I don't know soccer very well.
But I know that Marcelo Balboa, ABC's World Cup analyst, is good friends with many of the guys on the team. I understand that he's upset with official Jorge Larrionda for Pablo Mastroenni's sending off before half. The old "makeup call" saw came out (I've noticed that only those who have never officiated believe in this animal). Still, Mastroenni's foul wasn't as obviously a cheap shot as Italy's Daniele De Rossi's sending-off elbow earlier. I thought it was a yellow...but I don't know soccer at all.
So I thought I'd look for another perspective...an unbiased one...to see if Balboa's harsh and unrelenting criticism is in line.
From the BBC's story on the game:
"[Mastroenni's] two-footed, reckless lunge on Pirlo was deserving of a red card and left referee Jorge Larrionda with little option."
From the London Sunday Times (a story called "The Beautiful Game Turns Ugly"):
"There were 34 fouls, some of them disgraceful. There were three red cards, all of them justified, and three more yellow cards that might have turned the deeper colour. There were two goals, two memorable saves from either goalkeeper, and a match of shame petered out.
"This turned into the first brutal and calculatedly ugly affair of the tournament. The Americans allowed themselves to be sucked in and within the first 47 minutes the players gave the Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda no option but to send off three players...
"Pablo Mastroeni lunged into a two-footed tackle on the shin of Andrea Pirlo — so late and so vicious, it was a wonder there was no breaking of bone — and was dismissed."
Shall we leave England? OK. Staying in the English-speaking world, however, here's the description of the game from the Times of India:
"It wasn't warfare, but this gripping contest was far from friendly. Three-time world champions Italy had Daniele De Rossi sent off in the 28th minute for elbowing Brian McBride and the USA's Pablo Mastroeni shortly followed him down the tunnel for clattering into Andrea Pirlo."
A third continent, anyone? Let's go to the Sydney Morning Herald:
"IT WAS the United States' own fault that they found themselves with nine players - one fewer than the Italians - for nearly half of this extraordinary match...
"[The Italians'] suicidal tendency turned out to be shared by the US midfielder Pablo Mastroeni, who, with the interval looming, launched a dangerous challenge, late and high on Andrea Pirlo's ankle, to which the Uruguayan referee had no hesitation in responding with the second red of the first half. "
All right--I'm sold. The rest of the English-speaking world does not believe the US got jobbed. They think the calls were legitimate.
I'm glad I looked for a second opinion...and a third...and a fourth. In the end, I'll take the unbiased rest-of-the-world's view over our former players' view for sure.
Makeup call? Nope.
4 Comments:
Trent--
Point taken. But the point is limited to England. India and Australia are also outside soccer's worldwide country club, yet their press seemed to be on Larrionda's side. How do you explain that?
Trent--
I'm just not seeing it. The BBC article, while critical of Mastroenni and Pope, was very complimentary of the US, and even felt they deserved the win: "A point was the least USA deserved after a display full of spirit and determination in Kaiserslautern." The Times was equally angry with the Americans and Italians, and even believe that the Italians started what it saw as thuggery.
Your accurate observation--that the English-friendly press would be angry if two English players were sent off--says to me that we can't trust the press of the offended country, which is why I'm more inclined to believe an impartial observer than Balboa, Lalas, Wynalda, and the other close friends of the involved parties.
Trent--
If I understand your argument, you're stating there is an inherent anti-US-soccer bias in two kinds of countries: traditional soccer powers (who don't want the US to be a part of the party) and especially in former British colonies (who feel the same way, only more). This means there's virtually no country in the world with an unbiased perspective on this...except, strangely, us. To put it another way, your argument is that it means that just about every sportswriter in the world is out to get our team. I just don't buy into international conspiracy theories, especially since the BBC's article was so complimentary towards the US's effort.
Your argument also makes it tough on a monolingual like me, since the only English-speaking country in the world that isn't a former English colony (if my history is accurate) is Liberia. I can't find a Liberian account of the US/Italy match (which is all the better...they have better things to spend their time and money on).
My effort to find other countries' perspectives on the game (given in English) has led to The Japan Times this morning, who also think both US red cards were legitimate. I'll grant that the author, James Mulligan, is probably not Japanese, but he calls Mastroenni's tackle "a studs-up challenge...a clear-cut red card."
I appreciate your careful perspective on the calls. From my limited-for-the-world-but-OK-for-Americans soccer experience, I can definitely see Mastroenni's challenge as a yellow. As for Pope, I saw 3-4 challenges late in the first half that could just as easily have been his second yellow...my take is that he simply played stupidly after his first, and was going to go under any circumstances. I'd bet twenty bucks that Larrionda had verbally warned him for one of those like Balboa insisted he hadn't.
I just don't think the US suddenly has a monopoly on the world's soccer knowledge, especially in such an emotional situation.
Remember also that I come at this from a referee's perspective. I've been yelled at in enough emotional situations to know that this ridiculous barking (in which you dont' seem to be a participant) is usually a knee-jerk reaction. I've been accused of everything Larrionda is being accused of--stupid shouts of "Let 'em play!" when the game is on the edge of a riot, for instance. I've also noticed a disturbing recent trend of the TV to instantaeously make the game's #1 story "oh, those incompetent refs" when the ump/refs may well have been either correct or making a tough call without benefit of 24 slow-motion replay angles. See the ALCS, the Super Bowl, and now this. If I have a bias, it's for the ref--but I won't apologize for that, since nobody else is going to have his back.
Except, in this case, for most of the world's press outside of the US.
Thanks for your comments--I apreciate the civility, which I bet I wouldn't find elsewhere on this subject.
Trent--
Nah...not dragged on at all.
I guess my only argument is that this is a call that reasonable people can disagree about, and Larrionda was right on the play. Cries of "makeup call," "incompetence," or worse feel out of bounds to me. I can totally see this going yellow; many others feel Larrionda had "no choice." I'm not willing to say the rest of the world is biased.
I trust my own eyes, but I also trust Larrionda's. He's earned this assignment for a reason.
Like your blog. I'll visit from time to time.
Post a Comment
<< Home