Should the refs have kicked Zidane out? On the surface, it seems a simple and obvious "of course," but underneath, in the true spirit of fair play, I have an issue. It has to do with the game conditions at the time that Zidane got kicked out. France were clearly dominating the last 15-20 minutes, gathering momentum towards what seemed like the inevitable: a ball in the back of the Italian net.

The fans could see this, the coaches could see this, the players knew this, so didn't the referees already know this? Of course. They are not supposed to make judgment calls projecting the outcome of the game, but they could be more pro-active in avoiding or eliminating the situations where players exploit the rulebook just to gain an edge. 

We have seen FIFA begin to acknowledge this fact by raising and stiffening the penalty for flopping, which shows a step in the right direction, but to me this is not enough. The referee needs to be encouraged to exercise heightened levels of judgment, where he can delay a game as long as he wants to consider the true impact of certain actions or incidents on the field.

The implication that I am referring to is that in the Biggest of All Soccer Games, Italy was obviously desperate and determined to gain any edge it could muster against the clearly stronger and improving France. So what would be the logical thing to do to gain what is ultimately an unfair advantage? How about getting France's star player and the glue of their offense kicked out of the game?

In the NBA, this scenario is viewed cynically yet accurately as a "trade." A fight, or potentially impending fight between two players that leads to ejection of both is weighed immediately upon the merits of the impact on the game. This is common knowledge, and widely accepted as part of the game and part of strategy, to the point that even television and radio commentators weigh out loud the impact on the game of the loss of the two ejected players, comparing their respective skills and weighing them against each other. The instigator is often a role player who incites the other team's superstar.        

It is common knowledge that the instigator is often trying to provoke the other team's star player, and if they are both kicked out, the instigator's team is deemed the winner of the exchange from a strategic standpoint. As a result, NBA refs are aware of these tactics, and are becoming ever more cautious and thorough about issuing ejections.       

So why not the same for soccer refs? People are trying to figure out what Materazzi said to Zidane: I say what didn't he or any of the other Italian players say to Zidane? I say there was no end to what profanity and insults the Italians could have hurled at Zidane. The worse the better, as far as the Italians were concerned, because getting Zidane off the field at that point represented the only chance of survival for the Italian side. So no matter what Zidane did, who's to say who was wrong and who was right in that situation? 

At the very least, Materazzi also should have been kicked off the pitch. If the ref did not have substantial evidence, he should have made sense of it through consultation with his linesmen (or a FIFA official by radio or telephone), and his own deduction (he knows and hears what is going on between players). I have to believe that even if the Italians were speaking under their breath to Zidane, the ref's ears were not totally deaf to insults being hurled at Zidane, nor deaf to the strategic desperation tactic of provocation in general.       

Clearly, Zidane was provoked, and it's about time for the refs to stop acting like pawns, and do more than just act on appearances and the most superficial surface level of the rule book. Let's get real. It's no secret to anyone in any sport that players provoke each other all the time. This is part of the game. It is a strategic tactic that manipulates and abuses the rule book.

Refs can eliminate these tactics by not reacting to them like dumb zebras. Refs can and should exercise more discretion and deduction in the truest and deepest interests of fair play. If they didn't kick Zidane out, it might have caused some scandal, but no more furor than Zidane's actions already caused, and nothing that the ref couldn't explain at the inevitable press conference at the end of the game. Or at the very least he could have sent off Materazzi too. 

Better yet, he could have conducted his own brief investigation, asking the principles involved what they said and heard.  This might have caused a bit of a delay, but so what?  Better than disrupting the competitive balance and natural course of the game.  And better than depriving us of what we really wanted to see: an even match, with the spoils going to the best team on the pitch.