Soccer Blogging

SOCCER BLOGGING….The blogosphere and the airwaves are practically dripping with derision for the performance of Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda in Saturday’s USA-Italy World Cup match. Kieran Healy asks, “Where do FIFA find these guys?” Frank Foer is aghast: “How can we account for his Mickey Mouse performance?”

I didn’t get to see the game, but I’ve now read half a dozen stories about it. And I don’t get it. Larrionda’s sins included three red cards and an offside call against USA, but all of them appear to have been justified. Here’s a rundown:

  • BBC comment on the red card against Italy’s Daniele De Rossi: “De Rossi disgraced himself with a sickening, needless elbow on Brian McBride and was given his marching orders.”

  • BBC comment on the red card against USA’s Pablo Mastroeni: “His two-footed, reckless lunge on Pirlo was deserving of a red card and left referee Jorge Larrionda with little option.” And the New York Times: “The officials’ guidelines call for red cards for two-footed cleats-up tackles.”

  • LA Times comment on both red cards against USA, including the second against Eddie Pope: “Although the U.S. questioned the calls, replays appeared to show that both were justified.”

  • Washington Post comment on the offside call against Brian McBride that negated a second half goal: “Afterward, McBride admitted that he was not only offside, but had screened goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon.”

Here’s The Telegraph’s summary comment on the match: “It was the United States’ own fault that they found themselves with nine players ? one fewer than the Italians ? for nearly half this extraordinary match.” And The Times: “There were three red cards, all of them justified, and three more yellow cards that might have turned the deeper colour.”

I gather that the American team played brilliantly after Pope was sent off, and deserves all the accolades it’s getting. But why the invective against Larrionda? I don’t know the first thing about soccer, but the press reports all seem to indicate he called the match fairly. What’s up?

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation