Talk:Massimo Busacca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

The section on Vladislav Vashchuk's sending off is (if not simply biased in its depiction of events) worded inappropriately. "Atrocious" is a judgement call that no neutral encyclopaedia should be making. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Neutrality

Do you require a formal apology from the referee or FIFA for this to be appropriate? It appears that match commentators along with just about everyone on popular soccer forums has agreed that the referee completely blew that call, and hence was "atrocious". --Palffy 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, here is an example of an article on Reuters..[1], Ukraine coach Oleg Blokhin attempted to pep up his side by bringing on Andriy Vorobei and Oleg Shelayev at halftime but his plans were wrecked within 90 seconds of the restart when Vashchyuk was harshly shown the red card for hauling back Torres. There is no doubt this was a bad call (I'm not even bringing up the controversial offsides and the lack of fouls/cards against harsher Spanish fouls..) --Palffy 16:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What you're missing is that:
  1. The writing is not neutral; obviously the ref thinks/thought he was right, and yet the article does not reflect this point of view at all;
  2. Just because a substantial number hold a particular opinion doesn't make it the only valid one; it is not an objective fact that the ref made a mistake, but a subjective opinion.
Therefore, the article fails the style-side of neutrality, and comes perilously close to failing the substance side as well. Wikipedia is not an indictment process - we should not be judging Busacca or his actions. Instead of accusing him of making a mistake, we're supposed to note that most commentators and news outlets believe he made a mistake. This avoids judging Busacca and imbalancing the neutrality of the article. (For the long detailed explanation of the whys and hows, see the policy in question.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Would you have an issue with the following rewrite? ---While refereeing a World Cup match between Ukraine and Spain, made a dubious call against Vladislav Vaschuk, giving the player a red card and calling a penalty kick against Ukraine in the 47th minute of the match. Multiple angles of the "infraction" showed no contact at all by Vladislav Vaschuk. David Villa of Spain slotted home the resulting penalty against Ukraine keeper Oleksandr Shovkovsky. I'm using what was written in the following article as a pre-cursor, [2].
Also, the Vaschuk article would be corrected to Vladislav Vashchuk was the unfortunate target of dubious refereeing by Swiss referee Massimo Busacca in Ukraine's first-ever World Cup match, receiving red card (and subsequently having a penalty kick called against Ukraine) in the 47th minute of the match. Multiple angles of the "infraction" showed no contact at all by Vladislav. --Palffy 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The proposal for this article is excellent. The first sentence of the Vashchuk one is a bit too judgemental, though...maybe this? In Ukraine's first ever World Cup match, Vashchuk received a red card from referee Massimo Busacca in a much-criticised decision. A penalty kick was awarded to Spain in the 47th minute because of the "infraction", which multiple camera angles indicated involved no physical contact between the players. Johnleemk | Talk 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, except change the second sentence to A penalty kick was awarded to Spain in the 47th minute because of the "infraction", which multiple camera angles indicated no physical contact between the players in the penalty box. You're welcome to make these changes yourself ;)) --Palffy 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I made additional changes to the two articles that should appear to be neutral by Wikipedia standards (correct me if I'm wrong, Johnleemk). --Palffy 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this too much?

Really, aren't you guys making too much noise about that penalty? It was not decisive, Ukraine was already thrashed, they played poorly and that goal, though dubious, made little more than a +1 in the final count. A mention about it should be made in the article but the way it's written looks like it was WC2006 final match and Ukraine lost because of it! I have seen worse referee calls much more critizised than this, like in WC2002, and not mentioned anywhere in wikipedia, even censored (go see discussion in 2002 match results and see people say the controversy around Korea and its rivals is unfounded) --MABarracus 13:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the World Cup, the world's biggest soccer competition. There is a good deal of national pride involved (I don't know where you're from something similar might not exist in your country with regards to this tournament, for example USA). The penalty was indeed important for several reasons. First, it completely took out Ukraine's chance for a comeback--they played a whole half with 10 men--and they played a slightly better game in the 2nd half, and likely could have scored a goal, especially if they were at full strength. Secondly, Vaschuk is an important defender for Ukraine, and unless this card is challenged with FIFA, Ukraine will be short an important defender in their upcoming match against Saudi Arabia. I'm disagreeing that Ukraine deserved to lose, by a more favorable scoreline would have been attainable had the referee not 'lost his mind' out on the field. In fact, several other calls by the Swiss brigade went against Ukraine. --Palffy 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I saw the match and Ukraine played ultra-bad, the 4-0 was fair enough though the referee call was erroneus it wouldn't have affected the outcome in any way, playing like they were doing there was no way they could overcome the 2-0 unless they had some miracle. All I have seen in international press (UK, France, Italy, German..) was total domination by Spain and that Ukraine had absolutely no chance in the whole match. I agree though, Busacca's bad performance should be mentioned in the article but not with so much nationalistic passion as you are clearly getting a Ukrainian POV and that's not Wikipedia standard. As I said before, there have been much worse referee performances in the recent past and not mentioned anywhere. --MABarracus 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Decision.

Actually, the red card was correct, as the Ukrainian player 'hindered' the Spanish player who was going for goal. By taking the goal chance away and with no other Ukrainian players between the Spanish forward and the keeper, the referee had to give a red card, no matter if the slight pull was in or out of the penalty area.

However, to add another dubious decision this discussion, why not mention also the decision of Busacca to give Heinze a yellow card instead of a red one in the Second Round match of Argentina against Mexico. I believe that it should have been a red card. Yes there was another Argentine player present behind Heinze, but that player was a lot of meters away from Heinze and the Mexican forward. To conclude I believe the Mexicans were robbed of a direct goalscoring opportunity due to a foul so this had to be a red card because of the same reason as in the first game. Apart from that, the tackle from Heinze was very harsh and could possibly be worth a "dark-yellow" card also. Pelotas 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no hindering of the Spanish player at all. You are allowed to gently tug on a player's shirt, especially outside the penalty area--and additionally, Vaschuk was step-by-step with Torres the whole way to the goal.
As for your second concern, I think that has already been addressed by several upset Mexican fans =)) This is indeed a very bad referee who should have been barred after his first WC match. If you ever read this Bussacca, shame on you!! --Palffy 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not really a bad referee at all. He like others makes mistakes. Name me one referee that hasn't made a mistake in this world cup. He should not be barred because it lies perfectly within his jurisdiction to give a foul for a tug on the shirt of an attacker. A tug is a tug. No matter how gently or hard it may be. And tug=foul. The red card was not necessary at all though. I agree.I don't even think a yellow card would have been correct. But Spain was so much better than Ukraine that the card had practically no impact on the final outcome of that game. --wwicki

Well, it's a long time ago already, but here's what I think: First of all, it's correct to say that a tug is a foul. Because a lot of referees are not that strict on tugs (mainly with corners), some people tend to forget that, but a tug is ALWAYS a foul. If the referee whistles for a foul and the foul made on the player robs him of a goalscoring chance, than he HAS TO give a red card also, no matter if the foul was in or out of the penalty area. This only determines if the ball will now be brought into play through a freekick or penalty kick. I believe Busacca did the right thing by giving a red card, but since it's already a long time ago I cannot remember if the foul was in or out of the penalty area. Anyway, I stand by my first statement but to conclude: a tug is always a foul and Busacca did the right thing (in contrary to Argentina-Mexico where he made a big mistake)! --Pelotastalk 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bussacca decided to only give Heinze a yellow card, despite the Argentinian being the last man to beat. Pelotas, I tend to agree with you that Heinze should have been sent off. However, I'd also accept the argument that there is an Argentine defender (Ayala I believe) who was closing in, and could have intervened the Mexican breakaway. It's an "orange card". However, the sentence I quoted above seemed to deem Heinze's guilt as "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" (the correct terminology, btw) as fact, rather than POV. I believe Heinze's involvement is still open to debate. A proposed change would be:

Bussaca decided to only give Heinze a yellow card, despite arguments that the Argentinian denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.--Alexio 10:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was both a yellow and a red card. The thing that matters is if Heinze was the last man to beat which he was not. But it was still generally a very bad foul and could have been labeled as being bad enough to still be a red card. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwicki (talk • contribs) .

The fact that Heinze was the last man to beat is not the deciding factor, instead you have to wonder if Heinze took away a good goal scoring opportunity from the Mexicans. Yes it is questionable if he was the last man, but it does not really matter in this case since that guy was on the other side of the penalty area and would in no way have come in time to prevent the forward from shooting/scoring. So for taking away the goal scoring opportunity it should have been red for sure. The fould itself was also worth red so giving a yellow card is just weird. --Pelotastalk 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It does matter if Heinze took away a goal-scoring opportunity. That is true. Like another user mentioned above, this is disputed. This incident didn't take place in immediate proximity of the box and Ayala (the last man) had a chance to tackle the Mexican striker as he was in vicinity. So therefore I don't think it is 100% sure that it was a "big mistake" as you said in an earlier post. I think we REALLY need to add sources to this article. :) Wwicki

PERSONAL LIFE? please any one know any thing about his personal life? I couldn't get any from the Internet.