Mex v Ecu

[ladbroke8745]

I get the reasoning for bringing this law in about players covering their mouths...

And I fully understand it's bloody stupid to do so and run the risk...
But I feel the Mexican player absolutely got the Ecuador player sent off even if nothing derogatory was said.

He literally runs to the ref and shows/tells him he covered his face. "You can't do that" type of thing.
You're right. You can't. But again its to stop abusive/offensive language.
I wonder if that actually happened and whether he just wanted him.sent off for, well, "nothing" but putting hand over mouth.

I know... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But I do wonder if this is going to abused by opponents to get someone sent off for saying nothing and it just ruins the sport even more.

 

[one]

I know... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But I do wonder if this is going to abused by opponents to get someone sent off for saying nothing and it just ruins the sport even more.

What is much more likely to happen is that players will rearn not to cover their mouth. The law is new and some players forget. Once the law sets in, it is much less likely to happen for 'innocent' reasons.

My other gripe with this game, well VAR from it, is that there was a shot on Mexico goal (i think 18th), it brushes the keeper's hand with front on camera clearly showing this, the bounces off the post over the goal line. Referee giving a corner kick and VAR telling him to change it to goal kick. I u derstand this has to be done quickly, but it is mor important to get it right.

 

[BCMilan]

Probably will ruin it. What's the difference between running off to the referee like this, and waving a fake yellow / red card ?

 

[JamesL]

I get the reasoning for bringing this law in about players covering their mouths...

And I fully understand it's bloody stupid to do so and run the risk...
But I feel the Mexican player absolutely got the Ecuador player sent off even if nothing derogatory was said.

He literally runs to the ref and shows/tells him he covered his face. "You can't do that" type of thing.
You're right. You can't. But again its to stop abusive/offensive language.
I wonder if that actually happened and whether he just wanted him.sent off for, well, "nothing" but putting hand over mouth.

I know... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But I do wonder if this is going to abused by opponents to get someone sent off for saying nothing and it just ruins the sport even more.

I get where you are coming from.

The player knows that if he says anything in a conflict situation and covers his mouth he will be dismissed from the field of play. This is to prevent offensive and discriminatory language being hidden by the hand. It is assumed that by doing this offensive or discriminatory language was used. Players were warned.

I don't think the reaction is what drives the outcome. I've only seen a picture but it looked pretty clear cut that the players were arguing (correct me if wrong) so the outcome should remain the same irrespective of reaction.

 

[one]

I get where you are coming from.

The player knows that if he says anything in a conflict situation and covers his mouth he will be dismissed from the field of play. This is to prevent offensive and discriminatory language being hidden by the hand. It is assumed that by doing this offensive or discriminatory language was used. Players were warned.

I don't think the reaction is what drives the outcome. I've only seen a picture but it looked pretty clear cut that the players were arguing (correct me if wrong) so the outcome should remain the same irrespective of reaction.

I watched it live. I think the point being made by OP is that there is a reasonable chance without the opponent protest this incident would have been reviewed. And the opponent seems more concerned about covering mouth action in opposed to what was said which is the spirit of this law.

Yes players know the law. But in the heat of the moment they forget it because the law is new. IMO there will be a few sacrificial lambs on this before the law settles.

 

[bester]

It's incumbent on referees to stop covering their mouths when talking as well.

 

[JamesL]

It's incumbent on referees to stop covering their mouths when talking as well.

Is it?

Covering the mouth is not automatically a red card as I understand it. It is only in conflict situations that it becomes an offence.

World Cup 2026: Why Jude Bellingham was not sent off for covering his mouth

England midfielder Jude Bellingham was not shown a red card despite covering his mouth while talking to Ghana's Jordan Ayew.

www.bbc.co.uk

Referees conversations are recorded so there is nothing won or lost by a referee covering their mouth. I'd argue that the conflict situations should be adhered to, but I don't see anything that makes it incumbent on refs, given the rules for players and the recording of their comms

 

[bester]

Perception, plus it looks ridiculous anyway

 

[santa sangria]

When having “the chat” with an AR I have got into the habit of covering my mouth and it’s a hard habit to change. It was a useful tool to avoid throwing an AR under the bus… but obvs should be avoided now

 

[JamesL]

When having “the chat” with an AR I have got into the habit of covering my mouth and it’s a hard habit to change. It was a useful tool to avoid throwing an AR under the bus… but obvs should be avoided now

Hmm, not sure I agree - there will be times we should not do it, sure, however, I think it also rests on if will you be sending players off in your games for doing it?

Currently it's not in law, it's an option for competitions.

FIFA have adopted it for their competitions, but I think UEFA have not and as far as I know, to date, the FA have not for the games that I referee so no change required.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Perception, plus it looks ridiculous anyway

It can sometimes be a necessary action if wishing to avoid subsequent activity from lip readers and/or commentators.

 

[RefereeX]

I get where you are coming from.

The player knows that if he says anything in a conflict situation and covers his mouth he will be dismissed from the field of play. This is to prevent offensive and discriminatory language being hidden by the hand. It is assumed that by doing this offensive or discriminatory language was used. Players were warned.

I don't think the reaction is what drives the outcome. I've only seen a picture but it looked pretty clear cut that the players were arguing (correct me if wrong) so the outcome should remain the same irrespective of reaction.

I don't disagree with the points made, but I have seen a slideshow somewhere to suggest FIFA are adopting a model that includes a player having their hand over their mouth and an allegation being made to result in a red card (actually taking the allegation in to account when the hand covers the mouth)

 

[ladbroke8745]

I don't disagree with the points made, but I have seen a slideshow somewhere to suggest FIFA are adopting a model that includes a player having their hand over their mouth and an allegation being made to result in a red card (actually taking the allegation in to account when the hand covers the mouth)

But that is seemingly all it takes to get a player sent off.
An allegation.

Hincapie covered his mouth... Yes.
Was it in a confrontational manner... Yes.
Did the Mexican player run to the referee like a small child saying he can't do that regardless of what was said... Yes.

That is all it took . Yes, the player was stupid to do it. And gave the officials something to think about. But the fact remains is that he may not have said anything OFFINABUS to the opposing player but its worthy of a red card all because the Mexican went crying like a small child.
Yet you see very high footed challenges (German player for example) and numerous studs on calfs where a free kick was not even given. These are physically dangerous challenges. Yet the mouth covering is based on assumptions.

 

[RustyRef]

But that is seemingly all it takes to get a player sent off.
An allegation.

Hincapie covered his mouth... Yes.
Was it in a confrontational manner... Yes.
Did the Mexican player run to the referee like a small child saying he can't do that regardless of what was said... Yes.

That is all it took . Yes, the player was stupid to do it. And gave the officials something to think about. But the fact remains is that he may not have said anything OFFINABUS to the opposing player but its worthy of a red card all because the Mexican went crying like a small child.
Yet you see very high footed challenges (German player for example) and numerous studs on calfs where a free kick was not even given. These are physically dangerous challenges. Yet the mouth covering is based on assumptions.

Bad luck unfortunately, if there was an allegation of something being said and he hadn't covered his mouth there would be no action unless the referee had heard it. I don't really think it is based on assumptions, whether they have covered the mouth is black and white, and it is usually easily to know if it is done as part of a confrontation.

I know there's an argument that they are used to it and it is human nature, but not sure I concur with that. When the law was changed to say that the ball couldn't be handled if it was passed to them by a team mate I don't recall a glut of IDFKs being given because keepers were instinctively picking it up. Is that really any different? If the law was changed so that all motorways were a maximum of 60mph and you kept overtaking police cars at the same speed of before do you think the argument of "I was instinctively driving at that speed because I'm used to it" would wash?