Talk:Massimo Busacca

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Massimo Busacca article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Referees High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Referees WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Referees. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.RefereesWikipedia:WikiProject RefereesTemplate:WikiProject RefereesReferees articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What you're missing is that:

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;
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)! --Pelotas^talk 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Pelotas^talk 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

URINATION UNKNOWN

Is it true that Massican performed urination during the game in Qatari? It feel that negativity towards this independent fellow is on the high level, please do not write allegation without nice refferencies. I see only one refferencie please to explain, this is contravertsie against Massican? Why hate Massican? When living in pease in the answer you have looking for 212.175.83.249 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup

Judging by the comments above this is not the first time this referee has made atrocious calls. The worst so far must be the red card against South Africa (vs Uruguay) in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I think any factual encyclopeida can now officially record him as a poor (or very clever and rich) referee.196.23.50.164 (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is blattant nonsense. If he was this bad, he would hardly get to whistle such important matches as the champions league final and several games in world championship final rounds. Do you have any neutral source that states he's bad? (No, any south african news source will not count right now) --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal to everyone for calm in the aftermath of the Uruguay / South Africa game. No matter what is said here, the result of the game will not be changed. I'd like to raise the following points: (a) The incident seems similar to the 2006 incident, so if that one is covered, then this one should be. (Or if this one is not covered, then that one should be removed.) (b) The current text "Both the decision to award the penalty and the decision to send the goalkeeper from the field of play were correct" lacks a citation. (c) It should probably be mentioned, as in the 2006 incident, that the decision was controversial, with references for both sides of the argument. (d) Some of the previous contributors included references from the international media that criticised the decision, that were subsequently removed. Please do not remove references simply because they do not support your point-of-view. (e) One of the points of controversy is that the striker may have been offside. However, if so, it is the linesman who erred rather than the referee. (f) It would be nice if the applicable rules could be hyperlinked. I am by nationality biased, and am also not an expert on the game, so I will refrain from editing the article. However, I would appeal for neutral parties to present a balanced treatment of this delicate subject, with references. --Timato (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the line about if the call is correct or not would be good. Let's just state the facts, and leave it at that. As a ref, I don't have a problem with the decision, I agree with it, but that's an opinion, not a fact. 70.78.21.7 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update the text accordingly. I agree that there lacks a citation for "correct". I have read some papers which say so, but these were mostly swiss papers, so they may not be perfectly neutral. There has been harsh criticism by the south african coach, which obviously fails NPOV, too. Unfortunatelly, I couldn't find whether the Fifa publicly unveils their judgement of the work of a referee (it doesn't seem so). So the best way we have to know wheter his work was good, will probably be whether he'll be given another match on this WC. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's considered one of the top referee's in the world. Short of a horrendous error in his next match, he'll be around for the knockout stage and in contention for one of the final four matches probably. I heard (though not seen) that top USSF (US Soccer) Referees have stated that the call is correct. FIFA almost never comes out with statements on the match officials...good in my opinion, even if they royally screw up, for they need someone to back them. This really falls down to one line under Law 5 - The Referee where it states "in the opinion of the refere....." That clause basiclaly means that unless there is something that can be technically proven to be incorrect with the call, then the decision is correct. This gives the referees leeway to make the borderline decisions like this. It was a close call, I agree, but if Busacca says it was an "obvious goal scoring opportunity" (as listed under Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct and as send off offence), then that basically means that the red card has to follow, and nothing can change that. 70.78.21.7 (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sick of ref articles being effectively vandalized

Honestly, every article I've read about a referee has unsourced or spuriously sourced material about "dubious", "atrocious", "wrong" etc decisions that has clearly been written by disgruntled fans. This isn't what Wikipedia's for. If you want to moan about refereeing decisions that cost your team, do it on football forums and stop effectively vandalising this site.

It's pathetic and childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.241.233 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccomend protection or the article until this dies down. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United penalty vs Barcelona

The account of the 2009 CL final between Manchester United and Barcelona inaccurately states that United were awarded, and missed, a penalty during this match. The author was presumably thinking of the semi-final leg at the Nou Camp the year before, where Ronaldo missed a penalty after a Milito handball. This should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.128.156 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine vs Spain (again)

It currently reads "Multiple angles of the infraction showed no physical contact inside the penalty area, preceded by a tug on the pants of Fernando Torres in the penalty area by Vladislav Vaschuk" - to me that says that there *was* physical contact in the penalty ares (the tug), but the sentence starts of saying there was none - which is it? BulbaThor (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Massimo Busacca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Massimo Busacca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]