Talk:Jorge Larrionda/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

Please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ -- Abid Ahmed 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)TrackMonkey 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK? What were the irregularities in 2002?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.99.64.13 (talk • contribs)

FIFA never said. The just suspended him for "irregularities." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.110.156 (talk • contribs)

Why the rollback? Yoyoceramic 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The irregularities are detailed on Soccernet. Hence remove the NPOV dispute. Da-rb 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Soccernet article does not detail the 'irregularities', although it does describe them as 'alleged'. It's a four year-old source - who knows what has happened since?

The referre just tried to calm down teams that thought were on a war, as suggested by american players before the game. The origin of all harsh plays is on that comment, and the first half just confirmed it. ABC comments are out of frustration rather than thourough analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.82.191.95 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

pov it is nutural and all is fact

it is true and nutural TrackMonkey 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People who can't spell 'neutral' shouldn't be allowed near keyboards.

Seconded Motor.on 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC) (sure, go ahead vandals!)

NPOV

This is meant to be an information source, it is not a forum for fans to vent their frustrations because of the referee's actions. What this referee did during the match is irrelevant. If this referee was suspended in the past for "irregularities", a clear citation should be provided. The article from soccernet does not provide enough information.

--smr 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)smrgeog

But it did cite the irregularities, which is what the original user who put the NPOV on the page queried. Fifa never stated, the Soccernet article just confirms that he was suspended. It covered the query on the talk page at the time. Da-rb 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is snipping stuff out of the talk page?! This is where you discuss stuff, let people discuss, for crying out loud!--KBrown 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of how to improve an article, they are not a forum for more general discussion. JeremyA 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you let these guys vent/talk, we may come up with some usable content - if they go out and get evidence of the things that are being alleged (anti-Americanism, incompentence, etc). We should be redirecting people rather than shutting them down, I think.--KBrown 21:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the basic deal in a nutshell: Unless you cite sources from reliable sources, all criticisms about Larrionda's officiating will be removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay for stating a basic policy of any encyclopedia! yay! Motor.on 16:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is written as if it were about the "most partisan referee" to quote another poster. The amount of overall criticism of this referee in the media as whole (not just in American sources) is minimal compared to the officiating of the Korea-Italy and Korea-Spain games in the last World Cup (there is a Wikipedia article currenly on the referee of the former of these matches but not the latter). Indeed at least from the football sources I receive news from, there was generally more disdain for an obvious missed handball for the United States against Germany in the 2002 World Cup (hand used to clear off the line) than there was for this match (though not specifically directed as criticism to the referee as Hugh Dallas is fairly well respected) but I am not aware if Wikipedia has any coverage of this incident (nor am I saying it should). Eseentially what I am trying to say is there are thousands of matches where there is essentially unaninimity in the denouncement of the refereeing, which is not even the case here, so why is all of this even worth having an aritcle about (the main basis for this aritcle is the United States-Italy match). If you read reports of the match, very few mention the handball incident (actually I couldn't find one even, though I know there was an appeal having watched the game, but I'm sure they exist. I haven't seen any quotes of complaints by Arena or the American players)at all, whereas for example the France - Switzerland supposed handball with Muller has received significantly more coverage (in every match report covering this match). The red cards against the Ameircans were on the harsh side, but the worst red card for me in the tournament was handed out in the Ukraine game against Spain (once again an incident which has essentially unanimously been agreed to as incorrect). As for Chris Waddle and the ABC commentators, if we were to have an article written up on every referee everytime a commentator called him "rubbish", we may as well turn Wikipedia into a catalogue of football referees. I understand this is the World Cup but if you look at the history of the tournament there are considerably more controversial incidences which at most have a small blurb devoted to them.

218.103.249.150 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry just remembered also, in the Argentina-Serbia & Montenegro match, Kezman was sent off for a straight red on a tackle that was very similar to the first red in this game but I have not seen or heard any criticism of this decision.

218.103.249.150 05:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is getting long, especially the bit concerning the criticism arising from the Italy/USA match. I think what's notable is that he was criticized by players and various media outlets, but other media outlets agreed with him, and FIFA didn't call him out. That's a sentence that could replace two paragaphs... Bugmuncher 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia changed..

Wikipedia changed their first allegations that he was anti-American. I'm not sure if someone posted it or if Wikipedia added it and then edited the initial verbiage in the original article. I apologize if it sounds as if I was accusing him of such. I only wanted proof...either way; he ruined the integrity of the game. It looked as if he wanted to control the players instead of letting them play.

Wikipedia itself does nothing, by definition. "someone" posts everything. Vandals or not. Motor.on 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Describing Mastroeni's tackle as 'lunging' is incorrect as well as unfair.

As well, how late is a tackle when the ball is struck?Remonj 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you..

Motor.on for shedding light into how Wiki works.

Woo hoo! go me! [/arrogance] Motor.on 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Newly Registered

What is the definition of a "Newly Registered" user Yoyoceramic 21:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an user who registered a couple of days ago and has only a few edits. You are not one of them as you can edit the article :-) --Tone 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

An account less than 96 hours old. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. TheProject 21:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Source ?

"His performance drew heavy criticism ?": from whom ? I see evidence that he was criticised by some Wikipedia vandals but I don't think they count as reliable sources ;-) Mwarf 23:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be to early to make that claim also, but from watching the game I did hear chants of "bullshit" from American fans after some of his calls. Maybe should be changed to "drew criticism from U.S. fans after calls made in the Italy-U.S. game" or something like that. To be quite honest, I am very surprised how quickly this page was made! So bad it got protection already! hehehe--Jersey Devil 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why delete my BBC source which states that the decisions were mostly correct, other than a desire to make the article POV? (directed at whoever did, I can't be bothered to see who did)--Scarfo 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The article didn't make such a statement. It only defended the first two red cards. zellin t / c 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris Waddle declared the officials "rubbish" - this is about the most articulate comment from a third-party national I can find right now. Sargant 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Waddle has enough credibility to be referenced in the article. Go ahead and put it in. Perhaps it should be pointed out that the press is somewhat divided on the issue?--Scarfo 23:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having just reread the coverage of this game in all the major UK papers, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the New York Times, there is no evidence of the "heavy criticism from the press". In fact, they all line up with the referee on this match. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the TV quotes, but do we have *any* written examples of the referee being criticised? If not, I suggest we tone "heavy criticism from the press" down to "some criticism from television commentators and analysts". Caek 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexi Lalas, Eric Wynalda, and the other two espn commentators (including an Italian) all criticized the ref for calls he made to both sides during this match. I can't cite a direct link to a video but I can cite my own ears and those of anyone who watched the post game commentary.

Perhaps, but those guys are biased. --Scarfo 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If American announcers AND an Italian announcer agree that the referee's performance was disgraceful (and they did as I too can cite my ears) how can you say they were biased? If people on both sides agree I fail to see bias. 172.128.126.48 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference that they might be "biased." The point is that they are notable soccer commentators whose criticisms should legitimately be included in the article, provided that somebody can come up with a citation. -Cheapestcostavoider 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavy criticism "for decisions that went against both sides?" I have certainly seen no mild, much less heavy, criticism of the only major decision which went against Italy, the red card offense which was so blatant that reputable (and neutral ie British) commentators have called for the player in question to be banned from the rest of the tournament. 172.128.126.48 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The poor decisions that went against Italy are primarily offside calls and no-calls on clear fouls during the later stages of the game. zellin t / c 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no criticism in the comentary that I watched for the red card against Italy. Everyone, even the Italian commentator agreed that that was a good call. If I remember correctly there were fouls that were called on Italy that were criticized and then he was criticized for not calling anything on either side for the last 20 minutes of the game. Did anyone record the game or know where we can get a transcript so we can post on the actual page with citations?

I'm gonna add a citation to that as an ABC sportscast dated 17 June 2006 209.193.18.86 02:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding Dave O'Brien and Marcelo Balboa to my list of commentators who criticized Jorge Larrionda. I'm looking for quotes and citations, but they are the ones who were announcing and analyzing during the game.

According to this german source Angel Maria Villar Llona (FIFA vice president in charge of referees) congratulated Larrionda for his performance.

http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1150614049840.shtml

Some inconsistencies cited

This only cites inconsistencies in one game and not in 2002, but these are pretty glaring.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report?id=165930&cc=5901

"Brazil and Colombia each had goals controversially disallowed as they drew 0-0 in their World Cup qualifier on Wednesday."

"Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda waved play on while television replays showed the ball had crossed the line by at least half a metre.

Two minutes earlier, Colombia defender Mario Yepes had a goal disallowed for offside, although replays suggested his effort was legitimate."

Transcript of Musberger's comments

On the ABC Sports telecast of the match, 17 June 2006, 18:26 (UTC). Transcribed from a recording of the broadcast: "But the postgame conversation is going to center around the referee, Jorge Larrionda from Uruguay. And folks, back in 2002, he was one of five referees suspended for irregularities. Now, that decision kept him out of the last World Cup. The president of the Board down there did not reveal why the sanctions were imposed, but he said they happened because of irregularites that were denounced by other referees." —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope

He gave Pope a straight red card even though he already had a yellow. It was not two yellows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.57.136.227 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

No he did not give a straight red. He definitely gave a second yellow. I saw it with my own eyes and the official match report confirms it. 172.128.126.48 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pablo Mastroeni recieved a straight red card for the same offence as Pope (a late tackle; he was too slow and hit the player instead of the ball). That's usually a warning and then a yellow if it's repeated; not a straight red. The criticism for Pope's red was that most refs would have warned him before giving him a yellow card because his first yellow wasn't for the same offence. I'm sorry if this is posted twice. My first attempt seems to have been sucked into the internet's black hole so you never know where it might turn up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsiegrist (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

It was not the same offence, Mastroeni clearly used a lot more force in the tackle. The fact that he was warned because of a different offense doesn't mean he hasn't been warned. Otherwise you could just take turns putting your foot, elbow and fist to the faces of an opposing player and never get a card. He had been playing a rough game the whole first half up to that point. PHF 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope's second yellow came on a tackle in which Pope made minimal contact with Gilardino and significant contact with the ball and was in no way 'late'; replays clearly show this. Pope's first yellow came on a ridiculous call, and the second was produced under even less justified circumstances.Remonj 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please settle down. Coming from an American, both offenses were clearly yellow card offenses. However, what many are angry about is that he was sent off without an additional (verbal) warning despite the fact that the two yellows were for different offenses. zellin t / c 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Justified Actions?

May be we should, in all fairness to the ref, mention that under the recent FIFA warnings to the officials for WC 06 - a "two-footed cleats-up" tackle such as Mastroeni's warrants an automatic red card. You can refer to this article [1] by NY Times. If no one objects i'll add it to the article. -- Abid Ahmed 02:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it, even though I can't remember clearly if Mastroeni went in two-footed. I remember more what Eric Wynalda and Alexi Lalas said after the game about it more than what really happened, and they implied (well, they didn't even imply, they just came out and said) that Mastroeni's tackle wasn't cleats-up. But I think if we're trying to get NPOV, it does no harm to talk FIFA warnings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkessler23 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

To call Mastroeni's tackle 'two footed' is absurd. It was an aggressive, cleats up one footed tackle which made contact with the ball, and in no way, shape or form warrented a sending off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remonj (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Shows how much you know about the rules of football. Making contact with the ball or not does not matter, and his tackle does warrant an expulsion in many ways shapes and forms. PHF 15:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, making contact with the ball first does matter, but only if the tackle is otherwise clean (not two-footed, studs not showing, etc.) TheProject 19:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the replay in slow motion, it doesn't look like Mastroeni got any ball at all. Of course, my eyes are untrained. Bugmuncher 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"a reckless and possibly deliberate elbow to the head"

The work "possibly" should clearly be removed from the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.59.186 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Have you got a link to the interview where the player admitted it was deliberate? Or is that the way the law is worded? I think we're trying to avoid implying that the elbow was thrown deliberately in the absence of evidence to that fact. —C.Fred (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, De Rossi has since apologized McBride.[2] I have removed all of "and possibly deliberate", as it was reckless, for sure, but "possibly deliberate" is now simply pure speculation. TheProject 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From a report in the UK Observer:

Pablo Mastroeni summed up the USA's adventure when he advanced to chip a 30-yarder on to the roof of Buffon's net. But a minute before half time he was dismissed for a late lunge at Pirlo's ankle. It was one of the aspects Fifa asked its officials to clamp down on and referee Jorge Larrionda was left no option with either sending-off. http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/matchreport/0,,1800462,00.html

BBC report:

Seconds later, De Rossi disgraced himself with a sickening, needless elbow on Brian McBride and was given his marching orders.It was the undoubted low point of a World Cup that has tried so hard to entertain........ Moments later, Mastroeni was off too. His two-footed, reckless lunge on Pirlo was deserving of a red card and left referee Jorge Larrionda with little option. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/4853182.stm

Der Spiegel:

All of the red cards handed out by Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda were justified and he maintained control of the match despite the at times violent play. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,422002,00.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.107.105 (talk • contribs) .

Since this page is protected, perhaps someone could add the obvious American penalty that Larrionda never saw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.143.16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the difference between "ball to hand" and "handball". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scarfo (talk • contribs) 09:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Last sentence/ Times quotation

I'm not sure about the wording of the sentence "The Times of London, for example, wrote that all of the red cards were "justified", and this was also the opinion in Der Spiegel.". The one-word quote seems a bit stilted and also seems a bit too understated to reflect their opinions. I'd either drop the quote to leave something like: The Times of London and Der Spiegel among others felt that the red cards were justified in view of the violent play and the rulings of FIFA Or quote more of the article: The Times of London, for example wrote that the red cards were "all of them justified" in a game described as a "brutal and calculatedly ugly affair". LoopyWal

You're right, so I rewrote it a bit. David Sneek 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're rushing to include the Times and German articles that defend the referee why no mention of for example British commentator (and former player) Chris Waddle who desribed the official as "rubbish." Evidence that heavy criticism did not come just "from the press, chiefly in the United States." And Waddle certainly has more credibilty than some no-name reporter form London. 172.128.161.136 15:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Got a link? If it's online, we can quote it and put it in. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been posted on many occassions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5058558.stm about a page down, first comment under "The Action as it Happened." --69.250.207.180 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're collecting pundit comments, then it might be worth metioning Sam Allardyce (Bolton manager and contender for the England job) agreed with all three red cards in his analysis for ITV in the UK. Caek 16:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris Waddle was the only one of the half a dozen pundits on BBC/ITV to make any serious criticisms of Larrionda. Allardyce, McCoist and Lawrenson agreed about the red cards. The first two were clear cut. The ref had no option under FIFA directives. The second Pope yellow was fair, the first was debatable. The "penalty" was ball to hand. The disallowed goal was perhaps unlucky but under the letter of the law not a wrong decision. In the UK some pundits were surprised at the leniency shown to Onyewu after a couple of cardable offences. The US played very well and were a bit unlucky but suggestions that they were victims of bias are extreme. Every game has a few questionable decisions. Get over it guys. Hope you have better luck against Ghana. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.224.245 (talk • contribs) .

"Expulsions" vs. "sending off"

According to FIFA, a player is "sent off" rather than "expelled". I have changed the reference to "expulsion". Please feel free to disagree with me here and in the article! Caek 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went with FIFA's noun forms of "cautions" and "expulsions", per the match report. However, since "expulsion" is less frequently used than "sent off" or "red carded," the change is fine. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that this really, matters, but I can't find any reference to expulsions in the Laws. See, e.g. Law 12, so I wonder if these match reports are written in U.S. English, where referring to a sending off as an expulsion would raise less eyebrows. Caek 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if translation is the issue here. (I'm getting volleyball flashbacks now to NAGWS rules, where there were expulsions separate from disqualifications, with the difference being whether you were sent off for just the game or for the remainder of the match. I think expulsion was for the game. Effectively, I just remembered it by the cards shown: yellow, red, together, and apart. Plus, for North Carolina's purposes, a player removed from the match was either disqualified or ejected, depending on whether the action warranted an automatic suspension. But now I really digress.) Basically, I was just trying to vary the language so it wasn't always the same terms every reference. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not jsut say issued four yellow cards and three red cards? Motor.on 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me (although you'd lose half a mark in the current examination to become a football referee!). The sentence does read a little oddly at the moment; "them" refers to both people and cautions. Caek 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did. I also removed the ambiguous "them" Caek mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is silly. Yes, articles should be neutral, but saying that the decissions of Larrionda went "against both" is neutrality in absurdum. Sending off two Americans, ignoring an obvious American penalty, not accepting the American goal... This guy was the most partisan referee ever in a world cup, he could not have been more pro-Italian had he been Berlusconi himself. At the moment, this article is NOT NPOV, it's an effort to protect Larrionda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.143.16 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Wait... did you watch the game!? the "american goal" was "scored" while an American was way offsides. I don't like the guy, but pay attention before whining! Motor.on 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is pure pro-Larrionda bullshit! Yes, the red cards were correct. But how come there are no comments on the goal that wasn't accepted and the penalty the US never got? Did commentators give him right on them as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.131.168 (talk • contribs)

The rules state quite clearly the referee can only rule a hand ball if the touch is deliberate, which was clearly not the case here. Regarding the disallowed goal, if you go to the FIFA web site and download the rules of the game there is a few nifty diagrams at the end that shows FIFAs policy to what is offside, one of them clearly show that if an attacking player in an offside position is impeding with the goalkeepers view of the ball, it is an offside.--Kirenaj 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That, and as for the offside, many people forget that assistant referees are responsible for calling offsides in general, not referees themselves. TheProject 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and I was the person who removed the comments about offside decisions for precisely that reason. However, having thought about the disallowed goal some more, it was a very difficult decision for the linesman to make alone. The US player in the offside position wasn't interfering with play, which would have been obvious to the linesman, but commited an offside offence because he was interfering with an opponent (obstructing the goalkeeper's view), which is much harder for the linesman to determine from his position. I therefore wonder if the decision wasn't made more by the referee than offside calls usually are. Nevertheless, I haven't seen *any* criticism of this offside decision, so I think we're OK leaving any mention of it out of the article for now. Caek 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not the referee or linesman gave the decision, as it was the correct one. --Scarfo 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Moot point, but, if I recall correctly (and I may not recall correctly), the flag was up anyways, so the call was made by the assistant. TheProject 07:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots?

Surely someone has a video of the match... from this it should be very easy to ascertain whether the tackle in question was cleats up, whether Pope was given a straight red, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swakeman (talk • contribs) .

Yellow shown at 46:05 per ABC's clock, Larrionda checked his scorecard and showed the red at 46:12. Not sure why that's relevant to the analysis, though; the game report shows it as a second yellow. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the second yellow was shown, the match report[3] shows Pope's expulsion as a 2Y expulsion. TheProject 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the match recorded. I will start to assemble the screenshots once I get a free moment. Yoyoceramic 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mean uploading them to Wikipedia, as there may be some fair use issues. TheProject 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh of course not, but thanks for the reminder anyway. Yoyoceramic 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point though? Wouldnt any conclusion you would like to take from reviewing the game count as original research? PHF 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flashing a photo of Mastroeni's cleats in the Italian's knee would certainly convince me. Swakeman 06:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you won't find his cleats in the Italians knee, you'll find them on the Italians ankle, perhaps just a bit above. Batman2005 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Other notable referee information?

Right now the article mentions two controversial matches... Can we have maybe a paragraph about the non-controversial matches he oversaw? I know it's hard to find because nobody writes about the refs when there's no ref controversy... but, surely this guy must have some well-called games under his belt, too. Bugmuncher 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Will second this notion. He's just getting slated about people who were upset about the USA v Italy match by upset partisans, especially when a lot of commentary seems to suggest the red cards were valid, and from a point of view it could be claimed that Larrionda had to officiate a world cup match where the two teams were intent on violent play against each other, and from FIFA directives he was forced to send three players off. While there were some (IMHO) poor calls in the game, this did not seem completely out of keeping with the rest of the matches at the World Cup. Additionally looking at the whole match from my view a lot of the other players seemed to be on the brink of a 2nd yellow card. People upset about this are just using wikipedia to list all the other ?upsetting? officiating decisions he has made, without any balance to the many good games that he has had. In that way it is not a true reflection of his life and I feel that this article should reflect that. (as a side note view the edits to this article during the time span of the game - there are a few edits where obscenities are being flung around unfairly about this man) - Master Of Ninja 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, unfortunately, non-controversial means non-notable which would mean such information would not meet notability requirements. In some exceptional cases where a referee has shown very much skill in judgement over the long-term, awards given to them, which are notable, are included in the article. TheProject 07:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to give some sense of the balance of his career by listing the other tournaments from his FIFA bio. I don't think any more detail than a list is necessary, other than possibly a summary table of tournament/event, matches worked, and cards issued. However, that would require researching a lot of match summaries. However, if he worked the final of one of those tournaments, that would be worth a phrase in the paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Transcript of the SF Zwei video

The video showing Mastroeni getting the red card was recorded by SF Zwei in Zurich. Is there anyone that speaks German (Swiss German?) well enough to translate it? I was able to glean the following out of it, to be read line by line. The capitalized words are to stress the sportscaster's intonation.

there's a foul on the play, A RED CARD??? (This line unclear). Red (unclear) Mastroeni. Ahhh, direct to RED CARD? Yellow yes, RED??? (This line unclear). It’s clearly a foul of course, but direct to red? (States that they will replay the video). It was a good (unclear), it was a good (unclear). (Gesundheits, Gewerdenz?). I think a red card is (unclear). Thanks for humoring me! Hebron 10:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my version, starting at 44:02:

"Bad foul play! Oh, red card?! An excessive call in my opinion. Red for Pablo Mastroeni? Ouch, straight red card? Yellow, yes...(but) red? I would put a question mark there. A clear foul play, of course, but straight red? Looking forward to the replay. (replay starts) Well, it was a hard attack...it was a hard attack...dangerous to health. Yep, correct, I think the red card is justifiable. I correct the first impression and say: yes...(end of video)" Bal00 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Bal00! Hebron 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. But now the swiss commentator supports the view of the refereee. Therefore, this videos should be removed to receive a pure ref bashing wiki entry.

Future Fifa 2006 Appearances

Anyone know if Jorge is going to be reffing anymore FIFA WC 06 games? Yoyoceramic 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Hopefully not. 24.177.115.191 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA doesn't announce which officials are assigned to which game until shortly before. Technically, we won't know for sure if he's still around until after the final, but if we're in the last four and he hasn't made another appearance then it's likely he's been sent home. zellin t / c 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, get over it. His decisions were absolutely alright. And also the FIFA thinks so (see Angel Maria Villar Llona congratulations for his performance). BTW, the next match of Larrionda is Togo-France.

Surprised

Just to add one piece of information. Mr. Larrionda is being hinted in Brazil as the favourite to officiate the final match *especially* because of his performance at USA vs Italy. I don´t really care much about what American commentators say - the US is so unimportant in terms of football, so perhaps the same relevance should be given to commentators from Ghana, Saudi Arabia or Paraguay. Anyway... what I meant to say is that the South American press in general has praised his performance for not complying with violence on the pitch. Bruce Arena is always complaining of everything, so I don´t think his opinion should be cited in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.189.71 (talk • contribs) .

Too biased

By the way, Larrionda is seen, along with Argentine Horacio Elizondo, as the best referee in South America. His appointment for Libertadores matches is always praised. Uruguayans are very proud of him. This article makes him look like a criminal, just because he was the referee when the United States lost a match. I understand Americans are probably the majority of editors and contributors here, but this article is too biased! What if he is chosen to officiate the final match? I agree that one might say his performance in US x Italy was controversial, but it was praised by many too, as much that he was selected among the top trios for the last matches of the tournament. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.189.71 (talk • contribs) .

witch-hunting

The section on the alleged irregularities in 2002 is pure witch-hunting. If this referree deserves such a long article, it should also contain all his achievements that made him become one of the most respected referees of the current time. Press reactions in a country that has very little football tradition should not stain his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.189.71 (talk • contribs) .

I knew the Swiss football tradition wasn't that long-standing, but I think the English have some tradition in the sport. :) (See the BBC commentary cited in the article.) Referees generally don't get press until something happens to make them, well, hated by some team's fans. I'm sure that Don Denkinger, Phil Luckett and Graham Poll were each well-respected artbiters of their respective sports until that one call happened—which made them both notorious and notable for Wikipedia purposes. (Also, no press means limited verifiable sources of information on the referee, so less material for an article.) I suspect that, as the 2006 World Cup fades, the section of the artcile on USA–Italy can be scaled back. However, since that's what most of the readers are here looking for right now, that's why it's so promiment. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Graham Poll is a totally different story. His was a de jure error, whereas Larrionda' performance was controversial at most. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.40.151.187 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

complete name

I completed Larrionda's name just now. Don't know if this is worth a citation, the source is http://www.futbol.com.uy/HNoticia_12063.html . 80.138.171.56 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The fact that he has been selected to officiate a semifinal match is obviously more relevant than the fact that a few pundits have criticised his performance in US vs Italy. It was specifically that performance that made FIFA choose him as a referee who is not willing to accept violent play on the pitch.

Edits

I have made a few edits to the lead paragraph. I tried to make at least the beginning of the article less biased. Please feel free to edit it so as to conform it to Wikipedia standards.

Also, I don´t really know whether so many sources are needed at the bottom of the article. Ninety percent come from US media, and I think three or four would be enough for viewers to understand that most reaction came from the losing side's press.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.10.38.41 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

It depends on the cites. Some of them support the suspension he got in 2002, so we need that many cites: because of the nature of the article, all items like that need cited. So, I don't know that cutting the sources can really be accomplished. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

negative bias

After just a short glimpse at the article, I feel a need to point out that there exists the policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity". The amount of text about a single game in this article is really excessive, and it makes it look more like sugar-coated fan whining rather than encyclopedic content. --Joy [shallot] 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal-France

I'm going to edit the way it's written now to make it more NPOV. ESPN commentators didn't call it a dive during the match, nor do reports from BBC, The Guardian, or ESPN.com. [4] [5] [6] [7] If you have sources saying it was a dive, then we can rework it to include that it was a disputed call, but I'm not, at the moment, getting that sense. Happy to work with you to get this right, though! Also adding in the low card number, and commentators noting that the ref ignored dives. Vickser 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (noticed I didn't sign earlier, apologies)

I noticed someone added "Just some minutes later, Larrionda ignored a push made by french player Sagnol over Portuguese Cristiano Ronaldo that would result in a penalty kick, being criticized by the Portuguese coach after the game.[24]" I don't think this is has NPOV. BBC's match report doesn't mention the incident, and ESPN's says "Ronaldo produced another elaborate dive in a bid to win a penalty, eight minutes before the break. He threw himself to the turf as he jostled with Sagnol for position under cross from Luis Figo." I honestly don't believe the incident is worthy of comment, but if you do, let me know. I don't want to remove this entirely before people have a chance to respond, so I'm going to put in "Larrionda later ignored a penalty kick request from Cristiano Ronaldo, a move for which he was criticized by the Portugese coach." If nobody speaks up on this issue, though, I'm going to be inclined to remove the sentence, as I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. Vickser 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

All the unnecessary diving madae me nauseous. Whether or not Ronaldo tried to sell the push is irrelevant. HE STILL WAS SHOVED...in the box.....the ball in his direction...that's a PK. Much like the Brazil/Columbia qualifier and the Italy/USA match, Some would say Jorgie had an agenda to stick to.

The World Cup is over

Guys, the World Cup is over, and now it´s time to stop whining or complaining. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should have personal articles that present a balanced biography of individuals. It is not reasonable to devote several lines to one match officiated by this referee. Also, only his alleged mistake or controversial decisions are mentioned - never his correct decisions.

Referees are no different from other people, so they should receive the same treatment. If a referee is selected to officiate in a World Cup, it means he is one of the best among dozens of thousands worldwide. Thus, his article should reflect such status, and "controversial" decisions should not be emphasised. However, infamous errors (such as those accepted by the referee later - eg Graham Poll's three yellow cards to the same player), ought to be included.

To make an analogy, for instance, I don´t think the article on players such as Miroslav Klose should not mention how many of his shots missed the target in each match, or how many passes were not completed. Nevertheless, Zidane's headbutting is worth mentioning.

It is just a matter of balance. I hope an editor apply such standards to this article.