Brazil are already away and over the hills – not only guaranteed a place in Russia but also so far ahead that, with three rounds to go, no-one can catch them at the top of South America’s World Cup qualification table.
Behind them, though, it is very tight. Second-placed Colombia have 25 points. Ecuador, down in eighth, have 20. Seven teams are in the fight for the remaining slots – three automatic, plus one in the play-off. The margins are so tight that the slightest detail could make all the difference.
It is unfortunate, then, that one of those details has more to do with the court room than the playing fields. There is every chance that a punishment handed out to Bolivia will tip the balance on the road to Russia.
Not that Bolivia have any possibility of making the cut. They lie ninth in the table, with 10 points. They have actually accumulated 14. Four of them have been taken away for fielding an ineligible player. Even with the extra points Bolivia would not be in contention. The problem is the way in which those points have subsequently been distributed.
A year ago, Bolivia included veteran defender Nelson Cabrera in their squad. He was born in Paraguay and had even represented the land of his birth. But because that match had only been a friendly, he was still able to play for other countries. He moved to Bolivia, and after three years there he became eligible for local citizenship. He was then drafted into the national team and played in the 2016 Copa Centenario in the USA.
Bolivia, who then changed their coaching staff, were totally unaware that there was a potential problem with Cabrera. He had played for the country in a major international tournament, with no hint of irregularities. And so he was named in the squad to face Chile and Peru.
In the first of those matches, Bolivia beat Peru 2-0 at home. Cabrera was introduced for the last ten minutes. Five days later he came off the bench once more, stiffening the defensive line in the last 15 minutes as the team held on for a heroic 0-0 draw in Santiago.
By the letter of the law, though, Cabrera should not have been on the field. Bolivia may require only a three-year period of residence to grant citizenship, but FIFA regulations require a five-year spell before a player can be naturalised.
The case was brought before FIFA – and one can only wonder why this did not happen straight after the Copa Centenario – and Bolivia were stripped of the four points they had picked up. Both matches were awarded to the opponent by a 3-0 margin. Bolivia appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, who last week ratified the original verdict.
It is a little harsh on Bolivia, who had not the slightest intention of gaining an unfair advantage when they selected Cabrera. But for Chile and Peru it is almost too good to be true. With a 0-0 draw transformed into a 3-0 win, Chile have received two extra points and three extra goals. Peru have done even better, gaining three extra points and five goals.
Take those points away and Peru’s chances of qualification would be slim to non-existent. And Chile would be deep in trouble, down in fifth place with tricky fixtures ahead of them. In such a tight situation, every extra point and every little boost to the goal difference can go a long way.
Chile and Peru, then, have derived a massive benefit from the few minutes that Nelson Cabrera spent on the field against them. It would clearly be ludicrous to maintain that Cabrera’s presence for 10 minutes was the difference between a 2-0 defeat and a 3-0 win for Peru, or that his introduction for the last 15 minutes turned what would have been a 3-0 win for Chile into a 0-0 draw.
The advantage handed to Chile and Peru is out of all proportion to any offence committed against them. There is every possibility that one of these countries will make it to Russia as a consequence of points and goals awarded by the stroke of a pen – and that surely cannot be seen as a satisfactory state of affairs.
The question can be posed: should Chile and Peru have benefited at all? Fair enough, Bolivia broke the rules, albeit inadvertently, and have left themselves open to punitive measures. But should their punishment automatically benefit Chile and Peru?
Some will argue that the points at stake in this game have to go somewhere. But there is a flaw in this line of thinking. A few decades ago there were two points at stake in every match, either to be claimed by the winner or to be shared in the case of a draw. The introduction of three points for a win broke this relationship. Now a draw produces two points, one for each side, while a winner claims three. There are no longer a fixed total of points on the table.
So in the case of the 0-0 draw between Chile and Bolivia, what is there to stop Bolivia being stripped of their point and Chile keeping the one it earned on the field? If there can be two or three points at stake, then why not just one? Or why not, in the case of the Bolivia v Peru game, none at all?
At the extreme altitude of La Paz, no-one in the current campaign has beaten Bolivia by a three-goal margin. Awarding the game to Peru by that scoreline is a punishment to Bolivia. But it is much more a punishment to those teams competing with Peru for a place in the World Cup, and it seems to be entirely lacking in common sense.
.png)
.png)
