Talk:Benito Archundia

US v. Brazil

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.

Please provide a reliable source for this, and please sign your comments. Best regards. Jogurney 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jogurney is right, Anon. Also, what do you have to say about this obvious penalty against the USA? YouTube Link There's no bias as you try to infer, just plain and simple incompetence. --201.172.69.85 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

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)

Thank you for the response, but please sign your posts in the future. I agree that Archundia disallowed both goals referenced here. There is no doubt about that. The problem is that the article states the official "denied a result" which is POV. I propose we change the text to be descriptive and not speculative, such as, "he made a controversial foul (or offsides for the second controversy) call on the play which resulted in the apparent goal being disallowed". I'm sure someone can improve on this. Best regards. Jogurney 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your input. I actually agree with the author that the calls were probably erroneous, but as you point out, that is an opinion and this article unfortunately contains too much speculation and opinion. Unless someone objects, I'll take a shot at re-writing this section tonight to make it less POV. Best regards. Jogurney 17:08, 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)

I don't mind at all if revisions are made, but not for the reasons given by 72.211.235.171, which are, ironically, very POV.

1. It is factual to claim that results (i.e. consequences/effects/conclusions) were denied (i.e. not granted/conceded/acknowledged), whether the negated result was a win (result=conclusion) or a goal (result=consequence). The problem here seems to be a semantic one. I can see how a statement like "controversial calls denied results" is ambiguous concerning Archundia's intent and effect. Since his intent is unknown, but his effect is known, it would be more clear to say his "controversial calls effectively denied [x]."

2. There was no claim that the US was playing a man down since Hume's goal. Two separate points (momentum after Hume's goal + Bradley's sending off) are relevant to the point that the game was about to head to extra time.

3. "Hutchinson did not score. He kicked a dead ball into the net, as the whistle had already blown." --72.211.235.171. This assertion is the most speculative and most assertive of a POV. The whistle cannot be heard in any replay. Also, no players react to a whistle until after the goal. Some might have reacted to the AR's flag, which could not have gone up more than two seconds before the ball is in the net (this is the last time the Assistant Referee [AR] is seen in view, and his flag is still down). Even if the flag went up before the ball crossed the line, the law of the game is to continue play until the ref blows the whistle. When the whistle was blown is unknown. But even speculation that the whistle was blown after Hutchison's first touch of the ball (his second touch was the shot) and the ball's crossing the goal line is lacking evidence and short on probability. It is actually most common for the whistle to be blown well after the offending player touches the ball and then after the AR raises his flag as FIFA instructs their referees that "it is better to be slightly late and correct, than to be too quick and wrong" (FIFA referees know this quite literally as the "Wait and see technique").

4. "The claim that it cannot be offside due to Onweyu's action shows complete ignorance of offside adjudcation [sic]. A defender's 'touch' does not reset offside and that sort of action is commonly seen as a 'touch'." --72.211.235.171. This assertion was disproved by the original citations given, which were probably not checked by this user. One was the Wikipedia entry on The Law of Offside which correctly states that a player is not committing an offside offence if the player receives the ball from an opposition player. A video supporting this point was also provided in which Thierry Henry (Arsenal) legally scores from an offside position after receiving the ball from Steven Gerard (Liverpool). And just so you know my bias, Liverpool is my favourite team. I would have loved for the rules to be different when Henry's goal (comparable to Hutchinson's) went against Liverpool.

5. "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." --72.211.235.171. This only explains why the AR raised his flag. The final call is not the AR's to make. Archundia is responsible for the final call and for seeing that Hutchinson received the ball from the American defender. A referee is supposed to assess the play and overrule his AR if either of them make the wrong call. This can be done even after the whistle has been blown.

6. "infamous"??? he's well regarded for his performance at the World Cup..." --72.211.235.171. While Archundia's success at the World Cup is not in dispute, it does not automatically correlate with his performance in these two Canadian matches. "Archundia is infamous for several controversial calls that denied Canada results in the final minutes of two separate matches" is quite factual. His infamy in both Canada and internationally is quite real, although citations would be easier to come by in Canadian sources.

7. "It is an _obvious_ offside _if_ Hume got his head on it. He certainly tries to." --72.211.235.171. Not only is this speculative of Hume's intent, Hume's intent does not matter. What matters is who played the ball, and it was the American defender. In anticipation of any comment that it was a "deflection" or "touch," it wasn't. Onweyu heads the ball, thus plays it. Had he done this into his own net, he would be awarded with an own goal. This standard (among others) can be used to judge who played the ball to Hutchinson. Regardless of anyone's intent, the ball was not played to Hutchinson by his own player. That's what matters. If Hutchinson doesn't receive the ball from one of his team-mates, it cannot be offiside (see earlier citations).

Also, just a grammatical note: It's "offside," not "offsides." The latter has been used here and many other places, probably repeating the error made by the Associated Press [AP] in their report on this game that was widely circulated to newspapers. "Offsides" is an AP misquote.

--G(A)IA 2007.06.28, 04:37 (UTC)

I've edited the section to attempt to remove the POV. I think it reads better as well, and doesn't address tangential issues such as the application of the offsides rule (which could take 4 or more paragraphs to explain properly). Feel free to re-work it, but I think it's neutral enough to remove the tag. Best regards. Jogurney 13:51, 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)

Thank you for the additional input. I tried to address your concerns in a new revision, but I didn't want to use the language about "Canadian objections" since that appears to be journalistic in nature (do we really know whether people who believe the call was wrong ignored the possibility that the ball touched Hume?). However, feel free to modify it if I didn't address your concerns sufficiently. Best regards. Jogurney 16:46, 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. 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)

I think it is unfortunate that revisions are being made based on the POV of some users, rather than valid argumentation.

User 72.211.235.171's anecdotal experience as a referee does not ensure that his/her interpretation of the Law of Offside is correct (same goes for Archundia). Only citing the actual Law and providing examples (as was originally done with links to written and video examples) is evidential. These citations were provided to avoid revisions based on POV, even though such revisions were made anyway. Before User 72.211.235.171 revised the Wikipedia article explaining the Law of Offside, it correctly stated that "A player is not committing an offside offence if the player receives the ball...[from] an opposition player." This explanation of the Law is based on FIFA's actual wording: "A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play" (my emphasis). Conversely, a player cannot be penalized if the ball is played by an opponent. The originally short explanation of the Law of Offside that was included in this article was not tangential because it served to avoid POV revisions like the one that has been made in this instance. Also, several paragraphs would not be needed to further explain the Law because citations were provided (although they seem to have been dismissed without reason).

Again, when User 72.211.235.171 says the article "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," [s]he provides no argument or evidence to support this claim. The original claim that Onyewu did, in fact, "play" the ball is supported in point 7 above. In addition to point 7 which is an argument by analogy, more technical or analytic arguments can be made. For example, a play is judged not by a player's intended result (of course Onyewu didn't mean to play it to Hutchinson, just as no defender would intend to give the ball to the opposing team or direct it into his own goal), but by another criterion: In the case of Onyewu, was it "ball to player" (i.e. a deflection), or "player to ball" (i.e. a play, like a kick or header)? The ball didn't just hit Onyewu in the face (ball to player); he headed the ball (player to ball), and thus played the ball. Again, as per the Law of Offside, Hutchinson cannot be penalized if the ball is played by an opponent.

"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" (User 72.211.235.171). Jogurney already addresses the problem with using "Canadian objections." In addition to that, why introduce conjecture when these things never happened? This is hypothetical rhetoric that only serves to confuse what actually happened. First of all, no Canadian was in an offside position when the last Canadian played the ball. And even if De Rosario would have been in an offside position, he was never involved in the play, which means he would not be committing an offence in any case. If Hutchinson received the ball from another Canadian instead of from Onyewu, then there might be an argument, but an argument can't even be made because Hutchinson clearly received the ball from Onyewu who, after the game, even admitted he headed the ball. In any case, User 72.211.235.171's rhetoric only explains why the AR might have mistakenly raised his flag. It does not give any reason why Archundia should have supported his linesman's error.

Finally, it is disappointing to see the spirit of the principle of neutrality being circumvented in order to equally appease two unequal sides of an argument (it's like saying the article on Global Warming should be written with equal consideration of both sides of the debate when there is over a 9-1 consensus in favour of one side). The argument against Archundia is not only factually stronger; it is, according to news reports, the majority view of accredited journalists and soccer analysts, not only internationally but in the United States as well. Perhaps further citation of things like this should be added to counter POV before making revisions that are not based on defensible claims. I don't intend on reverting to an older version[1] of the article or some variation thereof any time in the near future, but I think this should be considered by other users in light of the evidence. If we are being sincere about neutrality, perhaps it would be best if this be done by users not from the United States, Canada or Mexico. In the meantime, the POV tag should probably be reinstated so that these points can be discussed further by other users.

--G(A)IA 2007.06.28, 20:22 (UTC)

I understand your points, but I believe that my edits have brought the article closer to a neutral point of view. The article states clearly that the calls were controversial and that replays appear to show them being incorrect. I don't think it's appropriate to journalize and make claims that the decisions were "egregious" errors, but if you think that is POV, perhaps we should get some other opinions. To my knowledge, neither the official, nor CONCACAF, nor FIFA have indicated that any of the calls referenced in this article were actually incorrect. If you have a source which indicates otherwise, it is fine to cite it and add an appropriate statement regarding the admission of error. Instead, we have a couple of newspaper reports which quote players and managers as feeling the decisions were incorrect and some youtube clips which appear to show them as incorrect. Whether you or I think the call was incorrect is not relevant in an encyclopedia. Best regards. Jogurney 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jogurney, I agree that it's not appropriate to journalize and make claims that decisions were "egregious" errors, unless of course they have been judged to be so by reliable sources and are described as POV. But I never supported this editorialization in the first place. The "egregious error" comment was made by Iforgetwhat8wasfor. To attribute this position to my own and then argue against it is to set up a straw man.

While you are correct that neither Archundia, CONCACAF, nor FIFA have indicated that any of the calls referenced in this article were actually incorrect, they hardly count as neutral points of view (Archundia needs to keep his job, CONCACAF is trying to defend an already poor reputation, and FIFA does not want to invite controversy that would put the legitimacy of one of its matches, much less a tournament, in question). Neither CONCACAF nor FIFA have defended Archundia's controversial calls, either. Their silence does not provide a significant point for or against Archundia's decisions. On the other hand, the comments of soccer analysts from reliable sources, in addition to video evidence and references to the Laws of the Game, can be used as material to develop an analytical/neutral point of view in the absence of comments from Archundia, CONCACAF, or FIFA. Maybe the articles referenced (chosen for their brevity and for providing historical context) do not satisfy the claim that the majority of accredited journalists and soccer analysts, not only internationally but in the United States, drew the same conclusions. These articles can be found at anytime (I know major papers in L.A., New York, Chicago, in addition to CNN and even the American commentators of the game said "the goal should have counted"). Perhaps references to these materials should be added.

You're also right that any biased opinion on the call does not matter, which is why I've not expressed one; but a general consensus of analysts coupled with video evidence and references to relevant Laws of the Game should be allowed to speak for themselves and count as the majority view if not the NPOV itself. I've been referring to these reference materials in order to explain their view, not mine. Originally, I was defending this page from being influenced by obviously biased POV, without evidence, towards the Canadian side. In fairness, biased POV, without evidence, towards the American side should not be used to influence the writing or re-writing of the article either. But if both sides are to be represented neutrally in the end, then we must be sure to adhere to the point about undue weight in NPOV:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each... Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Observation: The view that Archundia's call even might have been correct is, at the very least, a minority view, if not a tiny-minority view. Even if it could be argued to be a minority view, it would still be speculative at best, and therefore a technically insignificant view that doesn't merit inclusion.

It's also important to make a distinction between journalizing/editorializing on one hand, and analysis that's fit for an encyclopedia on another. Both provide a point of view (the purpose of NPOV is not the absence or elimination of viewpoints). Having said that, objective analysis can yield neutral points of view. Neutral points of view can still include verifiable claims that are not favourable to the subject or person at hand. Thus, much of the unambiguous language used in earlier versions can be justified as it was supported by reliable sources (more of which could be added, but would probably be redundant).

--G(A)IA 2007.06.30, 22:04 (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)

Iforgetwhat8wasfor, your points won't be dismissed:

"...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." I will not be drawn into a debate about my personal level of understanding about soccer officiating in theory and practice. Suffice it to say, I have decades of both, but I won't digress further on this point because that just encourages a continuation of the ad hominem attack you started. I certainly agree with you that a fair assessment of Archundia's performance cannot be achieved by just reading the Laws of the Game. To accuse me of such is another straw man argument. Anyone is free to review the points I've been making to see that the analysis I've offered is far more complex than just that.

"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." The Henry clip provides evidence by analogy, which is quite valid. An analogous situation, by definition, is never exactly the same, but this does not mean its differences automatically make its similarities "useless." The point this video supports is the theoretical and practical idea that a player receiving a ball in an offside position is not always committing an offside offence. This is obviously a valid point since it is being lost on many people who argue an equivalency between being in an offside position and committing an offence. Furthermore, it illustrates the point that a ball can be played back to a player in an offside position without an offence being committed. While you personally disagree with the analogy, it has enough validity to it for other readers to see it and make their own judgements, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide.

Thank you for mentioning forums like BigSoccer. I was going to do that when making earlier comments about reliable sources. While forums like those at BigSoccer are wonderful for heated discussions, they hardly count as reliable sources, much less ones with an NPOV. Anyone is free to visit the BigSoccer forums that were written on this topic and discover for themselves the inconsistency of reliability and the bias of both American and Canadian supporters. It doesn't help NPOV to add biased rationalization to the discussion.

Even so, let's not dismiss your point that "it is impossible to tell if the ball grazed (Hume's) head or not." If this is not grasping at straws or the kind of biased rationalization typically found in the BigSoccer forums, then please cite the accredited soccer reports/analysts that have been making this point. To accuse me of "ignorant journalism" and then proceed with your own editorializing without evidence from reliable sources is quite revealing of your commitment to neutrality and encyclopedic standards.

But sometimes unreliable sources yield good points, so yours shouldn't be curtly dismissed. If we are to be charitable and assume that something that cannot be verified might be a valid point, then let's consider the possibility that the ball grazed Hume's head. If this was the case, it would be appropriate to apply your own advice about "officiating in theory (and) practise." In practice, where slow motion videos are not available for referees, officials usually judge the last touch by one's team-mate as the last clear play that directed the ball to the player in an offside position. Bernier's pass is the last clear play (and only verifiable one even after the replay) from a Canadian player before it reaches Hutchinson. That's why analysts and referees would be (and have been) focusing on Bernier's touch of the ball to determine Hutchinson's positioning. But even if we assume the ball "grazed" Hume's head (which would be far more ambiguous than Onyewu's direct play of the ball), it is clear that any such touch did not end up directing the ball to a Canadian in an offside position who was involved in active play. In other words, at the time of Hume's (supposed) touch, if Hutchinson was in an offside position, he would not be committing an offside offence because he was never involved in Hume's (again, supposed) play. The ball only got to Hutchinson because of Onyewu's clear redirection; a redirection that was seen in real-time by analysts and observers before and after replays.

Those who understand how a linesman judges an offside in theory and practice will understand that the mistake was made because the AR, focusing on Hutchinson's positioning (not the route of the ball), assumed that the redirection occurring in his peripheral vision was committed by a Canadian instead of the American who was actually responsibe. This explains an understandable mistake made by the AR (this is also what the AR told Paul Stalteiri in their argument at the sideline). But as everyone else saw (except for maybe Archundia), the redirection was caused by the American defender, not Hume or any other Canadian. The fact that Archundia missed or ignored this and then failed to overrule his linesman is why most accredited analysts inside and outside the United States have said the goal should have counted.

Your "As a fan..." comments speak for themselves. NPOV is achieved as a neutral observer/analyst, not as a fan with an admitted bias towards the United States and Archundia's past performances.

--G(A)IA 2007.06.30, 22:04 (UTC)

References

New Controversy

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)

Should we remove the POV tag?

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)

Peru x Venezuela write up

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)

Is the controversy section really necessary?

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 whole controversies section is POV and frankly worthless. It all reads like it's been written by embittered fans; you could write a similar section thousands of words long about any professional referee, however good.

Some people who've "contributed" to this article really need to get over themselves or stick to posting on fan sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.241.233 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pro-subject POV

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)

That is a rude comment, but I don't mind. I believe my reversions were justified (I haven't reviewed the entire edit history, but I recall most of them being reversions of unexplained section blanking or introduction of unsourced POV), but I am completly comfortable with other editors cleaning up the introduction or any other part of the article. I claim no ownership of the article whatsoever, but get frustrated when people use this article to air their unsourced opinions of the man. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702180357/http://www.univision.com:80/content/content.jhtml?cid=1208881 to http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1208881

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

To everyone combatting the cult of Brian Barlow

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)