Alessandro Bastoni: Culprit or Victim?

 

The incident which saw Inter defender Alessandro Bastoni fake being the victim of a foul during what is traditionally considered Italy’s most hotly-contested soccer match - in fact it’s known as “il Derby d’Italia” -reverberated around the football world. With good reason too; it was not just a normal “diving” incident. Bastoni’s deception meant that Pierre Kalulu of Juventus, who had simply brushed against the Inter defender, was booked for a second time in the game and sent off - leaving his team with 10 men. It should have been Bastoni himself who should have been yellow-carded for simulation and then dismissed, having already been booked previously in the game.

Before I continue, a disclaimer - or clarification, if you will. I have no pretence to objectivity; I have been a Juve supporter for the past 65 years: staunch, die-hard, rabid even. I try to plan my week around televised Juve matches, which I like to watch entirely on my own for many reasons, mainly to feel free to give vent to my emotions without disturbing anyone - and to minimise the chances of compulsory psychiatric admission. End of digression.

Inter went on to win 3-2 with a goal in the dying minutes of regular time, thus ending Juventus’ (already very slim) hopes of winning the Italian championship and jeopardising their chances of an eventual top 4 finish in the league, a placing which would ensure participation in the European Champions League next season.

What riled - and indeed shocked - football fans around the world was not the deception itself (a tragically common occurrence in modern-day football), but that, on seeing the referee brandish the red card at the hapless and blameless Kalulu, Bastoni most insensitively rejoiced almost as if he had scored a winning goal. While Kalulu was desperately trying to point out to Signor La Penna that he had not violated any football rule in any way, Bastoni was ostentatiously celebrating the successful outcome of a dirty trick.

Bastoni’s behaviour can be seen as a criminal act: the possibility that Juve will lose out on Champions League participation cannot be completely ruled out. In financial terms, that could entail the loss of more than 60 million euros next year, with a ripple effect of repercussions in the near future. Worse than that, for both Kalulu and Juventus, misfortune will pile upon injustice: the rules state he will have to be suspended for at least one match due to the expulsion, unjust though it undoubtedly was. This season he has not missed one single minute of play and contributed two goals.

So there are multiple victims to sympathise with: Pierre Kalulu, Juventus, their fans - and, I submit, Alessandro Bastoni himself. Watch your language; I’ll explain myself.

Technically speaking, Bastoni is undoubtedly an excellent footballer. At 26 he is a regular not only with Inter but also with the national team and is widely regarded as one of the best central defenders in the world. He is highly experienced, having played a grand total of 321 games with Serie A teams and 41 with Italy as a senior.

What prompts a successful player like Bastoni to behave the way he did against Juventus? His personality most certainly has a great deal to do with this, and he has to bear responsibility for his despicable behaviour. Any mature, thinking person would, at the very least, have felt a degree of remorse when it became clear his/her devious actions would result in serious, unjust repercussions on another person. He celebrated as if he had just scored a winning goal.

Does personality on its own suffice to explain behaviour? Almost certainly not. Behaviour patterns are shaped and moulded within a social environment which creates priorities, models and a system of reward and punishment (through social approval/disapproval, among other things). This holds for football as much as it does for any other human activity.

Needless to say, football culture, in turn, relates to the wider society and absorbs and reflects, but also modifies, amplifies or contracts its norms and attitudes. When we shake our heads and purse our lips in disapproval, or disdain, or even shock at the behaviour on the football pitch or on the terraces are we not, in fact, simply zeroing in on just one aspect of the society we have created and form part of?

The drunken, foul-mouthed hooligan in the stands, the butcher on the field who stretchers off a more technically-gifted opponent, the cunningly devious player who crafts the expulsion of an innocent opponent and cheats the opposition of the possibility of victory (with all its attendant perks) are probably not essentially different from many of us. In a different context, could we not also behave atrociously and damage political or business opponents and but shrug it off as inevitable in a dog-eat-dog world?  That’s politics, that’s business, that’s life.

 

Seen in this light, Bastoni’s behaviour becomes more understandable, though never acceptable. He’s part of a world which exalts, nay, deifies, victory and places all else at its disposal. Morality becomes an unnecessary hindrance, often paid lip-service to for the sake of appearances,  but in reality disregarded, if not derided. In football, as much is in other aspects of life.

As a Juve fan, when witnessing Bastoni’s cynical deception, I was shocked, angered, dismayed - and a whole thesaurus entry of similar adjectives. For a brief moment, I could have strangled him. A week later, despite the probable ripple-effect on my favourite team’s fortunes of that piece of trickery, I think I understand that Bastoni’s behaviour is also the effect of stronger forces which, moulded in the forge of personality factors and mediated by his free decision, produced that abominable behaviour which will not be forgotten for a long time.

The fact that strong social forces were at play does not diminish the Inter defender’s responsibility. Nor does it excuse his club’s failure to forcefully condemn their player’s behaviour rather than making half-baked statements that focus more on past incidents in which Inter were the presumed victims.

That, tragically, the rules do not allow for punishment in these instances only compounds the negativitity of the situation . Whatever the degree of impingement of social forces on footballers’ behaviour, responsibility has to be shouldered and consequences borne. It is also through visible individual initiatives that cultural changes can start to take place.

Bastoni is a most unlikely victim in the situation, although it has to be borne in mind that he operates within a strong culture of victory-at-all-costs, just like the rest of society, which often values technical success above all other considerations. However, unless we somehow manage to bring about change at the core, similar incidenst will continue to occur. The ultimate loser will be sporting ideal itself.

Driven Mad?

Three serious car accidents within the space of a few days. Two people dead, one very critically injured, and at least one person escaping death or very serious injury only through God’s grace or extreme good fortune.  In all three cases the drivers were reportedly under the influence of alcohol, or to put it more technically correctly, had moderate to very high amounts of alcohol in their blood as measured by breathalyser.

No wonder one of the major talking-points over the past few days has been the regulation of drink-driving and enforcement of the prevailing legislation.

Malta was one of the last countries in Europe to introduce proper laws regulating drink driving. It was only in the mid-90s that the Government responded to the requests and promptings mainly from  addiction operatives and health officials and announced it was planning the enactment of legislation which would establish a permissible amount of alcohol in the blood, introduce the use of the breathalyser and lay down appropriate penalties for infractions.

Initially government’s  intentions were to establish a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 100mgs per decilitre of blood - the highest in Europe at the time. I very clearly remember the then Prime Minister, Eddie Fenech Adami, visiting Dar iż-Żerniq (which, at the time, housed sedqa’s Alcohol Services) a few months before the 1996 elections. We fiercely remonstrated with him about this. His response was that government had been advised that a couple of beers would push up the limit to close to that level - which is quite wrong.

The law was eventually passed - by Alfred Sant’s government in 1998. It established a permitted BAC of 80mgs of alcohol/deciltre of blood with a fine of  for those found guilty of exceeding that amount. The driving licence would be suspended, but, disappointingly, only if the blood level exceeded 100mg/deciltre. Most frustratingly of all for those of us who believed that only strong measures would have a substantial effect on the number of alcohol-related incidents and deaths, the law did not allow random testing of drivers, but limited it to situations where the police had “reasonable suspicion’’ that the person at the wheel was under the influence.

The level of alcohol allowed by the law was still the highest in Europe; only the UK and Ireland permitted similar levels. Worse still, generally speaking, official attitudes towards drink-driving were quite lackadaisical at the time. One high-ranking police officer reassured the nation on TV that the enactment of this law did not mean the police would be testing people who were driving home from weddings. In Parliament, similarly complacent attitudes were expressed during the debate about the legislation: it appears that the message which was being passed on to drivers was “Don’t worry if you have a drink or two before you drive. The law will only come hard on those who truly overdo it’’ .

Over the years, agencies and health officials campaigned for changes in the legislation. Possibly as a result, in 2009 the fine for a first drink-driving offence was upped to a more acceptable €1200 and refusing a breathalyser test became an offence equivalent to testing positive - and incurring the same penalties.

Since then the law has changed further: most recently, the allowable amount was lowered to 50mgs for most drivers and to 20mgs to “novice drivers’’ and drivers of commercial vehicles. No amount of alcohol is allowable in the case of drivers of vehicles carrying fee-paying passengers. The fine for a first drink-driving offence had in the meantime risen to €1800, while a second or subsequent offence would set back the offending driver €3000. The driving licence is to be suspended for 6 months and 12 months respectively. Nowadays points are deducted for each driving infraction.

In all cases involving drink-driving, the Magistrate MAY sentence the miscreant to probation order including a rehab programme or Community Service, but only if the BAC is considerably higher than the limits permitted by law.

The law as it currently stands has some serious flaws, primary among which is its failure to allow the police unfettered discretion to carry out breathalyser tests. This deficiency, pointed out by agencies and NGOs in 1998 when the original law was enacted has never been corrected. One possible reason for the failure to address this defect in the law was the mistaken belief, held by Government consultants, that European courts could strike any such legal provision down on the grounds that it violated human rights. Many EU countries including The Netherlands, Denmark and Cyprus (to mention but three) empower the police to stop drivers and test them at random.

If we truly wish to cut down on drink-driving deaths and serious injuries, we should adopt a stricter approach to the prevention of drink driving:

1. Lower the BAC to 20mgs for general driving purposes and to 0mgs for novice drivers, drivers of commercial vehicles and drivers of vehicles with fee-paying passengers. Yes, the plan is to pave the way for eventually totally prohibiting the presence of alcohol in the blood of those at the wheel of all sorts of vehicles. The only truly safe amount of alcohol in the blood in the context of driving is 0mgs. 

2. Introduce - and actually implement - unfettered, random stopping and testing through breathalyser.

3. Introduce mandatory testing through breathalyser when accidents (including minor collisions) occur.

4. Enforce legislation thoroughly and ruthlessly. One need not wait until the current legislation is amended. At present police may (and indeed do at times) stop drivers at random for certain purposes ( to check driving licences, for example) and test them if they show signs (smell, slurred speech, erratic driving) of being under the influence. Around New Year's Eve the police mount an impressively efficient operation which based on random stopping but suspicion-based testing as allowed by law, which has seen the number of deaths during Yuletide go down considerably compared to, say, the previous decade.

A similar exercise a few times a year, publicising the number of people apprehended and making sure that arraignments and sentences are splashed all over the media, would drive the fear of God (well the fear of legal consequences) in many drivers and considerably reduce the number of casualties.

5.  Do away with the automatic restoration of licences once the period of suspension is over. Licences will be given back only the if the offending driver has undergone an assessment by a recognised alcohol agency which rules out  a serious current drinking problem and can recommend treatment.

6. A third (or subsequent) infraction of the drink-driving rules should result in a mandatory (i.e.not left to the Magistrate’s discretion) prison sentence.

7. All these measures should apply also to sea-craft.

Draconian? Only if the much-vaunted respect for human life is in reality so many impressively lofty, but ultimately empty, platitudes.

29

It-telefonata kienet waħda minn dawk li bħalha konna nirċievu ta’ sikwit: kollega minn sedqa, jaħdem fil-kamp tad-droga, ċempilli biex jgħidli li kien jaf raġel li kellu problema tax-xorb u xtaq jagħmel xi ħaġa fuqha. Ċempiltlu u ftehemna li kellu jiġi Dar iż-Żerniq, il-Furjana xi jumejn wara filgħaxija.

Dik il-ħabta ma kellniex domanda qawwija wisq għas-servizzi tagħna. Kien ilna sena li ftaħna Dar iż-Żerniq u l-programm residenzjali ftit li xejn kien qed jiġbed nies. Kontinwament bit-tensjoni tal-mannara mdendla fuq rasna: jekk ma kinux se jiżdiedu r-residenti l-programm kienu se jagħlquhulna. Għall-programm kommunitarju, li ma kienx jeħtieġ li dak li jkun isir resident, kellna talba kontinwa, anke jekk mhux li tista’ ssejħilha sfiqa. Imma kważi ħadd ma ried jidħol resident u l-ftit li kienu  jidħlu kienu jagħmlu hemm jekk mhux mill-Milied sa San Stiefnu, mill-Milied sal-Istrina, jew l-aktar l-aktar sat-Trere. Kull klijent ġdid konna nivvalutawh sew bit-tama li nsibu li kien se jkun addattat (u mixtieq) għall-programm residenzjali.

A. , minn daqshekk, kien ta’diżappunt. Il-personalità f’postha, pulit u edukat, familja li tidher stabbli minkejja li x-xorb tiegħu kiddha mhux ħażin, ma kellux problema fuq ix-xogħol minħabba l-alkoħol u kien lest li jipprova kulma nissuġġerulu. Deher li l-programm residenzjali ma kienx jgħodd għalih. Iddeċidejna li għall-inqas nibdew bil-programm kommunitarju, imbagħad jekk ma jirnexxix nikkunsidraw ir-residenza.

Ma kienx hemm wisq dubju li kellu problema ta’ dipendenza serja: jixrob kuljum, sa flixkun u nofs whisky, minkejja t-tgergir ma jaqta’ xejn tal-mara u r-reazzjoni tat-tfal li, b’imġibthom kienu juru lil missierhom li xejn ma kienu kuntenti bix-xorb tiegħu. Filgħaxija, kif imur lura d-dar kemxejn imxengel u lsienu tqil, u jsib atmosfera li xejn ma tilqgħu, bis-solennità kollha kien iwiegħed lilu nnifsu li l-alkoħol daqhekk miss ma xuftejh. U l-wegħda dejjem żammha...sa  nofsinhar tal-għada filgħodu. Imbagħad il-kilba li tiġi mid-drawwa, daqskemm mill-ħtieġa taċ-ċelloli tal-ġisem li jassorbu dik is-sustanza li kienet saret taħjihom u tirvinahom fl-istess ħin, kienet tiġbdu lejn il-ħanut biex ‘’nieħu tnejn u nitlaq’’ – u jibqa’ mwaħħal mas-siġġu sakemm ilegleg flixkun whisky f’sagħtejn u nofs.

Għax ix-xorb hekk għal min hu alkoħoliku: bexxaqlu l-bieb pulzier u jidħol bil-ħalel waqt grigalata. Tih nofs difer u jiblagħlek ġismek kollu –  u ruħek u moħħok ukoll.

Fil-għaxija, dritt mix-xogħol, is-seba’ visti: ħwienet, il-Każin tan-Nazzjonalisti, il-Każin tal-Labour (ix-xorb ma jagħrafx kuluri), il-Każin tal-Banda. Imbagħad, xħin l-istonku ma jkunx baqagħlu wisa’ għall-grokk ieħor, jerħilha lejn id-dar...

Fil-familja li trabba fiha x-xorb kien ta’ ġewwa: missieru u erbgħa minn ħutu s-subien kienu jixorbu bil-kbir; tnejn minnhom mietu minħabba l-effetti tal-alkoħol. Minn ċkunitu trabba bl-inbid. Meta ġie għandna għall-għajnuna kellu 56 sena - u kien ilu jixrob bil-goff aktar minn 30.

Kien t-tfal li kkonvinċewh ikellem lill-ħabib tagħhom li kien jaħdem sedqa. Aċċetta għax, fil-fond ta’ qalbu, ma setax jiżgiċċa l-verità li - la kien jibda u ma jieqaf b’xejn u diffiċli ħafna biex ma jibdiex avolja x-xorb kien qed jaqlagħlu l-inkwiet fil-familja  – kellu problema. U problema serja.

Beda jattendi l-laqgħat tagħna darbtejn, ġieli tlieta, fil-ġimgħa. Il-mara tiegħu li kienet ilha għaxriet tas-snin tbati minħabba x-xorb tiegħu -  u li sa membri tal-familja tiegħu stess kienu jħeġġuha biex titilqu – appoġġatu bis-sħiħ u kienet tmur miegħu għal-laqgħat kollha. Hi stess irrealizzat li dawn kien qed jgħinu liha wkoll biex tifhem li żewġha kien marid u li l-uniku “fejqan”kien li jitgħallem jgħix mingħajr xorb.

Għall-bidu A. kellu l-ħsieb li wara ftit jerġa jibda jixrob “bħan-nies”. It-terapisti u sħabu l-alkoħoliċi tal-grupp malajr fehmuh li min inħakem mill-alkoħoliżmu ma jista’ jixrob xejn.  Beda jara b’għajnejh dawk li webbsu rashom u ppruvaw jikkontrollaw daħlu f‘baħar ta’ inkwiet, u ġieli qabdu t-triq li wasslithom fil-qabar. U rrealizza li għalih mogħdija waħda kien hemm: dik li għal lum ma jixrobx. U għada jagħmel l-istess...

Minn dak il-jum li A. rifes l-għatba ta’ Dar iż-Żerniq għall-ewwel darba għaddew 26 sena. Ma missx qatra ma xufftejh. Inkwiet kellu – u serju: mard gravi ta’ membri tal-familja; attakk tal-qalb li kważi bagħtu għand il-Mulej u traġedja kerha li kexkxet lil Malta ħasdet il-ħajja ta’ membru ieħor tal-familja.Darba, waqt munemt ta’ tensjoni u dwejjaq minħabba waħda minn dawn is-sitwazzjonijiet, qabad it-triq lejn il-ħanut li bil-ħsieb li jmur jixrob, imma eżatt qabel wasal, irrealizza li bix-xorb ma kien se jsolvvi xejn – u dar lura. Dawk is-sigħat li qatta’ fil-grupp, jgħid tiegħu,  jisma’ u  jixtarr, servew biex daħħal f’moħħu l-idea li bix-xorb tkabbar il-problemi mhux issewwihom. U fil-mument tal-prova, l-għarfien jaf jisboq it-tentazzjoni.

Sal-biraħtlula stess attenda l-laqgħa tagħna l-Furjana. Meta tistaqsih għaliex, wara disgħa u għoxrin sena, għadu sal-lum jattendi, iwieġbek li jaf li jekk ma jfakkarx lilu u jsaħħaħx lilu nnifsu kapaċi jgħaxxaqha. Ra ħafna, li anke wara snin weqfin u b’ħajjithom għaddejja sew, bdew jaħsbu li kapaċi jfendu mingħar l-appoġġ u żgarraw. Fuq kollox, li tinvesti siegħa u nofs darba jew darbtejn fil-ġimgħa biex iżżomm ħajtek fis-sod, huwa sagrifiċċju żgħir.

Bil-waqfien mix-xorb A. kiseb ħafna – u ma jridx jarmih. Saħħtu, il-familja magħquda li tħobbu u tridu fejn qabel kienet tiskartah, ħbieb li jirrispettawh, l-opportunità li jgħin lil ħaddieħor bil-kelma u bl-eżempju – qed jgħix ħajja li sitta u għoxrin sena ilu lanqas biss kien jazzarda joħlom li għad ikollu. Martu, kwieta, umli, imma soda daqs l-azzar, għandha mertu kbir fil-kisbiet tiegħu. Flimkien għamlu vjaġġ minn post ta’  għawġ u tensjoni għal fejn qegħdin illum: kuntentissimi b’ħajjithom u  bl-għaqda ta’ bejniethom.

Mhux veru li min jitwieled tond ma jmutx kwadru. Bid-deċiżjoni u bl-appoġġ isiru l-bidliet profondi. Seħibna A. huwa xhieda qawwija ta’ dan.

 

The Noble Experiment

Try and envisage this scenario: Parliament enacts legislation prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale and barter of all alcoholic drinks in Malta and Gozo with almost immediate effect. What would you think would happen? Civil strife instigated by the Paceville business community, perhaps? A sudden dramatic increase in demand for professional alcohol treatment services? A sizeable upsurge in the unemployment figures? Certainly life would be very different compared to what it is like today. Alcohol is so much part of us that to try and erase it from daily living in any Western country would be unthinkable, no?

Well not quite unthinkable.  That is precisely what happened in the United States of America just over a century ago. In January 1920 the American Constitution was amended in such a way as to render all transactions involving alcohol together with its manufacture illegal.

The reasons for Prohibition are easy to pinpoint: for decades, an anti-alcohol movement, known as the Temperance Movement had been growing from strength to strength as it appeared evident that alcohol consumption was associated with, nay, directly responsible for, much anti-social behaviour: drunkenness, neglect of families, murder, violence, absenteeism from work....you name it. This sort of behaviour flourished, according to the Temperance Movement - and few could have realistically contradicted it -  precisely because it was fuelled by the demon drink in those dens of iniquity known as saloons, with which many American towns were teeming.

Common sense and a growing body of what appeared to be scientific evidence pointed to the fact that the eradication of drinking would be accompanied by a dramatic decrease in social and human problems.

For thirteen long years, Prohibition ruled...at least on the legal level. In reality, probably because it was imposed on a nation which was never convinced of its validity, and, in any case, was not prepared to accept it, Prohibition did not meet its objectives. While alcohol consumption did fall dramatically, especially in the initial period, the problematic behaviour Prohibition was supposed to eradicate actually increased. Criminals organised themselves into efficient providers of the alcohol people were desperately seeking and prepared to pay good money for. The American Mafia was born at this time, and thrived on the strong demand for illegal alcohol Prohibition created. Because spirits are less bulky than beer, it was easier to smuggle and manufacture whisky and other spirits illegally, and former beer drinkers switched to sprits, thus probably consuming more alcohol. 

The whole atmosphere of illegality surrounding drinking bred violence (for example, among rival gangs vying for control of the industry), which resulted in a higher rate of murders than in the pre-Prohibition area. There was no official control of standards, and  the quality of alcohol drunk was in many cases abysmal, with people dying as a result.

By the early thirties, it was evident that the ‘noble experiment’ had failed miserably. Alcohol was simply too deeply-rooted in the national psyche for any attempt to force abstinence upon people to succeed. In all probability, the sceptical political class itself was not prepared to back the initiative the whole way by providing the necessary resources to enforce Prohibition, and to educate the public in the ways of abstinence. In December 1933, America heaved a collective sigh of relief and reached for a legal celebratory glass of champagne as the by then infamous legislation which had brought legal Prohibition into being was repealed.

Il-Patt Imxajtan

Ħamsin sena ilu, it-Tazza tad-Dinja tal-futbol saret il-Ġermanja. Kienet l-edizzjoni li tibqa’ minquxa fl-imħuħ tad-dilettanti għaliex fiha stampaw  ruħhom  fil-memorjia ix-xbihat ta’ total football li kienet bellhitna bih l-Olanda. Qatt ma konna rajna qabel il-ballun jinlagħab b’tant  fluwidità, sens ta’ spazju, eleganza u aggressjoni. Anke jekk l-Olanda (inġustament, fil-fehma tiegħi) tilfet il-final mal-Ġermanja, wara dik l-edizzjoni tat-Tazza tad-Dinja, il-futbol ma baqax l-istess: elementi tas-sistema Olandiża infilsaw ruħhom fit-tattiċi u l-ideat tal-futbol ta’ ħafna timijiet,  Ewropej u mhumiex.

Imma, għadni nibda u diġà bdejt inħuf iżżejjed fl-isqaqien tal-memorja. Għalija u għal sħabi - kellna bejn wieħed u ieħor 19-il sena - kien żmien ta’ akkaniżmu bla tarf għat-timijiet “tagħna”: l-Italja, l-Ingilterra, il-Brażil u (għal xi ftit) il-Ġermanja tal-Punent. Konna lesti nagħmlu ħafna għalihom - u biex naraw l-avversarji batuti u umiljati.  Imma wieħed mill-akbar ħbieb tiegħi wasal - anke jekk biċ-ċajt - iktar ‘il bogħod minn fejn konna normalment naslu.

Waħda mil-logħbiet tal-ewwel round kienet Italja - Haiti, bit-Taljani (il-finalisti tal-edizzjoni ta’ qabel fil-Messiku) naturalment favoriti kbar għar-rebħa ma’ tim mingħajr l-ebda tradizzjoni fil-futbol dinji. Ma nafx jekk kinitx il-konnessjoni bejn Haiti u l-voodoo li kebbsitlu  l-ħsieb, imma dan l-imbierek ta’ ħabib tiegħi - iffissat fuq l-Ingliżi u, allura, ‘’għadu’’ maħluf tat-Taljani - ftit sigħat qabel il-logħba fettillu, biex jiċċajta, jibda jgħid “O Satana, noffrilek ruħi jekk jirbħu Haiti’’.

Fl-ewwel half is-superjorità tat-Taljani kienet ċara imma ma ħallietx frott. Minkejja players tal-kwalità ta’ Facchetti, Mazzola, Rivera u Riva, it-Taljani rmew iċ-ċansijiet li ħolqu u ma skorjaw l-ebda gowl. Anzi, kellu jkun il-goalkeeper Zoff li f’mument minnhom salvahom b’intervent pjuttost diffiċli u spettakolari wara xutt angolat minn barra l-kaxxa ta’ Vorbe.

Mal-ftuħ tat-tieni half il-gowl wasal... imma mhux fejn kien mistenni. Emmanuel Sanon, is-centre forward xellugi ta’ Haiti ġera għal pass fit-tul, antiċipa lil Luciano Spinosi, dar mal-goalkeeper Dino Zoff u ħawwel il-ballun fix-xibka. It-Taljani nfixlu, hekk kif it-tikira tal-umiljazzjoni mal-Korea ta’ Fuq ta’ tmien snin qabel bdiet tilgħab ma’ moħħhom.

U sieħbi? Kien qed jara kollox id-dar fuq it-TV abjad u iswed, jiċċelebra bi tbissima sodisfatta fuq wiċċu. Sanon kien tah ferħa kbira.

Imbagħad ftakar fil-wegħda li kien għamel.

It-tbissima għebet u l-ferħ inbidel f’ansjetà. Sieħbi raġel sewwa ħafna u lanqas qatt jgħaddilu minn moħħu li jidħol f’xi patt max-xitan biex jikseb xi ġid materjali. Kien jaf li dak li qal kien biċ-ċajt. Imma kien jaf ukoll li Satana , għalkemm rinomat għal ħafna kwalitajiet, mhux magħruf għas-sens ta’ umoriżmu.

Qalbu ttaqtaq kompla jara l-logħba, bla ma qal xejn lil ħadd. “Għall-ewwel u l-uniku darba f’għomri għamilt nofs logħba nżomm mat-Taljani - u nixtieqhom jirbħu’’, kien qalli meta ltqajna ftit jiem wara.

Għall-grazzja tal-ħanin Alla, wara xi seba’ minuti, Gianni Rivera ġab id-draw - u l-ansjetà tal-ħabib tiegħi battiet xi ftit, għalkemm il-biża’ li dak l-indemonjat ta’ Sanon, jew xi ħadd minn sħabu, jerġa jiskorja, hemm baqgħet. Imbagħad Romeo Benetti fajjar xutt minn barra l-kaxxa, il-ballun ħabat ma’ sieq difensur tal-Haiti, u għeleb lill-goalkeper.

Sieħbi ħa nifs ‘il ġewwa, imma ma kienx qabel is-79 minuta li seta’ jikkalma tista’ tgħid għal kollox. Pietro Anastasi, il-payer Taljan favorit tiegħi (u, għal ftit minuti, il-favorit anke ta’ sieħbi) li kien daħal minflok Giorgio Chinaglia, skorja t-tielet gowl u ssiġġilla r-rebħa Taljana, ferraħ miljuni ta’ Taljani u eżorċizza kważi kompletament l-inkwiet ta’ żagħżugħ bilqiegħda quddiem it-TV b’belt f’Malta. F’dawk iċ-ċirkostanzi Anastasi probabbli kien effettiv aktar milli kien ikun Patri Elija, Alla jaħfirlu.

It-Taljani dik il-partita rebħuha imma ma għalihom ma kinitx Tazza tad-Dinja feliċi. Kienu ġew draw mal-Arġentina u tilfu mal-Polonja, ir-rivelazzjoni ta’ dik l-edizzjoni u li kellhom jispiċċaw it-tielet. M’għaddewx għat-tieni round minħabba d-differenza fil-gowls.

Min-naħa tiegħu, Emmanuel Sanon mar tajjeb ħafna f’dik il-kompetizzjoni. Barra l-gowl memorabbli kontra l-Italja, kien skorja gowl ieħor fit-telfa kontra l-Arġentina (1-4). Fi kliem ieħor iż-żewġ gowlijiet ta’ Haiti f’dik it-Tazza tad-Dinja skurjahom hu. Wara mar jilgħab ma’ Beerschot fil-Belgju u anke rebaħ it-Tazza tal-Belġju magħhom. Wara li rtira taha għall-coaching u anke wasal biex imexxi t-team Nazzjonali Haitjan. Miet qasir il-għomor wara marda qerrieda.

Sieħbi baqa’ jħobb ħafna l-football , u minn dak iż-żmien sal-lum segwa eluf ta’ partiti fuq it-TV. Anke lit-Taljani rahom jilagħbu min jaf kemm-il darba, imma nqiegħed rasi taħt mannara li qatt aktar ma għaddielu l-iċken ħsieb li jagħmel xi wegħda oħra.

Sakranazz bir-Raġġiera?

Xi xhur ilu, f'dan il-blogg kont ktibt artikolett  fuq il-qaddisin patruni ta’ dawk li qed iħabbtu wiċċhom ma’ problemi ta’ dipendenza. Kien hemm min, bir-raġun, irrimarka li - fejn jidħol ix-xorb - minn dawk il-qaddisin li ssemmew, ma kienx hemm wieħed li hu wieħed li jista’ jitqies bħala ‘ta’ żmienna’.

Fil-fatt, fil-waqt li tassew ma naf bl-ebda qaddis kanonizzat ta’ dawn l-aħħar sekli li nistgħu ngħidu fiċ-ċert li kien alkoħoliku, jista’ jkun li fi żmien mhux daqshekk ’il bogħod ikollna qaddis li mingħajr ebda dubju kellu problema serjissima ta’ dipendenza mix-xorb u li miet inqas minn 100 sena ilu. Qed ngħid għal Matt Talbot.

Matt Talbot mhux xi isem li jidwi sikwit fil-kmamar isiru laqgħat bħal tagħna. Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar l-approċċ tagħna huwa sekulari, u ma tantx nidħlu la f’reliġjon u lanqas (b’xorti ħażina) fi spiritwalitá.  Lanqas fid-diskursati li jkollna mal-ħbieb tagħna ta’ l-Alkoħoliċi Anonimi, qatt ma naf li ssemma ismu. Imma fl-ambjenti tal-kura għall-alkoħoliżmu fl-Irlanda u fl-Amerika ta’ Fuq, l-iktar meta fost alkoħoliċi Kattoliċi Matt Talbot huwa magħruf mhux ħażin.

Matt Talbot twieled f’naħa mill-ifqar ta’ Dublin fl-1856. Missieru kien jixrob bil-goff u, anki minħabba f’hekk il-familja ta’ Matt kienet nieqsa minn ħafna affarijiet. Skola mar għal sena waħda biss, u ta’ 12-il sena beda jaħdem ġo fabbrika tal-birra. Beda jixrob il-fdalijiet mill-qiegħ tal-fliexken u ta’ sittax-il sena taha għall-wiski. Sakemm kellu 28 sena x-xorb ħakimlu ħajtu għal kollox: kien jonfoq kull ma kellu fuqu, u kien dejjem bid-dejn. Kellu jirhan il-ħwejjeġ u ż-żarbun. Ma kellu l-ebda interess jew passatemp, ħlief ix-xorb. Wara x-xogħol dritt għall-ħanut, u wara għad-dar imlaħlaħ, xurban jew fis-sakra. Biex jipprova jlaħħaq ma’ l-ispejjeż tax-xorb, għamel żmien jaħdem barrani ma’ tverna u kull ma kien jaqla’ kien jonfqu minnufih fix-xorb hemm stess. Meta ma jkollux flus, kien jittallab ix-xorb jew ifittex li ‘jirkeb’ lil xi ħadd. Taha għas-serq u darba seraq vjolin ta’ raġel għama.

M’hemmx fiex titfixkel: Matt Talbot kien alkoħoliku. Darba mar fil-ħanut tas-soltu u qagħad barra jistenna li sħabu joffrulu jixrob. Uħud minnhom ma tawx kasu, u l-oħrajn kemm sellmulu u baqgħu għaddejjin. Ħadha bi kbira ħafna, għax deherlu li hu dejjem kien jaħseb fihom meta kien ikollu l-flus. Telaq lura lejn id-dar imriegħex u b’qalbu maqsuma. Intebah kemm kemm ix-xorb kien jassru, u qatagħha li kien se jagħmel ‘il-Wegħda’. Il-‘Wegħda’ kienet kelma solenni li kienet tittieħed quddiem qassis li dak li jkun ma kienx bi ħsiebu jixrob. Ried jagħmel il-‘Wegħda’ għal għomru, imma l-qassis ipperswadieh jagħmilha għal 3 xhur.

Wara x-xogħol flok il-ħanut, beda jmur jimxi. Darba minnhom għadda minn ħdejn ħanut tax-xorb u r-riħa tal-birra ħawditu u tah attakk tal-lublieba. Daħal, imma min kien qiegħed iservi ma tax kasu. Għal darb’oħra ħassu umiljat, u bewweġ ’il barra u baqa’ sejjer dritt ġo knisja tal-Ġiżwiti, u għamel wegħda oħra miegħu innifsu – li ma jżommx aktar flus fuqu.

Beda jidħol fil-knejjes spiss, mhux tant biex jitlob imma biex jistrieħ għal kwiet waqt il-mixi. Imma bil-mod il-mod beda jitlob ’l Alla jgħinu. Biex jibqa’ sod u ma jerġax jaqa’ fix-xorb, iddeċieda li jibda jmur il-quddies kuljum u jitqarben. Fi kliem ieħor, intelaq f’idejn Setgħa Ogħla minnu. Kif għaddew it-3 xhur, tawwal il-wegħda b’6 xhur oħra u imbagħad Ta l-Kelma għal għomru.

Ħajtu nbidlet għal kollox...mhux biss qatt ma miss xorb imma beda jaħdem fuqu nnifsu, fuq il-livell spiritwali. Immudella ħajtu fuq l-eżempju tal-patrijiet Irlandiżi ta’ l-antik. Minbarra li kien jgħaddi ħin twil ħafna fit-talb u l-qari spiritwali ((kien irnexxielu jitgħallem jaqra meta kiber), kien jagħmel minn kollox biex jgħin lill-oħrajn. Dak li darba kien sakranazz, sar bniedem eżemplari, jaqdi dmiru b’tant kuxjenza li l-imgħallem tiegħu kien jiddeskrivieh bħala l-aqwa ħaddiem li kien hemm f’Dublin. Kien jinteressa ruħu fid-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema, u lil sħabu kien jgħinhom finanzjarjament. Anke l-ikel li kien jieħu miegħu fuq ix-xogħol ġieli tah lil sħabu.

Miet ta’ 69 sena b’attakk f’qalbu u ndifen f’qabar fqir. Fl-1975 il-Knisja ddikjaratu ‘Venerabbli’ , żewġ passi ‘l bogħod mill-Kanonizzazzjoni.

Ħajtu ispirat, u għadha tispira, lil ħafna alkoħoliċi li qegħdin jagħmlu li jistgħu biex jirbħu l-problemi tad-dipendenza. Illum eluf ta’ alkoħoliċi, l-aktar  fl-Istati Uniti u fil-Kanada, imorru l-‘Irtiri ta’ Matt Talbot’, immexxija minn qassisin u patrijiet - anke huma alkoħoliċi- jiex jimmeditaw fuq l-aspetti spiritwali tal-programm tal-waqfien mix-xorb. 120 sena ilu, Matt Talbot kien diġa għaraf li jekk trid toħroġ mill-problemi tax-xorb trid tibdel ħajtek mill-egħruq, trawwem valuri sodi, ma tibżax mis-sagrifiċċju u taħdem bis-sħiħ fuq l-aspetti spirtwali ta’ ħajtek.

Il-gowl li kien...

Kważi sena ilu kont ktibt artiklu  fuq meta, fl-1 ta’ Ġunju 1967, il-Juventus, sewwasew fl-aħħar ġurnata tal-istaġun, kienu ħatfu l-league minn ħalq l-Inter. Dakinhar Il-Juventus għelbu lil Lazio f’Turin 2-1, u l-Inter, jew kif nippreferi nirreferi għalihom... 'dawk', b’għaġeb ta’ kulħadd, seħħilhom jitilfu kontra Mantova b’goal li llum anke l-filmat tiegħu ntilef, wara żball kbir tal-goalkeeper Giuliano Sarti.

Imma l-aktar mument kontroversjali tal-istaġun inzerta propju fl-aħħar ġurnata tal-ewwel round waqt Lazio-Juventus. Fil-klassifika, il-Juventus kienu punt taħt 'dawk' li kien imisshom, naturalment, home mal-Mantova. Il-Mantova (fil-lasta kien jilgħabilhom ċertu Dino Zoff) f’dak l-istaġun kellhom  rekord tassew straordinarju: minn 34 logħba kienu spiċċaw draw 22 darba. Avolja l-Inter kienu qegħdin jilagħbu f’darhom ħadd ma stagħġeb wisq meta l-logħba ntemmet 1-1. 

Il-Lazio ma kinux xi tim b’saħħtu, u filwaqt li l-kuntest kien il-league tas-Serie A fejn ‘’zero a zero’’ kienet il-frażi l-aktar li tidwi meta jkunu qegħdin jinqraw ir-riżultati (jew meta jkun ħin it-tbassir), Juventus, anke jekk barra minn darhom, deher li kellhom ċans ġmielu li jiksbu ż-żewġ punti. Kif spjegajt fl-artiklu l-ieħor dik is-sena l-Juventus, minkejja l-ideat sofistikati u ta’ qabel żmienhom tal-kowċ Heriberto Herrera  kienu meqjusa bħala tim tal-klassi tal-ħaddiema (“squadra operaia’’) imqabbla mal-Inter li kienu meqjusa parti mill-aristokrazija tal-logħba għax mhux biss kienu rebħu l-league tliet darbiet fl-erba’ snin ta’ qabel imma anke kienu rebħu ċ-Champions Cup fl-1964 u l-1965 u semi-finalisti fl-1966. 

F’din il-partita fl-iStadio Olimpico sa tmiem l-ewwel 45 minuta, ma kien hemm l-ebda gowl.  Tibda t-tieni taqsima u Virginio De Paoli - attakkant fl-ewwel staġun tiegħu mal-Juve wara erba’ snin ta’ suċċess ma’ Brescia - jixxuttja lejn il-lasta bix-xellug minn ġol-kaxxa ż-żgħira. Il-ballun għal kollox għeleb lill-goalkeeper imma wara ftit sekondi spiċċa f’idejh. De Paoli u l-Juventini l-oħra qrib il-lasta għollew idejhom b’sinjal ta’ ċelebrazzjoni. Id-difensuri ta’ Lazio dehru diżappuntati u rassenjati, imma b’għaġeb ta’ kulħadd, it-referee Bruno De Marchi ddeċieda li mhux goal. 

Irrabjati l-players tal-Juventus daru ma’ De Marchi u, skont ir-referree, wieħed minnhom ħaliflu fuq martu u uliedu li l-ballun kien daħal żgur. De Marchi baqa’ ma jridx jaf u l-logħba kompliet bl-iskor ta’ 0-0. De Marchi jgħid li wara ftit sar jaf li dak il-player Juventin la kien miżżewweġ u lanqas kellu tfal.

Minn fejn kien De Marchi kien konvint li l-ballun ħabat mal-mimduda.

Ma tantx dam konvint. Inqas minn sentejn qabel ir-Rai, fid-Domenica Sportiva, kienu intrudoċew il-moviola. U proprju l-ewwel episodju verament kontroversjali li l-moviola kien fliet u għarblet mill-qrib kien dan il-famuż goal li qatt ma ngħata ta’ Virginio De Paoli. Il-filmati wrew biċ-ċar li l-ballun kien daħal - u kif - u li De Marchi kien għamel żball madornali.

X’kien ġara eżatt? Żmien wara l-istess referee Bruno De Marchi kien spjega li x-xutt ta’ De Paoli kien ħabat mal-ħabel oħxon li jirfed ix-xibka. Bix-xita u s-silġ dak il-ħabel kien ibbies u sar qisu ħadid. Il-ballun inbeżaq ’il barra u spiċċa f’idejn il-goalkeeper ta’ Lazio. Ħafna minn dawk li kienu qegħdin jaraw il-logħba rrealizzaw x’kien ġara. Ir-reazzjoni tal-players tal-Lazio wriet li huma kienu ntebħu li l-gowl kien validu. De Marchi u l-linesman biss kienu raw ħażin.

Ittawlu waħda dan il-filmat - bl-abjad u l-iswed naturalment: CALCIO 22 GENNAIO 1967 IL GOAL FANTASMA DI DE PAOLI - YouTube

Minħabba li l-gowl ma kienx konvalidat, il-Juventus baqgħu punt wara l-'dawk' li għalhekk saru champions tax-xitwa. U dak il-punt seta’ kien deċiżiv. Il-Juventus kienu pprotestaw fuq li pprotestaw, imma, nauralment - u hekk għandu jkun - id-deċiżjoni tar-referee fuq gowl ma tistax titħassar jew tinbidel. Helenio Herrera, dak iż-żmien kowċ tal-Inter, kien gerger pubblikament li Juventus kienu qegħdin jesaġeraw bil-protesti tant li, skont hu, lill-Papa biss kien jonqoshom ikellmu. Naturalment, ma setax ikun jaf kemm kellna nisimgħu qrid u tinwiħ mill-Inter wara l-5 ta’ Mejju tal-2002 - u għadna nisimgħu sal-lum...

Minħabba dak li ġara fl-aħħar ġurnata tal-istaġun - jiġifieri r-rebħa drammatika u mhux mistennija tat-tlettax-il kampjonat - ma tantx tingħata importanza lil dan l-inċident. Trid tkun Lazio-Juve ta’ ċerta importanza, bħalma ħa tkun dik tal-lum, biex nofs tużżana kollox supporters li qabżu s-sittin sena u iktar jiftakru fih.