I am very interested to learn if this is accurately reported. Video doesn’t prove it, but definitely suggests it is accurate. http://www.espn.com/soccer/story/37...r-booked-after-rabona-in-win-over-san-lorenzo
Any chance the caution was primarily for the foul in the back that the AR flagged just before the tussle and/or something said shortly afterwards? Found several 3-5 min highlight vids while looking for a different angle on it... none had that particular play/incident, but it appears the match got chippy in the 2nd with several bad fouls, cards, and San Lorenzo's keeper being sent off. Another angle from what looks like someone's handheld:
Agree, but from the news article, the player agreed it was for the rabona. Unsure how you give a YC for that. I mean, I know it is UB and that you can probably find something in the UB definition that will stick. But if that is what you want, then you should be blowing the whistle and awarding the IDFK immediately and showing the card. Not several minutes later, after the dust up. But, maybe it all comes down to man-management and diffusing the situation. Maybe he had to take the YC to calm everybody down because that rabona is what started it all... (and this is why I don't ref professional games in Argentina...)
According to this match report on the AFA site, five yellows for Boca Juniors, seven yellows and one red for San Lorenzo. For what it's worth, when interviewed after the match, Buffarini did not think his caution was for the rabona (see second video). San Lorenzo is his former team. Boca currently sits third in the league table and San Lorenzo, at the very bottom.
I have yet to find a video showing the actual restart after the YC, so not sure if (a) the CR whistled for the foul signaled by his AR or (b) they restarted from ball-out over the goal line or another foul near the goal line. Pure speculation on my part, but if it was '(a)', then perhaps the article could have said: The player apologized for a hot-dog move that triggered a ruckus with the opponents. The discord occurred shortly after his foul on an opponent. After the scuffle was over, he was cautioned for the cynical/reckless/whatever Foul. If it was '(b)', then who knows what else could have also been in play... Yo no hablo español didn't help in deciphering other verbal commentary on the incident. I haven't a clue what's "usual and customary" in their soccer realm. Do they consider a rabona to be a particularly insulting "in your face" move? That level of competition is way beyond my potential, so maybe I'm just being a bit naive... but I cannot see how, all by itself, a slick move when up 3-0 could be a justified caution. Some might say it showed a lack of class, but unless there was some other verbal/visual taunt or other offense, the article's suggestion that the YC was for executing a completely legal soccer move just doesn't compute... As always, I could also be 100% off-base on this...
Not for just that kind of move... But, if this is a MBB game, and someone does this, then the defense takes offense and pushing breaks out... Yellow show in both directions would be appropriate. And, if someone asks what for--which I dont think they would-- Unsporting Behavior will do.
The AR flags the foul when it happens. This is like reporting "player sent off after pulling up socks" if a player pulls up his socks then goes and punches someone in the face. Sure, it technically happened after pulling up his socks. If the rabona was a foul why didn't the CR blow for the foul? He doesn't signal for advantage. This leads me to believe that the YC was for the foul that the AR signaled.
Another possibility is that the yellow was for things he said to San Lorenzo players while the ball was out of play.
The AFA match report has been updated. No caution for Buffarini. The Boca Juniors yellow card in the 87th minute now attributed to Izquierdoz (24 blue).
Wonder if this was the Reuters source for the ESPN article? Pretty much identical verbiage. Now it feels like yesterday was April 1st...
So just terrible reporting, huh? Ugh. I raised this in the first place, after finding the video, precisely because the referee didn't stop play for the action that allegedly prompted the caution. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't about a "gotcha" moment for me. It was more about potentially demonstrating how sometimes very high level referees will bend the rules (or break them) in the interests of management and safety (think about when Collina had teams play in the same direction without switching sides in the second half). I was interested to learn what pretext the referee used to give the caution. Anyway, it's likely terrible reporting. Either that or the AFA went into cover-your-ass mode by just changing the misconduct. No matter what, it's weird. But I suppose not much of a learning moment (unless you didn't know you need to be on top of this sort of stuff in primarily Hispanic and/or professional matches, of course). EDIT to add it's also a learning point to not trust everything you read (again, if you already didn't know that)!
I wouldn't be too harsh on the media with this particular detail. From what I read and watched, everyone, including Buffarini himself, was convinced the Boca yellow in the 87th minute was given to Buffarini. I don't know if the initial report on the AFA site was based on anything submitted by referee Facundo Tello. Before I rechecked their site, I thought the card was officially given for the foul flagged by the AR but less officially, well, you know, as you say. Shifting gears but staying within that same second half, check this out (from 69th minute, Boca leading 2-0): Spectator video actually shows things pretty well: Restart was indirect free kick for San Lorenzo (preventing the goalkeeper from releasing). If media reports are to be trusted (a big if), Tello was given the next competition date off because he failed to give a penalty kick in this instance.
Not insane for the R to decide that the attacker was interfering with the GK's effort to punt, which instigated the VC by the keeper. I think the attacker deliberately chose his path to interfere with the GK's quick punt.
I was about to write, "not insane but deliberately creative." But it's really not. I watch that a few times, particularly from the amateur video, and I actually think it's 100% the right call. Kudos to that AR for nailing it. The attacker absolutely runs toward him to interfere, the goalkeeper notices, stops, kicks him, and then punts the ball. IFK coming out, red card to the goalkeeper for VC. Don't see that often, but it's right. It would be a shame if the CR and/or AR faced discipline for that decision.
What I learned from this is a new word. Unfortunately it is one that is difficult to work into many conversations.