Wembley goal, football, equalisation and forgiveness

I am currently writing a quadro on the subject of „forgiveness“. A core idea is that people always want to be forgiven when they have experienced injustice.

This is human, natural and the most normal thing you can think of: When something unjust happens to you, you want compensation for the injustice you have suffered. Compensation. Justice. Reparation. Or revenge. Revenge is nothing other than an attempt to compensate for the pain or injustice inflicted on you by causing harm or injustice to another person.

The few small problems

- In every situation there are several different Perspectives. Usually two. Three with a lawyer. What is serious for one person is less tragic for another. As people differ in their judgement, there are also different perspectives on whether and to what extent compensation should be paid.

- There are in this world No perfect benchmark for equalisation. For example, is the adultery or breach of trust by one partner balanced out by the fact that the other partner does the same? Or does deliberate, intentional adultery or breach of trust weigh more heavily than unintentional adultery or breach of trust? It is often the case that one partner feels „Now it's even.“ The other thinks: „That's still not enough“ and feels disadvantaged.

- A third party often influences events.

Current example: Germany - England

1966: England get a goal recognised in a game that wasn't a goal. Thrilling. England took a 3-2 lead and won the World Cup with another goal in the final seconds when spectators were already on the pitch. The Germans see themselves in the wrong. And wish for an equaliser.

2010: In the match between Germany and England, the referee does not recognise a goal scored by the English that has clearly crossed the line. The Germans retain the lead. They score two more goals and are one step closer to the title.

Different points of view

To the Wembley Gate
The German perspective: It wasn't a goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYixmHvnN0s&feature=related
And the English one: It was a goal

The German view on the unrecognised 2010 goal
- That was a clear refereeing error. But he has no difference made. We would have won even if he had recognised the goal, we were clearly the better team.
The view of the English coach and some, by no means all, English people:
- The referee's error has put the game has had a decisive influence. If he had recognised the goal, the game might have ended differently.

Equalisation
- Some Germans see the goal as „compensation for Wembley“. They say they have now received compensation, satisfaction and revenge for the injustice of that time. Others feel that a wrong decision that had no effect on the result is not sufficient compensation for the possible loss of the 1966 World Cup title.

- Some Englishmen might argue that not recognising a clear goal is far worse than recognising a dubious goal.

The third party

Shortly before his death, the Soviet linesman of 1966 replied to the question of why he had counted this as a goal, even though he must have seen that it was not, with a single word: „Stalingrad“.

Are we now facing another 40 years of searching for a balance?

The renunciation of equalisation
I don't know if you can forgive in football. In private situations, however, it helps me to recognise that there are different points of view and that third parties often influence the situation. The thought that perfect balance is not possible relieves me. If it is not possible to achieve a perfect balance anyway, I can - of my own free will - do without it. Because it takes me out of the hopeless struggle for balance and I don't (always) need balance in order to continue living my life well, some people also call this renunciation of balance „forgiveness“.“