Some defend the gamesmanship practice of accepting the consequences of misconduct, in exchange for the benefit: deliberately risking being sent off, and even missing a match, in exchange for whatever the misconduct provides. In the Uruguay/Ghana match, it deprived Ghana of the winning goal in the final, overtime seconds of the match. The subsequent kick from the mark, whether scored or missed, is irrelevant to the alleged crime.

Let’s say that a man in civilian life hates his brother-in-law more than anyone else he knows. He also knows somethings about the law. One thing he knows might be that manslaughter carries a potential penalty of three to five years in prison, and negligent homicide carries a potential penalty of five to ten years. The man now sits in his car in his open garage, with the engine running. Behind him on the driveway, his brother-in-law sits on the ground, perhaps tying a shoe. The man quickly shifts his car into reverse and runs over the brother-in-law, killing him. The man is charged with manslaughter, gets a good lawyer, and is acquitted of any crime.

If paying a proscribed penalty justifies committing a crime, than the man who kills his brother-in-law is no more guilty than the Uruguayan Suárez, according to some people’s reasoning. Of all morality is negotiable, and preset penalties constitute adequate prices to pay for any malfeasance, then no problem with two Uruguayan players standing in the goal with their hands up to block the goal.

At least in this case, “no blood; no foul.” Eh?