If you read articles about Maradona in English media, of which there are many, you'll see appreciation and compliments but there's a constant. They say that in the first goal (and nobody needs to be told what "the first goal" is) Maradona cheated.
Sure, the second one (and everyone knows what "the second one" means) was great and all but the first one ... he cheated.
For instance, Peter Shilton, the bitterest briton, a man whose main feature as a goalkeeper was not keeping those two goals says:
I don't particularly like being associated so frequently with an incident where the world's greatest player cheated and got away with it. It was the referee and linesman's fault really. No, you sad, sad little large man, it's your fault that being almost two meters tall and wearting gloves you were beaten to an airball by a guy that's fourteen inches shorter than you and didn't jump much.
But beyond that ... why do they call that cheating? Let's agree that yes, he punched it. But ... cheating?
Against the rules. Sure. If the referee saw it, it was a free kick for England.
Also against the rules was Fenwick's kicking him in minute 9, and that was a free kick for Argentina. Against the rules was the elbow in minute 44. Also against the same rules as bumping his head at 5 and 20 of the second half.
Not only against the rules, but they caught him!
The punishment for each one of those was the same as for punching the ball like Diego did in the first goal. The only "first goal" there is. Was Fenwick cheating?
No, Fenwick didn't cheat. If he landed some tackle that was not punished he did not call the referee and told him "here's his kneecap, free kick for them guv'nor".
No, Fenwick, just like Maradona and everyone that ever kicked a ball did what he tought needed doing, and if it worked, it worked. Because that's the game.
But always, always, good writers and journalists whether in The Guardian or in Butt-upon-Avon's Daily Pennyfarthing will say "Maradona cheated". Because for some it's a worse sin to score a goal than to break a leg. Because they will make a show of moral relativism speaking about rebelliousness to pretend they justify it, but in truth what they are justifying is that that year they were a team of plodding farmers whose only chance was to kick him because they could never see the ball.