Peru knocks Brazil out of Copa América with bogus goal

Peru beat Brazil 1-0 in yesterday’s Copa América competition, knocking Brazil out of the competition. Sadly, the Peruvian goal was bogus: a handball scored by Raúl Ruidíaz in the 75th minute, and it was the first time Peru has beaten Brazil in this tournament in 31 years.

You can see the handball clearly in this video at 2:120 and following, with Ruídiaz quickly putting the guilty hand behind his back—a sign that it was a handball.  There are other videos on the Internet that are even clearer, but I can’t embed them.

Brazil complained bitterly to the referees, but they didn’t see the hand. I’m not sure why instant replays aren’t allowed here, as they clearly showed that the goal should have been disallowed.  To be fair, Brazil hasn’t been in top form in this tournament.


  1. George
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    So far, Euro 2016 (UEFA) is the much better competition. Which is to be expected – no weak teams. Of the 24 teams in the competition, the lowest ranked one is Albania at 42. Of the 16 teams in Copa America, eight are ranked lower than Albania.

    Poland was a revelation yesterday – at least 19 year old Bartosz Kapustka was. He is in for a big payday – will probably leave Poland for one of the big name clubs after the competition is over.

    When Euro was only 16 teams, the competition was better than the World Cup. It looks like that may still be true even with the expansion to 24 teams.

  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    I think the word for this one is arm ball. Looked like he swung the whole arm to knock that one in. Do they not have any instant replay in this sport? They do need it.

  3. Karaktur
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Even with no instant replay, they should be able to inspect his arm and look for the red spot from the ball.

  4. teacupoftheapocalypse
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Whether or not Brazil have played well in this tournament, they have some right to be aggrieved. Yes, one would normally have expected to see Brazil score, but even a 0-0 draw would have seen them through at the expense of Equador.

    Sadly, the lack of instant replay in professional soccer is one of many hangovers resulting from the misguided, incompetent, greedy, egotistic and allegedly corrupt leadership of the main soccer lawmakers, FIFA, by one Sepptic Bladder and his gang of equally (see above) senior officials.

    Gianni Infantino has a lot of work on his hands, but this is one task that that he needs to get to grips with a.s.a.p.

    • ploubere
      Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think it’s alleged, at least according to the FIFA Ethics Committee, which banned Blatter for six years. The evidence of corruption is convincing.

      As a result, any referee decision is suspect. The game’s integrity has been compromised.

      • dorcheat
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 6:31 am | Permalink

        FIFA really needs to move into the 21st century. With plenty of cameras recording at 720p and 1080i high definition, it is time to implement video review!

  5. Gareth Price
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Personally I would like the referee to have access to a video replay when there is a question surrounding a goal. But where do you stop. Video replays for penalty decisions? Free kicks just outside the area? Free kicks elsewhere? Offsides?

    Several issues came up in last year’s rugby world cup (rugby didn’t have video replays for the referee until relatively recently). There was a contraversial decision in the final minutes of the Scotland-Australia match, in the knockout stages, which may have cost Scotland the win. The rules didn’t allow the referee to use a video replay (or call on the video referee, as they do in rugby) for the particular play.

    The video referee was used an awful lot in the tournament for checking tries. Personally I am OK with that as I would like to see the correct decision made over a score. However, it did lead to a lot of down time during games which is one of the reasons why video refereeing was resisted for some time. Also there was more than one occasion when the video referee had been consulted over the play leading up to a try, the try had been given, the kicker was about to kick the penalty when a replay from a different angle came up on the stadium screen and the referee stopped the kicker and asked for the incident to be reviewed again.

    For me the biggest issue is what decisions would be subject to video review.

    • ploubere
      Posted June 13, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. A controversial goal would seem to be a given, though. That’s why they installed the goal-line technology system, so as not to rely solely on the ref’s view.

      I’d be in favor of review of goals and penalty kick situations, but nothing more.

  6. Chemist
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    I guess Fair Play is long dead. The player knows it was a handball. There’s no excuse for not owning up to the foul. But it’s probably too much to expect that, given how player’s have taken to flopping & diving to get fouls.

    Not sure how the line judge missed this call.

  7. Posted June 13, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Pretty darned blatant handball. Big arm swing even.

    I agree with the comments on fair play @6.

    Very unfortunate.

  8. Craw
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    It’s a cheater’s game. You see this clearly on replay all the time — fake dives, etc. In more honorable sports the player would speak up. But soccer fans in general do not value honesty or sportsmanship.

    Soccer never really catches on in America. This is why.

    • darrelle
      Posted June 13, 2016 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure what American sports you have in mind, but I played sports for years growing up, including football (arguably in the top two or three AMERICAN sports), and watched plenty too and honor has never been any more evident here. Cheating has always been rampant. Many American sports players have played by the rule “if you don’t get caught its legal.” Many famous American sports stars are famous for their cheating and their macho attitude about cheating.

      And you would be likely to get yourself in trouble with many American sports coaches if you were to honorably admit to a foul as in the OP example, especially if points were at stake and especially at high level sports like college and Pro.

      But I do agree with you one thing. The rampant lack of honor, cheating and faking of injuries to draw fouls in soccer does disgust me. I played soccer for about 12 years, was urged to play pro a couple of times (not saying much back then in the US) and generally love the game. But I haven’t been able to watch it in years. To me soccer is a contact sport. Not like American football, but if you are playing the ball then, within reason, contact should be okay. I first learned soccer in Germany in the ’70s and that’s how I was taught. It was the same, with one notable exception, everywhere I later played in the US.

      • Craw
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        I have no objection to calling all professional sports a cesspit of cheating! But in non sports like Bridge there are higher standards, and there were higher standards when I was a wee bairn in the games we played.
        What irks me about soccer is that fans seem to like the cheating.

    • Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      “In more honorable sports the player would speak up.”

      First of all, you are painting soccer with a very broad brush. Certain countries tend to go in for diving and gamesmanship a lot more than others and that is due to cultural differences. There is nothing inherently dishonorable about the game of football – it’s like calling it a violent game because of the behavior of certain football hooligans.

      Secondly, I can’t think of any high level sports where the players regularly own up to refereeing mistakes that go in their favor. As an avid NBA fan, I can’t really remember an instance where an offensive player benefited from an incorrect foul call and then told the ref that he got it wrong. How many coaches yell at the refs when mistakes go THEIR way? It is pretty much a given that at the highest level of competitive sport, with careers and lots of money at stake, that players and coaches don’t behave in the most ethically consistent way.

    • Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      “Soccer never really catches on in America.”

      It has caught on. The USA has huge participation at the youth levels, a good professional league, a competitive men’s national team and world champion women’s team. It may never supplant the big 3 (football, baseball and basketball), but that has nothing to do with diving or gamesmanship. It’s not like the sport would become #1 if diving were suddenly eliminated tomorrow. All of the other so-called reasons (low scoring, too slow, lack of contact, etc.) are either inaccurate or can be applied to popular American sports. For instance, contact is inherent to soccer and collisions are frequent, and only those who haven’t played it or watched it would think otherwise.

      Yet, where is the contact in baseball? Players could go entire careers without touching other players, except perhaps to pat them on the behind after they successfully spit their chewing tobacco. And the DMV on tranquilizers moves faster than most baseball games. Football (and baseball too) can be just as low-scoring. Really, there is little rational or consistent basis to the tired anti-soccer mantras.

      The reason that it will probably never be the dominant US sport is for the same reason that baseball will never be very popular in the UK, or American Football in New Zealand, and that is because it is very difficult to replace the entrenched, established sporting traditions. People have a tribal, almost religious devotion to their sports, and this devotion is cultivated in similar ways (i.e. early indoctrination and in group/out group thinking).

      I remember growing up playing soccer in the US, and my grandfather asking my father why his son was playing this “commie sport”. My dad, who to his credit had never played the game but was very open to learning more about it, tried to push back on this notion of a “communist” sport and explain what the game was really about. It was pretty much a waste of time.

      Later I asked my dad why gramps hated the game so much. “Because it’s not baseball,” was his reply!

  9. Posted June 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Seems to me that technology by now should have rendered obsolete human judges on the field of play for any sport. There’s no reason why we can’t have sizable arrays of measurement devices all over the place saturating the field and even scores of computer-assisted humans analyzing them. As in, each player gets at least a few cameras and judges personally devoted to him and him alone.

    Give both humans and computers the authority to halt play when a serious-enough violation is suspected. Throw enough resources (human and computer both) at it and the time to reach a decision can be whittled down to less than a commercial break.

    This eliminates the interference from referees on all levels and should open the doors for incentives for the players to stay honest. If each player knows that there’re multiple judges per player with attention always guaranteed to be focussed on each individual…of what use is it to try to get away with illegal behavior?

    Or, in other words, if they know that the gods actually really are watching their every move and that they will be judged accordingly….



  10. Nerwal
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    There are several reasons why the introduction of technology has been resisted in football, some good some bad. The primary reason is actually very noble although probably misguided – they try to keep the rules the same whether you’re playing in the World Cup final or your local Sunday pub league. The other main reason is to avoid constant interruptions to a dynamic and fast-paced game which seems a bit silly when you see them standing around arguing for 5 minutes when the situation could be resolved in seconds with a video replay.

    • aljones909
      Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, didn’t see your comment before I poted. “they try to keep the rules the same whether you’re playing in the World Cup final or your local Sunday pub league.”. That’s right but I don’t see how that’s noble. Seems deranged.

      • Nerwal
        Posted June 13, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        Well I did say that it’s probably misguided but still I think there’s something admirable in at least trying to keep the game the same. I guess I have to turn the question around on you. In sporting terms why does it matter if people are playing for pride/bragging rights or millions? Why should players earning £10million be treated differently to regular people playing in a local league or kids having a kick about in the park with jumpers for goalposts? That’s how most of the best players in the world started playing after all. Is it suddenly more important to know if a foul was committed in the build-up to a goal when lots of money is involved?

    • Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

      Soccer has managed to retain its free flowing nature, which makes it far more pleasurable to watch than many other sports.

      Basketball is an example of a beautiful free-flowing game that has been impaired by constant stoppages and interruptions. Teams should be allowed to go on scoring runs without enduring endless timeouts and instant-replay reviews – it can be infuriating to watch a game when this happens. I hope that soccer remains in the conservative side with regard to this.

      • Nerwal
        Posted June 13, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        I completely agree but if technology can be used without ruining the nature of the sport we should at least consider it.

        Another strong argument for not introducing technology is that it creates discussion and passion. A controversial decision gets fans worked up which improves the atmosphere in the stadium/public house. I can’t tell you how many heated debates I’ve had with random strangers over offside or penalty decisions.

      • Mark Sturtevant
        Posted June 13, 2016 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

        A solution to the problem of how instant replays would delay the game is to give the coaches the power to challenge a call, reviewable by instant replay, but to allow only limited # of these challenges.

  11. aljones909
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Blatter (now disgraced and ousted) was the main opposition to video evidence. I think football is the last major sport not to use video for crucial incidents. The principle FIFA used to trot out to oppose video was that all games, at whatever level, had to use the same technology. I have no idea why they thought this was a good principle. It was probably to placate Blatter’s power base – third world nations.

  12. Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I think two problems with use of video evidence: 1 it can interfere with the flow of the game if every decision gets checked (this has happened with cricket, although there it’s used in an extremely stupid way and has ruined the game); and 2 it makes it harder for referees to influence the outcome of a game for which the mafia has paid good money.

  13. Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    During the first half, the commentators said the refs missed a foul in the box against Brasil. Peru should have been awarded a penalty kick, according to them, so each team had a bad call against them.

    I was watching the game live, and at full speed the hand ball was not obvious, so I think the refs are only human for missing it. Wat seemed suspicious was the 5 minute delay before they made their decision. I was thinking that the refs were in communication with people watching the telecast, and curiously the telecast did not replay the goal until they made their decision.

    I agree that instant replay is needed for goal scoring plays.

    • Dominic
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 4:16 am | Permalink

      The argument that FIFA have always had is that it should be the same whether you play at the lowest level or the highest… & all they do is refine the level of discussion to ever finer margins.

  14. keith cook + / -
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    We had a rugby test match last weekend, Wales vs All Blacks (NZ) the ref disallowed an All Black try, over ruling the TMO (Vid ref) for a forward pass. The release of the ball went from the hand/arms in a backward motion but the ball looked like it travelled forward, very tricky but I think an overhead cam might have seen this.. I say, ‘might’ and if the TMO or the ref is not familiar with this sort of ball flight, it’s all open to whatever you think you saw.
    But I have watched matches where the vid ref had to be blind or terribly biased, where humans go so goes all our foibles.

  15. rom
    Posted June 13, 2016 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    That is nothing ..
    The inevitable hand of god

    • Dominic
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 4:13 am | Permalink

      Exactly my thought. And they say cheats never prosper…

  16. Albert Habichdobinge
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    There is nothing in the rules that the ball cannot come in contact with the arm or hand of a player. A field player is simply not allowed to deliberately touch the ball with his arm or hand.
    The Peruvian player was shot at. Whether the ball bounced of from his arm into the goal or whether he guided the ball into the goal is difficult to decide even after watching the replays.

    • compuholio
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 3:47 am | Permalink

      Thank you. I also wasn’t sure if that was an illegal move, even after watching the replay. However the last shot from above seems to indicate that he deliberately guided it towards the goal.

      I think in this case it is unfair to blame the referees for not seeing it since I am unsure even with the luxury of watching it in slow motion from different angles.

    • darrelle
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Have the rules really changed that much since I last played? I played for about 12 years, through the mid ’80s, and my recollection is that any contact with the ball from the shoulder down to the finger tips was a hand-ball foul, whether intentional or not. I’ve seen this foul called numerous times, including on myself. Were the rules different in the time period I played, or are there regional differences, or are bad calls just really common for this foul?

      *googles* Nope, you are correct and I’ve been wrong my whole life. The hand-ball foul has always been “handles the ball deliberately.” Interestingly though, it appears that the rule has commonly been misunderstood, “even by professionals,” regarding deliberate vs not for a long time. At least according to the very first article that popped up when I searched on “soccer rule hand foul.” That would be a reasonable explanation for my experience with hand-ball fouls.

  17. Mike
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Brazil will just have to suck it up, like we had to do in the 1986 World Cup with Diego Maradonas “Hand of God ” Goal, it’s blatant cheating ,and until they start to use instant replays and Video Referees as they do in other Sports, notably Rugby of both Codes and Cricket, then it will continue.

  18. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Oh, is that the competition that has been occupying the TV channels for the last few days? I hadn’t actually wondered, just noticed that it was displacing interesting TV to unusual times.

%d bloggers like this: