England were robbed. Let's move on.

Yesterday afternoon, a travesty occurred. In a crucial knockout game against their arch rivals Germany, at the FIFA 2010 World Cup, England were robbed. Towards the end of the first half, Frank Lampard chipped the ball from 25-yards out, which then hit the underside of the crossbar and bounced at least two metres over the goal line before being caught by German goalkeeper, Manuel Neuer, without touching the net. The assistant referee ruled that it was not a goal, even though the replays clearly show that the ball was over the line. Everyone was baffled that referees Jorge Larrionda and Mauricio Espinosa could not have seen the goal, even without video replays. The score then stayed at 2-1 until the second half when Germany put together two more fine goals to inflict England's heaviest defeat in a World Cup.

A predictable clamour for 'goal line technology' has now gathered force. The vast majority of these people are, unsurprisingly, English. Steven Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand were two of the England players who felt that if the goal was allowed, then the result might have been different.

             The goal that never was (I do not own this image)

Really? Are we actually going to say that if the score was 2-2, then England would have won? What is the evidence for this? That 2-2 was a more respectable score than 2-1, and it would have generated more self belief among the players? Where was their self belief when the scores were still 0-0, or even when they were 2-1 down? Germany didn't score their third goal until the second half. England were still in the game until the third goal came, maybe even until the fourth goal was scored. I am not saying that it wasn't goal by Lampard. It would be downright silly to say it wasn't, because the replays CLEARLY show the ball crossing the line. But if the England players had the correct attitude, they would have ignored the disallowed goal and moved on. There is no reason why England couldn't have clawed their way back from 2-1. That was the responsibility of the players and coach Fabio Capello, and they failed to live up to it. The players and management should put their hands up and admit that the better team won. End of.

The call for video technology is a selfish one at best. England were denied a goal, so let's introduce video technology. Where was the call for video technology when Thierry Henry controlled the ball with his hand to allow William Gallas to score, and prevent Ireland from qualifying for the World Cup? When the Irish complained, there was not a single peep out of the English press and media. The argument for video technology is that such innovations exist in rugby and cricket. Yes and no. There is no technology in rugby and cricket, only third umpires and video referees who assess replays and make a decision themselves. And even these decisions are subject to scrutiny. Just remember Mark Cueto's disallowed try at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final. You can never have a zero-fault system in sport. Plus, in all fairness, Lampard's goal was a freak of nature. How often does the ball do something like that? Probably one out of a thousand shots at goal might do that. Having goal line technology would therefore be redundant. 

 
It was very unfortunate that England were denied. Everyone is right to be angry at the referees for failing to spot the goal. But that does not necessarily mean England would have won. Germany were far too ruthless and clinical. The goal MIGHT have changed the balance of play, but Germany were simply better than England. Above all, they played as a team. England are still producing good individual players, but they are still failing to play as a unit. All I saw yesterday afternoon was a collection of individual stars with no form or shape. That, and that alone is the reason why England lost. The disallowed goal merely quickened the inevitable.

No Saint Nelson

A new book entitled 'The Young Mandela' is to be released next month, written by David James Smith. Many biographies have been penned about Nelson Mandela, but probably none will arouse more interest than Smith's book. It reveals certain unflattering aspects of the great leader and statesman in his younger years.

According to Smith, Mandela had affairs with, among others, Ruth Mompati, Lillian Ngoyi and Dolly Rathebe during his first marriage to Evelyn Ntoko Mase. Mompati apparently denied having an affair with Mandela, but according to Smith, people close to Mandela are confident that an affair did take place. In addition, Smith contends that these affairs produced children. Evidence in support of this is the alleged appearance of a mysterious woman at the funeral of Makgatho, Mandela's son with Evelyn in 2005. She claimed to be his half-sister from an unknown mother. Mandela’s children also purportedly believe that other half-siblings exist. Smith also references comments from Evelyn herself, struggle stalwart Fatima Meer, and the author Fred Bridgland and two files dealing with the couple's divorce. In the documents, Evelyn alleged that Mandela beat her on numerous occasions. He has denied the accusations. 

 
Mandela and his first wife, Evelyn (I do not own this image) 

Reactions to these revelations will be interesting. Those who foolishly believe Mandela to be an angel will be shocked and appalled. Those of us who know better won't be surprised. Pictures of the young Mandela show an extremely good -looking man, who was very concerned about his fitness. Aside from that, he naturally possessed charisma, charm and a magnetic personality. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to suggest that Mandela would have been popular with the ladies. Even if he did not have any extra-marital affairs, he had close relationships with many women that were not romantic. Most of Mandela’s comrades accept and confirm that he was a ladies man, even if his womanising did not occur while he was married.

The fact remains that Mandela, like a lot of other great men in history, did not lead a saintly lifestyle. It is completely wrong to assume that he was a holy man figure like Gandhi. If there is truth to Mandela’s womanising and wife beating, then the image of Mandela as the divine being who merely appeared and liberated South Africa must be shattered. He was not a divine entity, but a man who was all too human, and prone to making the same mistakes that we are all prone to making at some point in our lives.

This hardly diminishes Mandela. He will forever be remembered as South Africa’s great icon, its founder and liberator. But we should not forget that Mandela was a human being. He had his flaws. This is not to condone his behaviour. It can no longer be proved either way that Mandela beat Evelyn, seeing as Evelyn passed away six years ago. It should also be of note that he denied beating Evelyn, while he has not denied having extra-marital affairs. If anything, showing Mandela’s human side increases his stature. It means that his actions in helping to liberate South Africa were not divine miracles, but the enormous efforts of a human being.

Mandela is the last surviving titan of the South African struggle; many of his closest companions and giants of our struggle have gone to their eternal rest. We should never presume that the struggle for South Africa was waged with the help of divine intervention. Ordinary men and women took up the fight for freedom and paid for it with their own blood, sweat, toil and tears. Their efforts are a testament to the indomitable nature of the human spirit.