The Liverpool - Man City match last weekend had a play that left many aftertastes. In the last minutes of added time, the ball rolled across the empty goal line of the home team while Dominik Szoboszlai and Erling Haaland took turns pulling each other's shirts when chasing the ball. Referee Craig Pawson initially recognized it, but after reviewing VAR, he canceled the goal and showed a red card to Szoboszlai - who pulled the shirt first in the play leading to the scoring opportunity.
This decision is completely legal, but it creates a situation that makes many people feel "emotionally unfair". Haaland himself said bluntly that, if possible, "contest the goal and don't pull out a red card".
That is when we see the difference between law and human feelings being clearly revealed. Law here is like a rigid measure, determining right and wrong based on regulations. But football - like society - has things that are not "paperwork" like that. Football must live by emotions, context, context and spreading spiritual values.
Soft law, if understood correctly, is not loose and unprincipled. It is a buffer between punishment and reprimand. In many areas of life, are there not also "warnings", "reprimands", "leaps from experience" to avoid applying harsh rules to impromptu situations or situations that do not cause serious damage? Why can't there be such choices in football?
Soft law does not abolish the law. It allows choosing policies to implement in a specific context, instead of a single ruling applied from beginning to end. There is much agreement that the decision is in accordance with the law but "lacks common sense" - that is, lacks a comprehensive view.
Life easily sees similar things, when an employee who makes a mistake is reminded instead of disciplined, a student who violates discipline is taught for the first time, and a traffic violator is guided to learn from experience instead of severe punishment. Examples show that the soft space between law and emotion can help maintain both order and humanity.
Soft law will not replace hard law, but it is something that supplements a flexible perspective so that judgments are not only technically correct, but also in line with the spirit of the community. It should be emphasized that only in specific special cases can those who have the right to make judgments consider and evaluate.
