watched the ball. When I consulted my Scottish linesman, Robert Valentine, he told me nothing had happened. Now I can see that it is a nasty foul."
Too late... 30 years too late. Germany won the semifinal, Battiston eventually recovered from spinal damage, and justice was lost.
Fast forward to Friday, and the San Marinese goalie's rash challenge. Quite likely, the referee, who these days is wired for sound to his assistant, gave Simoncini the benefit of the doubt because he is a part-time player who got his timing hopelessly wrong.
But why no penalty? Why no red card for dangerous play? Why should violence causing actual harm be condoned? There might be two conclusions: One that Mazeika was not up to the job, and the other was that he made allowances for a goalkeeper who was out of his depth, given the quickness of the opponent. If it was the latter, then the FIFA-registered match official failed to put the health of players first. If FIFA approves of such mistimed lunges during such mismatches of its own making, then the sport might as well be taekwondo.
England won the contest, 5-0. Walcott didn't know it at first, because he was in a hospital for observation. And the goalie? He was shown a yellow card 30 minutes later, when he again rushed off his line and brought down Danny Welbeck for a penalty that opened the scoring.
The second foul was nowhere near as dangerous as the first. His job is thankless because in the 28 matches he has played for San Marino, he has always been a loser and has conceded 119 goals.
Accountancy, if not accountability.
FIFA also has some responsibility for the inequality that brought Simoncini and Walcott together. They play the same sport, but England is ranked fifth in the world, San Marino shares 207th, and last place, with Bhutan and Turks and Caicos Islands.
The mismatch is enshrined in the policy of FIFA, and UEFA, to give the minnows every chance to be squashed in the name of progress. San Marino might argue that by playing at Wembley, and by keeping every man, bar one, garrisoned in front of their net, they did at least keep the score down when compared with a 13-0 loss they once suffered against Germany.
But they are accountants, students, bar managers and company representatives pitted against full-time multimillionaire sportsmen.
Astonishingly, the stadium was almost full last week.
Perhaps this spoke volumes for the English obsession with soccer, possibly it rewarded some astute lowering of ticket prices, or maybe the English could not resist a ritual hammering of a hapless opponent.