On Day 22 of the 2010 World Cup, “Holland 2, Brazil 1” figured to have no rivals for the attention of the soccer planet.

Ha.

Uruguay defeating Ghana on penalties in a madcap match was the story of of the day, for a variety of reasons. Sportsmanship, the Laws of the Game, villainous Uruguay, unlucky Ghana and the sprawling issue of African unity shouldered their way into the discussion.

To wit:

1. Sportsmanship. This match pivoted on one moment in added time in the second half of extra time. Or more than two hours after Uruguay and Ghana began running.

In a scrum in front of the Uruguay net, Ghana peppered the Uruguayans with shots. The first two were stopped, but the goalkeeper was out of position and it seemed as if a face-high header by Dominic Adiyiah must result in a goal because nothing stood between him and the back of the net aside from a couple of Uruguayan outfield players. The match would end in a 2-1 Ghana victory in the run of play, in the dying seconds of extra time, and the Black Stars would go on to the semifinals.

(You can see the events in question at about the 1:30 mark of this fifa.com video.)

That is when Luis Suarez, one of the two Uruguayans standing on the goal line, set off a discussion. He saw the ball coming from Adiyiah and … blocked it. With two hands. As if he were a goalie and not a forward. Lots of photographers got the image, but this photo shows you all you need to know. About as blatant a foul as you will see.

The infraction — handling a ball inside the box — resulted in Suarez being sent off and Ghana given a penalty kick. But what Suarez had done — and here is where we need to judge the state of mind of a 23-year-old player, because he may not even know it himself — was fend off certain defeat in return for the chance of a missed penalty. Uruguay was rewarded, and the match continued.

The question: Did Suarez coldly analyze the situation and have enough time to tell himself “I will stop any ball headed for the goal, no matter what it takes”? Or was it an instinctive, no-time-to-think act? A guy reacting — even though the first thing soccer players are taught is “you may not use your hands.”

We would like to give Suarez the benefit of a doubt, but at the least it seems likely he had settled on “the ball isn’t going to go by me, period.” Which calls into question issues of sportsmanship being trumped by “whatever it takes”, which, yes, are hoary concepts but still relevant, in 2010.

And then there is the matter of Uruguayan … oh, let’s call it “gamesmanship” … in World Cup history. This is the team that beat up Pele in a match at the 1966 World Cup and fouled Diego Maradona repeatedly at the 1986 World Cup. Uruguay has a reputation as one of the most coldly and violently cynical teams on the planet, thugs, and this doesn’t help at all — even if a scholar from elsewhere in South America says Uruguay is the finest country on the continent.

2. The Laws of the Game. Back when soccer was scrabbling for a foothold in the United States, I can remember its proponents talking up its simplicity. I remember being told only 11 laws were needed, though it appears to be 17. And soccer is still talking up how its entire rulebook is about 50 pages … while baseball and the NFL have rule books that rival the California state penal code in heft.

Well, FIFA needs a few more laws. One pertaining to “illegally handling a ball clearly destined to be a goal.” As was the case in Ghana v Uruguay.

The punishment — being sent off with a one-match suspension — did not answer for the crime (intentional or otherwise). Instead of Ghana winning,  essentially, right at that moment … it had to send a player to the penalty spot to score, never a sure thing, and particularly not after two hours of sprinting. Asamoah Gyan of Ghana banged his penalty shot off the crossbar. The game continued and, eventually, Uruguay used the reprieve to win a shootout, 4-2.

FIFA may want to put in a paragraph about the referee having the discretion to send off a player as well as award a goal in cases such as this. Uruguay being reduced to 10 men meant nothing, in the final minute of open-field action, and stopping a sure goal for the possibility of a penalty goal … is a great bargain for the rules-breaking team to make, which should not be allowed.

Sorry, FIFA. You need more rules.

3.  Ghana and Africa. A curious theme at the 2010 World Cup is “African unity.” Which has become a topic Western journalists seem to return to over and again.

In this world of slippery and perhaps even insulting generalities, all Africa is thought to be ecstatic supporters of all African teams. The New York Times linked to a Reuters report of the Ghana match, a report that has a headline reading “Africa weeps …”

George Vecsey of the New York Times contrived an entire column in which he furthered the blithe assumptions of so many and suggested that “an entire continent was putting its hopes, its prayers, its soul” into Ghana’s attempt to reach the semifinals.

Uh, what? George, a good guy with whom I have shared cabs and World Cup pressboxes, then spent a few paragraphs attempting to validate what is certainly an unprovable contention, that of African solidarity, on the issue of Ghana and the World Cup. (Hey, Nelson Mandela said he wanted Ghana to win.)

And remember, George is just one guy on this topic. It has been raised and repeated ad nauseum throughout the tournament, with minimal data beyond a few enthusiastic crowds in South Africa.

But let’s back up for a moment.

Would “all Asia” support, say, Japan, making the semifinals of the World Cup? Would China think that were grand? Would Korea? Would India be passionately behind Pakistan?

Would all of North America be praying for, oh, the United States to become the first CONCACAF team to make the semifinals? Most certainly not; about 140 million Mexicans would be mortified. And the same would apply the other way round.

In South America, will Brazil being pulling for Argentina tomorrow? Will Uruguay be on pins and needles over the fate of Paraguay? After today’s defeat, would Brazil have to tell folks back in Buenos Aires, “don’t cry for me, Argentina?”

In Europe, does all England wish fervently that Germany will carry the banner for a continent? Would Portugal wish nothing but success for Spain?

Of course not. To suggest any of that would be ridiculous. Insulting, even. Certainly uninformed.

But we have scads of sports journalists writing, day after day, that “all Africa” was behind all of its teams. That Ghana, in particular, was beloved by an entire continent, from Morocco to Cape Town.

On what evidence can anyone say that?

Are we to believe that Africa is the only continent so simple, so generous, so supportive of its neighbors that the whole of the land mass is “praying” for Ghana? A continent that, on cursory examination, seems as splintered by ethnicity, religion, tribal loyalties, language, climate … as any continent on Earth aside (perhaps) from Asia?

To me, it seems as if the West (or its journalists, anyway) is still infantilizing Africa, reducing it to simple and sweeping generalizations that would not be attempted on any other continent. And I am very, very weary of it.

Ghana deserved to win. But if by exiting the tournament we can stop talking about the United States of Africa and limit our sweeping generalizations to single countries … well, that’s a victory.