Social proof, sometimes roughly termed “the herd instinct”, dictates that individuals feel they are behaving correctly when they act the same as others. In other words, the more people follow a certain idea, the more likely we deem the idea to be the Real McCoy.
And the more people display a certain pattern of behaviour, the more appropriate such behaviour is judged to be by others. This is of course, absurd to say the least, but alas, that’s the irony of social proof, the ultimate evil behind many poorly thought decision making.
Football administrators have developed this nasty habit of inviting unnecessary criticism at the slightest provocation.
My learned colleagues at Football House are becoming a law unto themselves, changing and introducing rules at their sole discretion whenever it suits them in the same fashion a mother would change nappies – never mind what the ultimate outcome yields.
This nauseating trend is becoming a regular occurrence within all organs of the beautiful game locally, because many a football administrator has made peace with these ongoing shenanigans in the misplaced belief that this is right way to go.
Football followers are now becoming the direct descendants of those copying others’ silly behaviour.
Seriously, it goes beyond any comprehension as to why teams were made to play extra-time in the four-team playoff mini-tourney meant to determine the team that will play reigning Namibian champions Tigers for the season’s pipe opening football bonanza, the annual Standard Bank Super Cup.
Just a week ago, the country hosted the fourth annual Dr Hage Geingob Cup under the same umbrella body, but the rules were applied differently in the case of drawn matches after regulation time that saw teams going straight into the dreaded penalty-shootout.
Firstly, its very much against conventional wisdom to make teams play extra-time in mini-tourneys, while the winner is obliged to make a quick return to the playing field for their next match against well-rested opponents.
So, why are these senseless rules and amendments not clearly defined ahead of the competition? I’m just asking.
Yours truly also wants to be tied in on the wisdom of the NFA, while proposing an easy module to determine the opponent for the league winners in the Super Cup, if we are to avoid criticism and scrutiny.
It’s a well documented secret that the tourney usually pits the league winners against the NFA Cup holders, but since there was no NFA Cup winners – because the country’s oldest knockout cup failed to kick off – a different module needed to be found.
Surely it does not take a rocket scientist to identify potential opponents, while you have a log table that should ease your worries. Logic suggests Black Africa should have been accorded the wild card by virtue of being the MTC Premiership runners-up.
European powerhouse Bayern Munich won the double in the Bundesliga, but the wide-awake Germans did not have to look any further.
The Germans rightfully installed Borussia Dortmund as Munich’s opponents in the German Super Cup by virtue of their finishing as runners-up in that country’s national knockout cup competition, which is equivalent to our NFA Cup.
The same methodology was applied in Spain, where double champions Barcelona – who won the league and Copa del Rey – were obliged to face Sevilla in that country’s Super Cup, because the latter were the runners-up in the Copa del Rey, won by “the kings of carpet football”, Barca – simple as that.
Please take note that the ultimate test of the teams’ strength is measured against their performance, and is not at the sole discretion of the men in blue suits.
I rest my case.