This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
USA verses Brazil, September 9th, 2007 friendly: MORE CONTROVERSY by referee Benito Armando Archundia.
It's annoying to talk about incompetent officiating since it takes away from the game, but questions arose when Archundia decided not to give the U.S. a penalty when Josh Wolff was hauled down with an open goal in sight. Some say Archundia gave a questionable free kick that led to Ronaldinho's goal and Brazil's third.
While it is clear that both controversies cited involve controversial refereeing decisions, the tone of the section is POV. It is implied that the official determined the outcomes. A better way to present this information is to indicate that controversial decisions that appear incorrect were made late in the matches and both went in the favor of Canada's opponent. To say that an official "denied a result" is not encyclopedic. I can suggest some changes, but wanted to see if we could get a concensus here. Best regards. Jogurney 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
He denied the tying goal(look at youtube to see it) and the power is in his hands (anounymous)
72.211.235.171 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC) POV??? This is aggrieved fan twaddle - way past POV...
- A 2-2 score is not a "result". Overtime or KFTM would have to have decided the game. (Leaving aside the partisan language "denied")
- The US did not play a man down for 15+ minutes. Bradley was sent off at 89".
- Hutchinson did not score. He kicked a dead ball into the net, as the whistle had already blown.
- The claim that it cannot be offside due to Onweyu's action shows complete ignorance of offside adjudcation. A defender's "touch" does not reset offside and that sort of action is commonly seen as a "touch".
- The replay at Youtube suggests the AR perceived Hume (some yards before Onweyu in the path of the ball) to have headed the ball, and perceived Hutchinson to be in offside position at that moment. That's a fair call.
- "infamous"??? he's well regarded for his performance at the World Cup... 72.211.235.171 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
72.211.235.171 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I looked at the youtube video again. It is an _obvious_ offside _if_ Hume got his head on it. He certainly tries to. I don't see how you can complain if the AR decided he did... 72.211.235.171 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
72.211.235.171 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Well no point in belaboring this, as the rewrite removes most of the problems. Suffice to say I referee and not on the basis of Wikipedia!-) Looks like I need to correct the offside entry...
The rewrite has two problems. It implies Bernier's pass was the last Canadian touch, and calls Onyewu's header a "play" which is synonymous with a technical soccer term implying a judgment the center did not make. I would suggest:
Canadian objections assume the assistant referee mistakenly believed De Rosario or Hutchinson offside when Bernier kicked the ball forward, or that the ball came off Hume's head rather than Onyewu's, and that Archundia should therefore have overruled his assistant. The apparent possibility that it came off Hume's head and then Onyewu's has been ignored.
I would also rewrite the last sentenc more neutrally like: Time expired seconds later, while the Canadian team continued to protest. 72.211.235.171 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Fair enough let me suggest the following: (I assume the page is protected?)
Replays show Hutchinson in an onside position at the time of Patrice Bernier's pass, and that he received the ball only after it was headed by American defender Oguchi Onyewu, suggesting egregious error by the assistant referee. [1] However replays also show Iain Hume a few steps in front of Onyewu, and touch on his part would require reevaluation of Hutchinson's position.
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (I am 72... I registered) ARGH! I typed a longwinded reply in and then realized I hadn't logged in, and Wikipedia ate my posting... So now you get the curt and dismissive version...
Salient points:
G(A)IA, sorry, but you need to learn more about soccer officiating in theory or practise to fairly assess Archundia's performance. You cannot get there just reading the Laws of the Game. There are many ref websites (Ask the Ref is a good one) where you can try out your theories with trained referees.
The Henry clip on the offside page is useless, because it never shows if Henry was in offside position when his teammate last touched the ball, and it shows his opponents with clear possession of the ball, rather than trying to break up a play.
On Big Soccer (I don't have the link handy and you need to register) there is an excellent shot of the field at the moment the ball gets to Hume's head. Hutchinson is clearly in offside position. While the shot is clear, it is small and it is impossible to tell if the ball grazed his head or not. Fans who recorded the game report that after numerous replays they cannot determine if he touched the ball or not, but he certainly tried to. If he did, it is a simple offside and a correct (and rather amazing) call. If he did not, it is an easily understood bad call even at international level. Which is why I object to claiming the replay "appears to show them as incorrect". The replay is ambiguous.
As a fan of the US team, I must point out that the quality of the call is immaterial. As a fan of officiating, I admired Archundia's work in the WC, and find incorrect "arguments against Archundia" based on ignorant journalism unfit for Wikipedia. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I post this here is because i want to avoid POV and I'd appreciate your help to make this better in order to include it on the encyclopedia.
June 30th 2007, Benito Archundia made three questionable decisions:
He expulsed two players over reacting minor fouls.
"Peru began well but everything changed when Garcia was sent off for elbowing following a tussle with Maldonado, who collapsed theatrically clutching his face, even though replays showed the only contact was with his chin."
Notice: Maldonado was holding him from the back.
Later on he expulses a Venezuelan player,
"Paez, son of Venezuela coach Richard Paez, picked up a second yellow card in the 78th minute for petulantly kicking the ball away after being flagged for offside."
He Ignored a penalty kick and direct expulsion for the player who commited the foul.
"In the 62nd minute, Venezuela's Hector Gonzalez appeared to trip Pizarro as he tried to tap the ball into an empty net but Mexican referee Benito Armando Archundia waved play on."
Here's the article where I found the information (it's the same on the ESPN website)
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2007-07-01T004744Z_01_B671095_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-SOCCER-COPA-VENEZUELA-COL.XML
Here's Another article with more of the same (althought it seems to be unilateral about considering Archundia a bad referee)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/01/sports/SOCCER.php?page=1
Cr4zyH0r5e 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not only is throwing an elbow taken very seriously anyway, FIFA has told referees not to tolerate it. I think the guy at Reuters was having a little fun with us. Only hit his chin??? The IHT says he didn't have a choice, and I think they are right.
The 2d YC was a bit harsh, but Archundia probably is in no mood for players to shoot after the whistle. Plus it allows him to bring justice to the harsh but necessary RC to the Peruvians. That's why experienced players tread carefully when playing a man up...shooting after the whistle is unsporting conduct that everyone sees, so it is a particulary unwise idea...
The non-call in the box happened when the players both raced for a ball loose in the goal area and both players went down pretty hard. Archundia appears to have been caught behind the play. It's the kind of restraint that was appreciated at the WC. A number of game summaries don't even mention the play. [editted because I've seen a clearer replay.]
None of these calls are anything to write home, or Wikipedia, about. To turn a phrase, if the referee isn't making questionable calls, what's he doing on the pitch? Seriously, that is the referee's job. If the calls were all unquestionable, then the players could call them.
Note also that Reuters says Paez petulantly kicked the ball away, while the IHT says he wasted time shooting it into goal (correct). But then the IHT says Archundia failed to give Canada a penalty (incorrect) in the Gold cup, and that Gonzalez "crudely shoved" (iirc) Pizarro off the ball, while Reuters says he tripped him (closer). This is why accredited soccer journalists shouldn't be taken at face value. Actually, I'm not sure Wikipedia should even bother with "Controversies". It just turns into a sports bar. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the original issues with POV have been resolved, can we take down this tag? If there are other issues, please make them explicit so we can deal with them. -- Antonio.sierra 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've editted the Peru Venezuela controversy for two reasons. Provide context for the importance of the decision, rather than speculate about player's tempers, etc. Anyone knowlegable of soccer will understand the implications. Also, to make sure the description matchs the action seen on the replay. Claims that Pizarro had beaten Gonzalez or was tackled from behind are best left to the opinions of the observers. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean, there are a lot of referees in the world, and all of them make mistakes. If we write down all the alleged mistakes from each and every referee in the world we may end up filling the Wikipedia with unnecessary information.
Controversies like the one of Edgardo Codesal in the 1990 World Cup final are definitely worth mentioning because it had huge international relevance, but the matches mentioned in this section (maybe, and I repeat "maybe" excepting the USA vs Canada) have very little, if any, historical importance.
I think that information would be better off in the respective tournament pages.
In any case, I think the section seems to be biased toward the favorite team of the editors.
Nascar fan mx ( talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement that he's considered one of the best referees in the world is unsourced, and cannot be sourced, except in the case of a handful of truly exceptional referees like Pierluigi Collina who truly ARE regarded as great referees. Archundia is not in the same class as Collina, nor is he regarded as such. It's a POV statement.
Also, your opinion of whether or not the Canadians were justified in their complaints has no place here. It's not a forum. The facts are reported in the article as it currently stands.
Forgive me for what might sound like a rude comment, but Jogurney, it seems like you've been closely 'guarding' this article for a number of years now and reverting edits. Can we agree to clean up the introduction to make it more neutral?
99.234.182.107 ( talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Benito Archundia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to transfer the contents about the referees' screw-ups to the articles about the competitions, since WP:BLP do not apply to those articles. 209.153.232.41 ( talk) 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
USA verses Brazil, September 9th, 2007 friendly: MORE CONTROVERSY by referee Benito Armando Archundia.
It's annoying to talk about incompetent officiating since it takes away from the game, but questions arose when Archundia decided not to give the U.S. a penalty when Josh Wolff was hauled down with an open goal in sight. Some say Archundia gave a questionable free kick that led to Ronaldinho's goal and Brazil's third.
While it is clear that both controversies cited involve controversial refereeing decisions, the tone of the section is POV. It is implied that the official determined the outcomes. A better way to present this information is to indicate that controversial decisions that appear incorrect were made late in the matches and both went in the favor of Canada's opponent. To say that an official "denied a result" is not encyclopedic. I can suggest some changes, but wanted to see if we could get a concensus here. Best regards. Jogurney 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
He denied the tying goal(look at youtube to see it) and the power is in his hands (anounymous)
72.211.235.171 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC) POV??? This is aggrieved fan twaddle - way past POV...
- A 2-2 score is not a "result". Overtime or KFTM would have to have decided the game. (Leaving aside the partisan language "denied")
- The US did not play a man down for 15+ minutes. Bradley was sent off at 89".
- Hutchinson did not score. He kicked a dead ball into the net, as the whistle had already blown.
- The claim that it cannot be offside due to Onweyu's action shows complete ignorance of offside adjudcation. A defender's "touch" does not reset offside and that sort of action is commonly seen as a "touch".
- The replay at Youtube suggests the AR perceived Hume (some yards before Onweyu in the path of the ball) to have headed the ball, and perceived Hutchinson to be in offside position at that moment. That's a fair call.
- "infamous"??? he's well regarded for his performance at the World Cup... 72.211.235.171 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
72.211.235.171 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I looked at the youtube video again. It is an _obvious_ offside _if_ Hume got his head on it. He certainly tries to. I don't see how you can complain if the AR decided he did... 72.211.235.171 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
72.211.235.171 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Well no point in belaboring this, as the rewrite removes most of the problems. Suffice to say I referee and not on the basis of Wikipedia!-) Looks like I need to correct the offside entry...
The rewrite has two problems. It implies Bernier's pass was the last Canadian touch, and calls Onyewu's header a "play" which is synonymous with a technical soccer term implying a judgment the center did not make. I would suggest:
Canadian objections assume the assistant referee mistakenly believed De Rosario or Hutchinson offside when Bernier kicked the ball forward, or that the ball came off Hume's head rather than Onyewu's, and that Archundia should therefore have overruled his assistant. The apparent possibility that it came off Hume's head and then Onyewu's has been ignored.
I would also rewrite the last sentenc more neutrally like: Time expired seconds later, while the Canadian team continued to protest. 72.211.235.171 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Fair enough let me suggest the following: (I assume the page is protected?)
Replays show Hutchinson in an onside position at the time of Patrice Bernier's pass, and that he received the ball only after it was headed by American defender Oguchi Onyewu, suggesting egregious error by the assistant referee. [1] However replays also show Iain Hume a few steps in front of Onyewu, and touch on his part would require reevaluation of Hutchinson's position.
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (I am 72... I registered) ARGH! I typed a longwinded reply in and then realized I hadn't logged in, and Wikipedia ate my posting... So now you get the curt and dismissive version...
Salient points:
G(A)IA, sorry, but you need to learn more about soccer officiating in theory or practise to fairly assess Archundia's performance. You cannot get there just reading the Laws of the Game. There are many ref websites (Ask the Ref is a good one) where you can try out your theories with trained referees.
The Henry clip on the offside page is useless, because it never shows if Henry was in offside position when his teammate last touched the ball, and it shows his opponents with clear possession of the ball, rather than trying to break up a play.
On Big Soccer (I don't have the link handy and you need to register) there is an excellent shot of the field at the moment the ball gets to Hume's head. Hutchinson is clearly in offside position. While the shot is clear, it is small and it is impossible to tell if the ball grazed his head or not. Fans who recorded the game report that after numerous replays they cannot determine if he touched the ball or not, but he certainly tried to. If he did, it is a simple offside and a correct (and rather amazing) call. If he did not, it is an easily understood bad call even at international level. Which is why I object to claiming the replay "appears to show them as incorrect". The replay is ambiguous.
As a fan of the US team, I must point out that the quality of the call is immaterial. As a fan of officiating, I admired Archundia's work in the WC, and find incorrect "arguments against Archundia" based on ignorant journalism unfit for Wikipedia. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I post this here is because i want to avoid POV and I'd appreciate your help to make this better in order to include it on the encyclopedia.
June 30th 2007, Benito Archundia made three questionable decisions:
He expulsed two players over reacting minor fouls.
"Peru began well but everything changed when Garcia was sent off for elbowing following a tussle with Maldonado, who collapsed theatrically clutching his face, even though replays showed the only contact was with his chin."
Notice: Maldonado was holding him from the back.
Later on he expulses a Venezuelan player,
"Paez, son of Venezuela coach Richard Paez, picked up a second yellow card in the 78th minute for petulantly kicking the ball away after being flagged for offside."
He Ignored a penalty kick and direct expulsion for the player who commited the foul.
"In the 62nd minute, Venezuela's Hector Gonzalez appeared to trip Pizarro as he tried to tap the ball into an empty net but Mexican referee Benito Armando Archundia waved play on."
Here's the article where I found the information (it's the same on the ESPN website)
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2007-07-01T004744Z_01_B671095_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-SOCCER-COPA-VENEZUELA-COL.XML
Here's Another article with more of the same (althought it seems to be unilateral about considering Archundia a bad referee)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/01/sports/SOCCER.php?page=1
Cr4zyH0r5e 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not only is throwing an elbow taken very seriously anyway, FIFA has told referees not to tolerate it. I think the guy at Reuters was having a little fun with us. Only hit his chin??? The IHT says he didn't have a choice, and I think they are right.
The 2d YC was a bit harsh, but Archundia probably is in no mood for players to shoot after the whistle. Plus it allows him to bring justice to the harsh but necessary RC to the Peruvians. That's why experienced players tread carefully when playing a man up...shooting after the whistle is unsporting conduct that everyone sees, so it is a particulary unwise idea...
The non-call in the box happened when the players both raced for a ball loose in the goal area and both players went down pretty hard. Archundia appears to have been caught behind the play. It's the kind of restraint that was appreciated at the WC. A number of game summaries don't even mention the play. [editted because I've seen a clearer replay.]
None of these calls are anything to write home, or Wikipedia, about. To turn a phrase, if the referee isn't making questionable calls, what's he doing on the pitch? Seriously, that is the referee's job. If the calls were all unquestionable, then the players could call them.
Note also that Reuters says Paez petulantly kicked the ball away, while the IHT says he wasted time shooting it into goal (correct). But then the IHT says Archundia failed to give Canada a penalty (incorrect) in the Gold cup, and that Gonzalez "crudely shoved" (iirc) Pizarro off the ball, while Reuters says he tripped him (closer). This is why accredited soccer journalists shouldn't be taken at face value. Actually, I'm not sure Wikipedia should even bother with "Controversies". It just turns into a sports bar. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the original issues with POV have been resolved, can we take down this tag? If there are other issues, please make them explicit so we can deal with them. -- Antonio.sierra 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've editted the Peru Venezuela controversy for two reasons. Provide context for the importance of the decision, rather than speculate about player's tempers, etc. Anyone knowlegable of soccer will understand the implications. Also, to make sure the description matchs the action seen on the replay. Claims that Pizarro had beaten Gonzalez or was tackled from behind are best left to the opinions of the observers. Iforgetwhat8wasfor 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean, there are a lot of referees in the world, and all of them make mistakes. If we write down all the alleged mistakes from each and every referee in the world we may end up filling the Wikipedia with unnecessary information.
Controversies like the one of Edgardo Codesal in the 1990 World Cup final are definitely worth mentioning because it had huge international relevance, but the matches mentioned in this section (maybe, and I repeat "maybe" excepting the USA vs Canada) have very little, if any, historical importance.
I think that information would be better off in the respective tournament pages.
In any case, I think the section seems to be biased toward the favorite team of the editors.
Nascar fan mx ( talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement that he's considered one of the best referees in the world is unsourced, and cannot be sourced, except in the case of a handful of truly exceptional referees like Pierluigi Collina who truly ARE regarded as great referees. Archundia is not in the same class as Collina, nor is he regarded as such. It's a POV statement.
Also, your opinion of whether or not the Canadians were justified in their complaints has no place here. It's not a forum. The facts are reported in the article as it currently stands.
Forgive me for what might sound like a rude comment, but Jogurney, it seems like you've been closely 'guarding' this article for a number of years now and reverting edits. Can we agree to clean up the introduction to make it more neutral?
99.234.182.107 ( talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Benito Archundia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to transfer the contents about the referees' screw-ups to the articles about the competitions, since WP:BLP do not apply to those articles. 209.153.232.41 ( talk) 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)