Top Stories

Controversial goal sees Peru knock out Brazil in shocking fashion

Photo by Winslow Townson/USA Today Sports
Photo by Winslow Townson/USA Today Sports

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. — A controversial goal was the difference between two sides fighting for their tournament lives, leading to the biggest shock of the Copa America Centenario.

Raul Ruidiaz scored in the 75th minute and Peru knocked Brazil out of the tournament via a 1-0 mark at Gillette Stadium on Sunday night. Ruidiaz scored minutes after entering the game as a substitute, but his close-range finish off an Andy Polo cross looked to have come off his hand before finding the back of the net.

Referee Andres Cunha proceeded to discuss the call with his assistant referee, and a lengthy delay that seemed to show the match officials talking on a headset ended with Ruidaz’s goal counting.

With the win, Peru claimed Group B with seven points while Brazil was dropped to third place with four. Ecuador finished in second with five points.

The Brazilians were the better side for much of the 90 minutes, but did not create too many clear-cut chances. Their best opportunity came in the 93rd minute, but Elias was unable to direct a cross past Peru goalkeeper Pedro Gallese.

Brazil’s failure to find the back of the net proved costly in the end, as Ruidiaz scored 11 minutes after coming into the game as a substitute.

Peru will play Group A runner-up Colombia in the quarterfinals of the tournament on Friday at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

MAN OF THE MATCH

Raul Ruidiaz will get plenty of attention, both positive and negative, for his controversial strike, but goalkeeper Pedro Gallese was Peru’s best player on the night. Gallese came up with five saves against Brazil to keep the Peruvians alive in the game and tournament, and he also did a good job of aggressively coming off his line to gobble up through balls and punch out crosses.

MOMENT OF THE MATCH

It will be talked about for days, if not weeks. Peru scored the decisive goal in the 75th minute after Andy Polo’s cross was bundled home by Raul Ruidiaz. Replays seemed to show that the ball did make contact with Ruidiaz’s hand before finding the back of the net, but that will only be part of the conversation after the referees discussed the play at length before allowing the goal to stand.

MATCH TO FORGET

In what could very well be his last game as Brazil head coach, Dunga failed to push the right buttons. His strategy to break down Peru’s back line failed from the start despite Brazil bossing possession, and he made one substitution in the match and none after Ruidiaz scored the controversial winner.

Comments

    • Yeah, thought of that too.

      But USA is playing in Seattle. And our starters are warmed up.

      And just likely play ( easy game ) Argentina if we beat Ecuador. Wait eh min, did Colombia lose on purpose?

      Reply
      • Except they subbed Cardona, Cuardado, and James in for most of the 2nd half so that thought doesn’t really hold water. (Not that I think you are really serious)

  1. The additional assistant referees behind the goal that have been experimented with in a number of competitions would have meant a no goal call. The electronic device can tell when the ball crosses the line, but a ref right behind the goal would have clearly seen this handball. In major knockout tournaments they should be used. Please no instant reply–the bane of watching American sports.

    Reply
  2. Look, brazil has been overrated for a very long time. The goal should not have stood but Peru was also not awarded a penalty and against Ecuador, Ecuador was robbed a goal. Brazil should be the last to complain since they are the biggest to benifit from hand balls in the copa America against Argentina, Colombia and Bolivia. Brazil is a complete embarrassment to their history.

    Reply
  3. With wrong national anthems being played, Colombia being misspelled at just about every opportunity and Brazil not making it out of the group stage?

    The South American teams are going to bemoan every little thing to their federations to ensure the Copa isn’t hosted here on a permanent basis. Hopefully the money is worthwhile enough to win out because selfishly I want the official tournament here and get rid of the Gold Cup.

    Reply
      • I don’t think there is anything weird, this is normal. If you watch Conmebol closely during qualifying you see that there is not much between South American teams. Sure some countries have more star players playing on big European club teams but when it gets down to team vs team on the field (not on paper) it is very close. Then you add Mexico, Costa Rica and USA which currently would all be at minimum middle of the table within Conmebol (give or take). Panama and Jamaica can go toe to toe with the bottom feeders in Conmebol. Add injuries and a few top players left off by Brazil and it creates this anything can happen tournament.

      • Paraguay had made the last two semifinals of the Copa. In 2011 they made it all the way to the finals never winning a game, but winning two penalty shootouts. That’s right played 5 draws before getting drilled by home side Uruguay. The other two semifinalists that year Venezuela and Peru. In 2001 Argentina didn’t even play because of fear for their safety in Colombia, that year Mexico finished 2nd and Honduras starting the tournament on one days notice finished 3rd. In 1999 Uruguay won one match not decided on penalties and finished 2nd. Its not like strange things don’t always happen, some upstart team from North America made the semis in 1995.

        Some futbol snobs in America talk about the Copa like its the greatest tournament, but really most years only a handful of teams bring their top roster even the likes of Brazil. They use it like teams do the Gold Cup sometimes bringing a B Team to see if they can find a budding star to help their qualifying. Yes, fans in SA pay more attention to it than NA fans pay the Gold Cup, but the federations don’t.

        And really how many Colombians know how to spell Columbus, Ohio? Its not like people are misspelling it to be jerks, they just don’t know they are spelling it wrong or their autocorrect doesn’t.

      • Hard to say, I mean Brazil was knocked out by Paraguay last year in the quarter finals (who were then blown out by Argentina). Semi-Finals were Argentina, Peru, Paraguay and Chile. I could still see this coming down to an Argentina, Chile rematch. So I think anythings been too off really,

    • Google national anthems fails, its not just the US that it happens in. Apparently in Kuwait they played the Borat version of the national anthem instead of the actual anthem for a gold medalist.

      Reply
      • To be clear, I’m not saying we have a monopoly on blunders nor am I saying their complaints (that I’m referencing) are valid or worthy of distress. I’m just projecting the level of bitterness from certain voices within that region.

  4. Somewhere Ives is laughing. I can hear that snicker from here! ‘Hands? I didn’t see any hands? Only the wind pushing the ball with great force into the strikers arm…which, of course, is not a hand ball.’
    Hahahahaha.
    You know its true, Ives!!

    Reply
  5. Who predicted that the US would win its group and Brazil would be knocked out? Anyone? Bueller? Wow, how topsy turvey. Brazil just couldn’t do anything once they got in the final third. Poor passing, little movement, absolutely no creativity or imagination in attack. They didn’t deserve to advance.

    Reply
  6. This ref was an absolute disgrace the whole game, it was as if he had it out for Brazil from the beginning. Not once did they have a call go in their favor. A MLS ref would have done better. Yes, I understand that Brazil did not create many chances and will have to be disappointed with their showing this tournament from a scoring perspective, but this would have been the case either way. It is a shame to see a ref ruin a game and completely change the outcome for who advances and even potential for those who make a deep run. I hope he is dropped from any other game he would have had this tournament and future tournaments. His AR on that goal as well, because he was on the side of the out reached arm and completely allowed himself not be in place to see it. If you can’t handle the pressure of officiating a big game, then don’t do it.

    Reply
    • You’re totaling missing the point. Refs can miss calls. It happens. The outrage here should be directed at FIFA, the confederations, and the major world leagues for not implementing instant replay by now. And it wears me out that people even want to talk about goal line cameras as a solution. A few times a season in a given league, a play occurs that goal line cameras would make the difference. Multiple times every game, however, there are questionable calls on fouls, offside, handball, penalty shouts etc. Every league in every other major sport has it. This is a disgrace.

      Reply
      • John is right. He was right last week, too, when he chimed in on the same issue re another match. I made the same points: controversial outcome-changing calls are just more frequent than in many other sports, and there is basically zero attempt to address the issue. The whole setup in this sport in terms of refereeing is ludicrously inadequate, but TPTB in the sport repeatedly show by their lack of action on the matter that they don’t care about changing that.

      • I agree too. Ref’s will miss calls, it’s human nature. The speed of play, positioning, field. light and weather conditions all play a part, but no matter, mistakes happen. When FIFA decides to move into the 20th century and really invest in technology to lessen man-made mistakes, we will always have,…. man-made mistakes!.

        Brazil was the superior team, and maybe should have won had they even scored. BRAZIL DID NOT SCORE! whenever you depend on a referee to take away a goal, you are doomed.Depending on a 0-0 ties to move on is just plain bad coaching or wishful thinking.. There will always be a “Hand of God” like the Maradona incident for Argentina, or even a “Hand of Viraconcha” for Peru. These mistakes are only magnified when you play bad help them. Had Brazil been up 3-0, you would have never heard anything about this.

        A lot of the small South American teams have the numbers of teams like Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, as they are always playing them. They only need a neutral ground, like the US, to really tweak some noses.

        I would really like to see Venezuela win over Mexico tonight and force an Argentina/Mexico quarter-final. Mexico can beat Argentina, as they will have the home field advantage in every game here, and while most would be pissed off, as it would put Mexico in same bracket as the US, I think it’s the US is ready to beat Mexico in the latest Dos y zero game.It would be an epic showdown with the winner in the final

    • So I actually think this is a horrible argument for instant replay (and yes, the call was blown… just like Maradona’s hand of god). You want good arguments?? Chile – Bolivia… Mexico – Uruguay… gold cup Mexico – CR… those are end of game decisions. In this particular game, Brazil played poor, boring, lackadaisical soccer. They were not creative and they were not Brazil. Listen, if you are Brazil and you get basically 17 minutes to go win the game against PERU! (we aren’t talking Italian catenaccio… or US bunker-ball here) then go score a goal. If you can’t then you don’t deserve to win… and BTW, they should have realized they were playing with fire as they got away with one in the first half and against Ecuador. So its not like they haven’t had calls go their way (maybe not as many as Mexico… but definitely a few). So am I in favor of replay on the basis of this call? NOPE. Peru and Brazil will have far more joy/pain in life remembering this than they would otherwise… and BTW, Brazil need stuff like this to wake their Federation up.. I honestly am not sure who I would rather have played next round… I am starting to think Brazil is just not that Good. Colombia, Chile, Argentina are all better for sure… Ecuador and Peru both practically beat Brazil…

      But for Instant Replay… basically where do you stop? How do you decide which calls get overturned? Or is it now going to be football where the games take 3.5 hours? I don’t want to watch that… with the whole flow of the game destroyed as we check and recheck fouls… out of bounds, deflections, etc. No… the only thing I would allow replays on are goal/no goals after the 89th minute. Not even penalty/no penalty calls would get replay… Otherwise you will ruin the game.

      Reply
      • I’d say Brazil’s game is pretty well ruined. How about USMNT in 2002? And no, this one call isn’t my basis. If you read my post, I alluded to questionable calls in every competition, every week. And where do you draw the line? I’m pretty confident that some intelligent men and women can work out a system that intrudes as little as possible. But when league positions, major trophies, millions of revenue dollars, FIFA world rankings that affect WC seeding, etc are on the line, you do what it takes to get the call right. Period, paragraph. Every NHL goal is reviewed. Did you watch the Stanley Cup finals? Was the pace bogged down? The fact is that our beloved game is officiated according to a laughable anachronism. And tonight the sacrosanct ‘human element’ to the game sent Peru to the second round on a goal they didn’t score.

      • Yeah, I mean… I get it. But you wouldn’t even remember losing to Germany in 2002 if we had scored and lost in extra time… or if we had missed the penalty. bad calls are part of the game. Add a couple more officials if you want, but leave replay out of it.

      • Very well said turkmenbashy. Instant replay sounds like a great idea in moments like this but implementation would be a disaster… Do I want to be subjected to 3 mins of tv commercials every time there is a questionable offside? Soccer isn’t well suited to the lurching, over-legislated, challenge flag filled affair that is NFL instant replay.

        And it’s not like any of that even ensures 100% accuracy anyway. I watch the NFL every week and the “Fail Mary” was hardly a one-off. Still plenty of room for disagreement even after video evidence.

      • Its easy to say each goal is reviewed because there is a natural stoppage, but then you can use review to disallow a goal like tonight’s. However if you’d have no stoppage if say the ref had like Stu Holden, thought Higuain had handled Messi’s goal the other night. play would have continued with a goal kick and what should have been a goal couldn’t be reviewed.

      • This actually strikes me as the poster child for a light-touch instant replay (probably best as a 5th official in the booth watching replay constantly and connected to the center ref by headset). The referee and his assistant interrupted the game for a full five minutes talking, when it was pretty clear that neither had seen the play clearly, completely disrupting any flow and eventually making the wrong call on a play that utterly changed the complexion of the game. Then, the TV replay made it crystal-clear in about 5 seconds of review. With a 5th official, the head ref would have received the assessment of the video review and made the correct call before the players had even had time to crowd around him. No one (or maybe only a few people) are suggesting an NFL-style involving challenge flags and 20-minute interruptions. That is a straw man.

      • why have a ref at all? Just have all the calls phoned into his earpiece. 4th official becomes the real ref, and the guy on the field is just a mouthpiece. You start taking his authority away and you will run into much, much bigger problems than just a blown call.

      • Turkmenbashy, you’re just repeating exaggeration and strawman arguments.

        “why have a ref at all? Just have all the calls phoned into his earpiece. 4th official becomes the real ref, and the guy on the field is just a mouthpiece.”

        No one has suggested this. It’s classic strawman argument technique.

        “You start taking his authority away and you will run into much, much bigger problems than just a blown call.”

        Nope. How are you going to get worse than changing the outcome of the match? What, you think the whole event of a soccer match will turn into Rollerball, or…?

        “implementation would be a disaster… Do I want to be subjected to 3 mins of tv commercials every time there is a questionable offside?”

        As has already been pointed out and is crystal clear, video review to determine what happened in this place took maybe 20 seconds. Take 30, if you like. Non-video review took several minutes. You have already been subjected to that AND to the wrong decision, as a result of refusal to use technology.

        “But you wouldn’t even remember losing to Germany in 2002 if we had scored and lost in extra time… or if we had missed the penalty.”

        Not me, and I doubt many here.

        “But for Instant Replay… basically where do you stop? How do you decide which calls get overturned? Or is it now going to be football where the games take 3.5 hours? I don’t want to watch that… with the whole flow of the game destroyed as we check and recheck fouls… out of bounds, deflections, etc. No… the only thing I would allow replays on are goal/no goals after the 89th minute. Not even penalty/no penalty calls would get replay… Otherwise you will ruin the game.”

        One exaggeration and strawman point after another. Where do you stop? Where it’s decided to stop. There — that was pretty simple. Nobody said every play or every type of play has to be reviewed. That isn’t the case in other sports, and none of them have been ruined by replay. Do you really think that the average time of a soccer match would _double_ because of the use of technology and review? That’s what you’ve indicated here. but of course that’s just more exaggeration. And as for ruining the game, well John already pointed out that that’s been done in terms of the result, a sense of fairness and the integrity of the tournament, in the end. Not to mention the effect on the growth of the sport at least in countries like this one — I assume you’re supportive of such growth here? — where people still look at the sport and see the comparison with other sports and see that the whole approach to officiating here is laughably anachronistic.

      • If you kept it to 20 seconds of review and 3/4 minutes per match, then I would agree with you… but here is the thing. When football did away with instant replay it was because of the toll it was taking on the game. So they brought it back, but only 2 challenges per coach per game… so talking about how it can take too long is not a straw-man argument. Football games were approximately 3 hours before instant replay. Now, the games are 3.5 hours. and instant replay has grown from 2 challenges to every freaking play during the last 2 minutes of a half. So the question of where it stops is also not a straw man, but a valid concern. Without a bright line, I have seen sports where suddenly every decision is subject to a huddle and a discussion and a review…again, not straw man. You might argue, but it won’t happen here… and so I invite you to make an argument and provide evidence as to why, contrary to all past experience with Instant Replay, there will be no replay creep in Soccer.

        In Hockey, the goal/no goal discussion at best takes 2 minutes… which is in fact a problem and does change momentum. It does let the losing team re-group. In basketball, the reviews are also a major momentum killer and drain energy from the game. But at least basketball contemplates such stoppages by including time outs and quarters in the actual Rules… Soccer has a running clock that doesn’t even stop for substitutions or minor injuries. So think about how much bigger of an impact that 2 minutes would be… I mean I can totally see teams that currently fake injuries and make 89th minute substitutions demanding replays for no good reason, just to slow the game down.

        Finally, there are interim steps that can help: add 1/2/3 more officials. players can wear wristlets that buzz the ref when the ball hits the wristlet, they already did goalline tech… so they can do in/out of bounds tech… none of which requires replay.

        Ok, so here is my argument point by point: 1. It slows the game down, no matter what. 2. It will creep/snowball until what you initially wanted is no longer recognizable. 3. there are less intrusive steps that can be taken which would make an incremental difference. 4. having calls go your way or not is just part of the game. Keeping your head is a skill and the best way to stop having games “ruined” by bad calls is to score some bloody goals. You don’t like that a call didn’t go your way? score a goal, respond, fight, go out and win the game if you think you deserve it.

      • “If you kept it to 20 seconds of review and 3/4 minutes per match, then I would agree with you… but here is the thing. When football did away with instant replay it was because of the toll it was taking on the game. So they brought it back, but only 2 challenges per coach per game…”

        Right: they compromised and set a limitation such that the worst calls might be avoided but the changes would not take over and slow down the game excessively. Perfect example of why there is no reason to believe that allowing the use of anything like that will inevitably launch us onto a slippery slope and ruin the game, as you claim in what is (sorry!) by definition a strawman argument.

        “so talking about how it can take too long is not a straw-man argument.”

        Yes, it is, as you have been talking about it.

        “Football games were approximately 3 hours before instant replay. Now, the games are 3.5 hours. and instant replay has grown from 2 challenges to every freaking play during the last 2 minutes of a half. So the question of where it stops is also not a straw man, but a valid concern.”

        Talking about it is a valid concern. Asserting that it will take over and ruin the game is exaggeration and more strawman argument, as nobody here wants it to take over and ruin the game.

        “Without a bright line, I have seen sports where suddenly every decision is subject to a huddle and a discussion and a review…again, not straw man.”

        Again, yes it is, if you continue to claim that this is what’s going to happen and the inevitable result and what we are going to get by any reasonable or limited introduction of the use of technology.

        “You might argue, but it won’t happen here… and so I invite you to make an argument and provide evidence as to why, contrary to all past experience with Instant Replay, there will be no replay creep in Soccer.”

        Already done above. But of course that’s not the only aspect of the argument. The onus is on you, rather, to prove why what we have is better…

        “Soccer has a running clock that doesn’t even stop for substitutions or minor injuries. So think about how much bigger of an impact that 2 minutes would be…”

        As soccer of course has always been a game run not by a clock but rather by a referee who can add time at his discretion to make up for any such stoppages — something done of course every single game — this is no issue here.

        “I mean I can totally see teams that currently fake injuries and make 89th minute substitutions demanding replays for no good reason, just to slow the game down.”

        And again this would not be problematic with reasonable limitations in place (number of requests, types of plays reviewed, whatever), as is already evidenced in other sports.

        “Finally, there are interim steps that can help: add 1/2/3 more officials. players can wear wristlets that buzz the ref when the ball hits the wristlet, they already did goalline tech… so they can do in/out of bounds tech… none of which requires replay.”

        That’s fine. I wasn’t arguing just for replay or even focusing primarily on replay. Replay just happens to be one of the easiest things we have recourse to, especially in a case like this one. But I’m totally in agreement that more officials are needed. Imagine running baseball where there’s only a home plate umpire and he’s supposed to correctly call whether a guy beat the tag at second, or the like, rather than having an official in place to do that (and other things). That’s the soccer approach to refereeing, however, and that doesn’t even cover how bad the situation is in soccer. It’s ridiculous to think that one guy, even if helped in some limited ways by a couple of additional officials (who themselves are also being asked to make unreasonably accurate calls even in their own limited capacities), to cover everything going on all over the field, with 22 guys in action and the speed of the game and all the variables that need judging. Laughably unrealistic.

        “Ok, so here is my argument point by point: 1. It slows the game down, no matter what.”

        Worth it to avoid such glaring and frequent outcome-changing results.

        “2. It will creep/snowball until what you initially wanted is no longer recognizable.”

        Exaggeration / strawman argument. Doesn’t have to do this at all — does anyone not recognize American football or ice hockey? — and as your own example shows, the system can obviously be modified if we begin to see such tendencies.

        “3. there are less intrusive steps that can be taken which would make an incremental difference.”

        Well I’m not sure they would all be less intrusive or equally effective — depends on what they each are, I guess — but definitely agreed that other changes could be made (particularly for example in just the sheer number of officials).

        “4. having calls go your way or not is just part of the game…”

        Yes, in every sport, but not at all to the frequency and degree seen in soccer. It’s too much and as John said, it’s disgraceful. These aren’t “oh, tough but that’s reality, put on your big boy pants and try harder”, they’re pure and simple robbery, sanctioned by FIFA and the various leagues and confederations who keep turning a blind eye to them and (particularly in a country like the US) how they may be working against the growth / popularity of the game.

      • Already done above. But of course that’s not the only aspect of the argument. The onus is on you, rather, to prove why what we have is better…

        No, the onus is not on me to aruge why the game should not be changed… it is on you to argue why the game will be better with instant replay.

        “2. It will creep/snowball until what you initially wanted is no longer recognizable.”
        Exaggeration / strawman argument. Doesn’t have to do this at all — does anyone not recognize American football or ice hockey? — and as your own example shows, the system can obviously be modified if we begin to see such tendencies.

        Um, sir, the replay system is unrecognizable now, compared to what was initially proposed.

        finally straw man: the definition of straw man arguments is: “a fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.”

        I am not making up an argument out of straw/whole cloth/whatever. I have provided examples of where what you want Instant replay, has resulted in the damage I have claimed. Now if I said, “You say what you want is Instant Replay, but what you really want is to take away the passion of the game… ” and then I had gone on and on about how important the passion of the game is… that would be a straw man argument. Get your fallacies straight then come see me.

        Finally, on what evidence do you base your assertion that what has happened in other sports won’t happen in this one? I still have no answer for that.

        and your argument falls into the: ” We have to do something, this is something, so we must do this” fallacy. I believe it is the politician’s Fallacy.

      • “and your argument falls into the: ” We have to do something, this is something, so we must do this” fallacy. I believe it is the politician’s Fallacy.”

        On the contrary, you seem to be adopting a politician type of argument by denying that there is any onus on you to even argue why the status quo is the better of the 2 options in question (leave things as they are or try to improve them). You just accept the status quo in unquestioning fashion as better, leaving it sacrosanct and beyond debate. Hard to have any productive discussion when either side adopts such a dogmatic view. If you really believe the current state of affairs in soccer officiating is unquestionably better than possible changes, and therefore need not even be defended against proposed changes, well then I think we’re done.

        “Um, sir, the replay system is unrecognizable now, compared to what was initially proposed.”

        Of course it’s recognizable! It’s like saying that American football is not recognizable since the introduction of the forward pass, or basketball is not recognizable since the introduction of the 3-point shot, or baseball is not recognizable since the introduction of the DH or the infield fly rule. Simple evolution over time does not make something unrecognizable. This is just more exaggeration.

        “finally straw man: the definition of straw man arguments is: “a fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.” … I am not making up an argument out of straw/whole cloth/whatever. I have provided examples of where what you want Instant replay, has resulted in the damage I have claimed. Now if I said, “You say what you want is Instant Replay, but what you really want is to take away the passion of the game… ” and then I had gone on and on about how important the passion of the game is… that would be a straw man argument. Get your fallacies straight then come see me.”

        I have my fallacies straight. A strawman approach is to distort the view of your opponent in order to appear to knock it down. It is a form of exaggeration and you do it in the main as you continue to distort what the introduction of technology has done in other sports and to imply that that is what people want, and as on the other side you continue to deny the degree of the problem with the status quo. But no one is arguing that for the former, and the arguments re the latter are not at all invalid, as you claim. No one wants this game to be “ruined” or to have game length go to 3.5 hours or any of the rest of what you are claiming will happen, and no one is just being silly about the importance of the current problems.

        But fine: if the point is a distraction, forget it and just label it exaggeration. You continually and repeatedly paint awful images of what you say will inevitably happen to soccer with the introduction of changes specifically involving replay technology (though interestingly you apparently have no such irrational qualms about the introduction of additional officials or things like electronic wristbands on every player, even though problems with those are equally easy to imagine.) Your final comment follows in this vein:

        “Finally, on what evidence do you base your assertion that what has happened in other sports won’t happen in this one? I still have no answer for that.”

        LOL. Because apparently your dogmatic approach to the situation blocks you from hearing the answer, which is this: what has happened in other sports most likely WILL happen in soccer, meaning that changes to the officiating system will result in fewer truly bad decisions on the field and thus greater underlying integrity and overall fairness in the sport, just as has happened in those other sports. Unfortunately, however, you apparently cannot even imagine any such outcome, without all the disastrous results you say are inevitable, and have convinced yourself that it has all been so disastrous in those other sports, even though that has not in fact occurred in them. (They’re all doing fine — take a look!)

        Have a great day.

      • Ok, lets be clear… my argument is not status quo. My argument is no instant replay. And I can narrow it down more. No instant replay system where the main ref has to run off to the side of the field and look at a TV. Between status quo and there, is a giant wide ocean of possibility for improving officiating. Lets explore things to make officiating better, by all means. Lets just not jump to Instant Replay. That would be a bad answer, and I have laid out the reasons why I think so in prior posts. You disagree… just because, which fine. But, i don’t know if you can tell, I am annoyed that you are mis-representing my argument and that you obviously never took a rhetoric/logic class to learn your fallacies (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm). In my argument I used false extrapolation, appeal to tradition, appeal to fear, alleged certainty, some biased sample, some composition… etc. straw man and exaggeration have nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, go down that list and look at all the fallacies you have used in your argument.

      • When you use hyperbole like this in response to those who have advocated some reasonably thought out and limited use of technology —

        “why have a ref at all? Just have all the calls phoned into his earpiece. 4th official becomes the real ref, and the guy on the field is just a mouthpiece.”

        — you are essentially making a strawman argument, by characterizing their view as one that equates to such an extreme. You’re distorting the opposing view into something rather different from what it is, and of course weaker and crazier sounding, in order to knock it down, which is what a strawman approach is.

        Now, as I already said, if the point is a distraction from the debate, fine, don’t call it a strawman argument, just label it exaggeration or the like. No problem. I was just trying to point out the problematic nature of your argument and wasn’t trying to be super specific about all the different types of fallacies you are now listing. (I do admire the lengthy list of them you admit to having used, however! LOL. Respect on that point.)

        And when I say that the argument for change is only one aspect of the problem and point out the onus on you to argue that what we have currently is better, and you respond like this —

        “No, the onus is not on me to aruge why the game should not be changed… it is on you to argue why the game will be better with instant replay.”

        — well then by definition you are not only supporting the status quo but doing so unquestioningly. You claim right there that there is no need or requirement to defend it or argue for it. But of course there is, logically speaking: it is 1 of the 2 basic paths we can take in this matter (leave it all as it is, the status quo, or make changes to try to improve things).

        Now, maybe in reality you DO want to argue for changes, just not of a certain video replay type, but as I say, when you respond in that way to that kind of point, you are in fact expressing a status quo position, and furthermore one that arbitrarily grants the status quo the privilege of not even needing to be questioned or argued for.

        So I think if you look at what you’ve written, well I’m not misrepresenting your argument. I’m just reading statements of yours like these and others and taking them at face value for what they indicate as your view. If your view is not actually to leave things as they are but to try to improve the situation, then I agree. Where your view of some aspects of possible improvement is based on appeals to fear or tradition or based on false extrapolation, as seems to be the case with many of your comments about video replay technology specifically, then I’m afraid I don’t agree, no.

        I have appreciated the debate, however, for what it’s worth, and again wish you a good day.

  7. Awful call, but then again if you can only score on Haiti maybe you shouldn’t go through. Brazil should have lost to Ecuador anyway.

    Reply
    • Yes it was an awful call, with the benefit of multiple angles of slow-mo instant replay. On the field it was a bang bang play that I’m not surprised the ref missed. On first viewing I thought it was a clean goal and was wondering what all the Brazilian players were reacting to. Then came the replays.

      Reply
  8. Ecuador or Peru is less important than playing in Seattle. Of course playing in Seattle against Peru would be best case but I can live with how this shook out.

    Reply

Leave a Comment