During the match between Blue Cross against tigers in the first leg of the quarterfinals of the MX League, the arbitration came to light and not because of his good performance. The central referee of the match, Fernando Hernandezjudged a kick from the striker feline, Nicholas Lopezz, with a red card, while Cristian Tabowho gave an almost equal blow, only saw the preventive cardboard.
What one day is not the next: this exemplifies very well one of the most important causes of the lousy Mexican arbitration, volatility in the criteria for making decisions. This evil has become so deeply rooted in national football that not even with the help of the VAR it has been possible to correct. From this lack of consistency come other problems such as confusion on the field, loss of time, or the possibility of having sporting disadvantages.
The 58th minute passed and The cats They wanted to extend their lead. In one of those attempts, the Uruguayan striker, Nicolás Lópeztried to hit the ball into the goal, but raised his leg too high and hit the face of the Peruvian defender, louis abramleaving it lying down with blood on his face.
The central referee did not judge the action in the first instance, but the VAR called him and changed his decision: he expelled the Tooth. The controversial expulsion also led to claims by Michael Herrerawho was also kicked out.
The penalty was based on the criteria of Fernando Hernandez, and if the regulation is taken literally, the decision was acceptable. However, everything exploded in the Azteca Stadium when he did not judge Cristian Tabó in the same way.
Shortly after López saw the red card, the Cruz Azul winger, in his eagerness to hit the ball to equalize, launched himself with a Chilean half and contacted the head of Juan Pablo Vigón, who fell to the grass immediately. Tabó only saw the yellow card despite the logical and strong claims of the Monterrey elements.
It only took 2 minutes for Hernández to change his criteria: the difference was the blood. The regulations of the Referees Commission indicate that a fault with excessive force will be punishable by a red card. And yes, they both were, but why did he only expel the Tigers element?
“The entries or disputes of the ball that endanger the physical integrity of an opponent or in which the player is used with excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as” rough and serious game “(faults of extreme hardness)”, reads in the rules.
That doubt about why one was affected and the other benefited is generated by the lack of uniform criteria and is one of the symptoms of the lousy arbitration that national football has. It is no longer known with certainty what is punishable by red card and what by yellow cardand the footballers are not to blame for that.
If he low league level it may be justified by poor hiring, the mediocre competition system, excessive foreigners, or the lack of a sports relegation; but arbitration continues to gain ground as another of the main causes.
When the moves are new, the error is—up to a certain point—understandable and correctable; however, this type of action has already been manifested before. In the semifinals of the Apertura 2021, Juan Ignacio Dinenno was the protagonist.
When Pumas visited Atlas to play the second leg of the series, Dinenno was severely beaten in the face by the red and black defender, Anderson Santamaría. Both disputed the ball in the air when the Peruvian’s elbow hit directly in the face of the university striker; the central referee, Jorge Pérez Durán, did not penalize or fault, because for he did not represent serious rough play, although blood and bruises appeared immediately.
Later, in the same commitment, Dinenno launched a Chilean and hit Jesús Angulo, who was knocked out. The difference is that the striker did see the red card. The plays, although they are different, have the same label, they used excessive force and put the integrity of the player at risk.
Arturo BrizioPresident of the Referees Commission, came out to defend his whistler claiming that the decisions that were taken at the Jalisco Stadium had been the correct ones. At that moment, another question arose: what is wrong, the referees or the regulations because of their ambiguity?
Honestly, that job is the one that should worry the templates, strategists or fans the least. Everyone has their work, but apparently some do not fulfill it in the best way. And not because the others do, but this time he has to point out the whistlers.
Given the heat that the Tigers experienced in the recent qualifying duel against Cruz Azul, one of the leaders of the northern team spoke out. Nahuel Guzmán asked that the same criteria be used when sanctioning.
That dialogue between players, coaches and elements of the field with the whistlers seems exhausting, but frustration over incongruous decisions makes it necessary.