Did he actually just pull the NHL move with a card for the disrepute and a card for exaggeration? Or was that something else for Mbappe?
Sad to see a 19 yr old with such play acting. I was hoping the younger generation was going to skip that crap.
I think it might have been for a kickout by him after getting slapped in the gut by the Uruguayan. But who knows. It's a mess.
Did you ever considering that maybe—just maybe—there are different standards, precedents and interpretations between the legal profession and soccer refereeing? I mean, I wouldn’t walk into court and pretend I knew all the intricacies that the general public wouldn’t understand.
Aside from the prestige and honor, would anyone really like to referee at a tournament like this? It reminds me of some we know of with the bad reputations that have difficulty in getting referees to attend. Indiscipline, no respect and shrugged shoulders from the organizers. PH
Who got the card for Uruguay, though? The player who initially “hit” him? Or the player who first confronted him after we he went to ground?
I'm sure someone on the board knows better than me but wasn't Busacca sent home from WC2010 after giving a red card to the host team GK? If so, he has apparently learned his lesson...
I've found that the people on this board that claim not to want discuss things further are the ones that won't let a conversation die.
Yeah, but there was and still maybe is debate about the accuracy of that decision. Many people argue the direction argument made that not be a red card. I think even FIFA has instructed that if you take the ball parallel to the goal that it's not DOGSO. But your overall point is great.
And, I think, it was against South Africa while playing, wait for it, Uruguay. Anyone want to run with the conspiracy theory? Have at it!
Also it was a double whammy that included an incorrect offside decision that led to the foul. And to tie it to this game, Suárez was the fouled player.
I also think the slight nature of the contact and clear selling of the foul made it more controversial than if the GK clearly wiped out the attacker.
As a lawyer, then you should understand terms of art and use of words in law with meanings that may not be quite the same as that in the dictionary and that those meanings evolve through the common law as judges deal with different scenarios. Deliberate is a term of art in the Laws of the Game. Like many statutes, the LOTG are not written with great clarity in places. The powers that be have interpreted them over time. And not all of the interpretations square a strict reading of the language. And like the common law, those interpretations have a way of shifting with time, and sometimes create inconsistencies to work out. The general concept is that referees do not judge intent. (This was a change from the LOTG before the first great re-write, when the Laws said all fouls must be intentional--but that, too, had become a term of art that didn't really mean what the words said on the surface.) But you are right that the general rule is not absolute. There are times that context shows intent and factors into decision making. But to a non-trivial extent, IFAB has whittled away at that. For example, until recently a tactical foul was one committed for the purpose of stopping a promising attack; no more--now it is simply a foul that stops a promising attack.