Ten minutes to go in the Belo Horizonte derby between Atletico Mineiro and Cruzeiro, who share one of the fiercest rivalries in South America. Having led 2-0 and then trailed 3-2, Cruzeiro are leading 4-3 and are on the attack.
 
The ball falls to 19-year-old striker Kerlon on edge of the Atletico area and he decides it is time to perform his trademark “Seal” dribble.
 
Kerlon nonchalently flicks the ball up, and bounces it three times on his head while still running to send the Cruzeiro fans wild (and provide plenty of ammunition for headline writers — see here, for example). 
 
But the show is rudely interrupted by a crunching tackle from Atletico defender Coelho, who is sent off, and a brawl ensues. After the game, Atletico players and coach Emerson Leao furiously accuse Kerlon of trying to belittle their team.
 
“There’s a code of ethics between the players, which is not written into the rules. A player takes this sort of thing to be a lack of respect,”said Leao. “If I were the boy’s coach, I’d give him some advice.”
 
Cruzeiro were having none of it. “Kerlon will not be intimidated by threats on and off the field, by players pointing their fingers at him, telling him not to do it,” said director Valdir Barbosa. “He’s going to be inventive. He doesn’t treat this as a joke, he’s going for goal.”
 
This is not the first controversy of its type in Brazil. In 1999, a Corinthians-Palmeiras derby was abandoned in the second half when Corinthians midfielder Edilson played keepy-uppy in the centre circle (his team were three goals to the good at the time) and was chased off the field by the opposition. The following day, Edilson was kicked out of Brazil’s squad for the Copa America.
 
Cruzeiro claim that Kerlon was practicising the type of artistry for which Brazil has become famous. Atletico Mineiro said he was clowning around and making them look stupid.
 
Who’s right here? Perhaps the giveaway with this type of move is that, rather like Ronaldinho’s grin, it tends to disappear when the player’s team are losing.

As former World Cup referee Jose Roberto Wright said in his newspaper column: “The rules don’t stipulate any type of punishment for a player who uses his technique to play. The only thing I would like to know is whether he would have done the same thing earlier, when Atletico were winning. I doubt it.”

Brian Homewood

Portugal’s national team has turned slightly more Brazilian after the decision to call-up defender Kepler Laveran Lima Ferreira.

Better known as Pepe and selected shortly after being granted Portuguese nationality, he is the third Brazilian-born player to join the squad after Deco and coach Luiz Felipe Scolari. In the event, Pepe then dropped out of the squad through injury, but he remains very much in Scolari’s plans.

Scolari brushed aside criticism, saying naturalised players were part of a worldwide tendency in all sports and citing the example of world triple jump champion Nelson Evora, who was born in Ivory Coast, represented Cape Verde in his early days and then switched to Portugal in 2002.

“We were all happy when Nelson Evora won the world championship,” said Scolari. “So let’s stop being hypocritical. If it’s good enough for athletics, rugby and basketball, why not for football?”

Three years ago, FIFA introduced emergency measures to stop players switching nationalities at will. Players now have to show strong links with their adopted country through their parents or grandparents, or that they have lived there for two years, to play for the national team.

The rule was introduced after three Brazilians who had never set foot in Qatar agreed to play for the Gulf State in the World Cup qualifiers. It has certainly stopped repetitions of the more extreme cases such as the five Brazilians who represented Togo in the 2004 African Nations Cup qualifiers; of Uruguay goalkeeper Luis de Agustini, who admitted he had to look up Libya on the Internet after accepting an offer to play for them; and of the French second division players who turned out for Mauritania.

But is two years enough? How many “ordinary” immigrants would be given even permanent residence, let along the passport, of their adopted nation in that time?

Guillermo Franco is an example of how the loopholes can still be exploited. Franco arrived in Mexico from his native Argentina in 2003 to play for Monterrey. He was naturalised within two years and played for them at the 2006 World Cup — then left the country to join Spanish club Villarreal after what turned out to be little more than a flying visit.

Brian Homewood, Rio de Janeiro

One of the most enduring images of the 1978 World Cup was of Argentina coach Cesar Luis Menotti chain-smoking on the bench as he led the hosts to victory.

The Thin One would not be allowed to do it nowadays. Coaches have been included in FIFA’s blanket ban on smoking in stadiums, as Ricardo La Volpe — another Argentine — discovered when he lit up on the bench while coaching Mexico at the World Cup.

But it is not just Menotti’s smoking which has gone from football. His vision of the game is a world away from his younger counterparts with their earphones, laptop computers, designer suits, statistics and emphasis on compactness and organisation.

Menotti prefers the word “ideas” to “tactics” and once described a footballer as “a privileged interpreter of the dreams and feelings of thousands of people”.

Menotti took charge of Argentina in 1974 when the team had earned an unsavoury reputation for violence and gamesmanship.

Under his leadership, Argentina reverted to the flowing, attacking game which they had used until the 1960s, the national team became the priority instead of the clubs and Argentina once again became a major soccer power.

Menotti went on to coach Barcelona and Atletico Madrid in Spain, Boca Juniors in his homeland, Uruguay’s Penarol and the Mexican national side.

Recently, however, he seems to have lost his touch. His last stint on the touchline, with Independiente in Argentina, lasted only nine matches in 2005. In previous jobs, he lasted seven months at Sampdoria in 1997, eight months at Independiente (again) in 1999 and five months at Rosario Central in 2002.

Menotti has now made a surprise return as coach of modest Mexican side Tecos UAG, who have taken only one point from their first four games in the Apertura championship. At The Offside he has been welcomed as “The Maestro”.

At 68, it could be the swansong for a man who is still much admired around the world. Can he reverse his recent trend of failure and prove there is still room for an old romantic in an increasingly ruthless sport?

Brian Homewood

While Europe’s leading clubs continue to top up their stocks of foreign talent, the situation with their South American counterparts is one of desolation.

Being successful in South America simply speeds up the inevitable process of seeing your best players abandon ship.

Three months ago, Colombian provincial club Cucuta were enjoying an unprecedented run in the Libertadores Cup, where they reached the semi- finals before finally being overcome by eventual champions Boca Juniors.

Having since lost key players such as goalkeeper Robinson Zapata and striker Blas Perez, they now find themselves back in the old routine, 13th in the 18-team Colombian championship.

In Argentina, Racing Club supporters are still seething over the departure of 20-year-old midfielder Maximiliano Moralez, sold to FC Moscow just weeks after playing for the Argentina team which won the Under-20 World Cup in Canada.

Over in Brazil, Internacional supporters had only eight months to enjoy the talents of striker Alexandre Pato, who has been sold to AC Milan at the age of 17.

Pato cannot actually play for Milan until he turns 18 in September, so he has returned to Brazil to keep training, and the fact he is unlikely to get straight into the first team makes the move doubly premature.

This is, perhaps, the most exasperating aspect of the great talent drain.

Having left their South American clubs before they are barely out of their nappies, the players are then left to wither on the substitutes bench in Europe. It is a trend which is ruining South American soccer and there seems no way to reverse it.

Brian Homewood, Rio de Janeiro

On the face of it, Brazil’s 3-0 win over Argentina in the Copa America final, though not pretty, was fair and square.

They stung Argentina with an early goal, destroyed their normally slick passing game with tenacious marking in midfield, won most of the 50-50 balls with superior physical strength and hit their rivals with fulminating counter-attacks.

But there was another reason Argentina could not get into their rhythm. Nearly every time they got within 30 to 40 metres of the Brazilian goal, the move was halted with a foul — a tug of the shirt, a push or a sneaky trip, that sort of thing.

The offenders did not receive yellow cards because the fouls were not considered violent by the Paraguayan referee, Carlos Amarilla. Yet this tactic was clearly against the laws of the game, an illegitimate way of stopping Argentina playing football.

Like Amarilla, many other referees seem reluctant to clamp down on repetitive fouling. But, in doing so, they are encouraging the teams who put the emphasis on defending and destroying, as Brazil did on Sunday, and inhibiting those such as Argentina, who like to pass the ball around.

Should something be done to get rid of the tactical foul or is it part of modern football, where physical strength and power are becoming ever more predominant?

Brian Homewood was covering the Copa America in Venezuela

Those who regularly attend the Copa America have become used to watching top level international football played in venues which resemble European second or third division grounds.

In 1995, I saw Brazil and Argentina meet in a ramshackle stadium in the Uruguayan border town of Rivera. Four years later, the two faced off again in equally modest surroundings in Ciudad del Este, a Paraguayan border town with a real frontier atmosphere.

Most of the stadiums used in Peru three years ago were provincial grounds which received a quick lick of paint, a new pitch and not much else, although they were a step up from some of the previous offerings and perfectly adequate.

The current event in Venezuela, however, has been something of a shock.

Three-brand state-of-the-art new stadiums have been built in Merida, Barquisimeto and Maturin while six other grounds have been refurbished beyond recognition. All stadiums are all-seaters and many have facilities — particularly media tribunes — as good as anything found at the European Championship or the World Cup.

It is an impressive effort from a country where soccer still trails baseball as the national sport. The public responded superbly and, despite the usual ticketing problems, nearly all games have been sell-outs with an average attendance of over 30,000.

The other side of the coin is that the organisers left everything until the last minute.

Barquisimeto’s stadium was not fully finished for Sunday’s Argentina-Peru quarter-final, which is the most important game it is ever likely to host. Maturin’s 52,000 capacity Monumental stadium looked great on the television but the area outside was a sea of mud and piles of rubble. Both grounds are way out of town and a nightmare to get to without a car.

There is also the matter of what happens when the Copa is finished. Venezuelan championship matches rarely attract more than a few thousand fans and there is a danger that the country may have bred a herd of white elephants.

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America in Venezuela

The United States slunk out of the Copa America without a point to their name, and watching them play you couldn’t help but wonder if it had been worth them coming in the first place.

The U.S. lost all three games, the only team to do so apart from Ecuador who at least gave the impression they wanted to be there.

Like Mexico, the U.S. took part by invitation. Unlike the Mexicans, however, they opted to bring a second-string side of inexperienced players into the Copa America cauldron.

There are good reasons why the U.S. could not bring their best team to a tournament played just after they had won the CONCACAF Gold Cup. But the question remains, if they were not interested in competing, or were unable to do so, why did the U.S. accept the invitation?

Adam Spangler at This Is American Soccer argues that it was still the right decision to play in the tournament, but the South American authority CONMEBOL was reportedly far from impressed by the under-strength U.S. team. Jeff Carlisle at ESPNSoccernet calls the whole thing a wasted opportunity.

What do you think? Should the U.S. have skipped the tournament rather than bring a below-strength team?

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America in Venezuela for Reuters

After averaging four goals a game in the first three days of the competition, the Copa America has quickly gone off the boil. The last three games have produced one goal between them, itself a very dubious penalty won and converted by Robinho.

Much of the blame for this must lie with the competition’s format, which contrives to eliminate only four of the 12 teams in the group stage.

Another problem is that, due to the demands of television, the final matches in each group are played one after the other, rather than simultaneously — thus flying in the face of a standard rule introduced in the rest of the world to stop farces such as West Germany’s notorious 1-0 win over Austria in 1982.

Most teams have therefore gone into their final group game knowing what they need to do to qualify.

On Tuesday, Venezuela and Uruguay met in Group A in Merida, both knowing that a draw would suit them. Venezuela, already qualified, would finish top of the group while Uruguay would qualify as one of the best third-placed teams. Not surprisingly, a tame 0-0 was played out amid jeers from the 42,000 crowd.

On Wednesday night, Chile faced Mexico also knowing that a draw would send them through as a third-placed team. (Quick note: there are three groups of four with the top two and the two best third-placed teams going through). A point for the Mexicans, meanwhile, would keep them top. Another 0-0 draw ensued.

With that game out of the way, Brazil also needed a draw against Ecuador, a team who had to win to stay alive. Brazil won 1-0, somewhat fortuitously.

Thursday’s matches are likely to be even more of a damp squib as the eight quarter-finalists have already been decided. When Paraguay and Argentina meet in Barquismeto, it will merely be to decide who finishes first and second. And Colombia and United States, both eliminated, will be playing for a consolation win.

Is it time for a change in format?

Brian Homewood is in Venezuela to cover the Copa America

The Copa America is facing an imported refereeing controversy after hosts Venezuela notched their first win in the competition since 1967.

Ten days ago, Mexican referee Benito Armando Archundia was involved in a furious row when he disallowed a Canadian equaliser in the Gold Cup semi-final against hosts United States.

The Canadians were livid, not just at the decision but the fact that Archundia had been appointed at all, given that his own country Mexico were playing in the other semi-final.

You might have expected the authorities to tread carefully and keep Archundia out of the spotlight for a while yet on Saturday he popped up again at the Copa America, a competition which makes the Gold Cup look like a vicar’s tea party in comparison.

Once more, his match involved the tournament hosts, Venezuela, in a game against Peru they could not afford to lose. And you’ve guessed it — Archundia got into trouble again.

The tournament had been free of refereeing problems until Archundia decided to dismiss Peru’s Pedro Garcia in the 14th minute for elbowing, when all Garcia appeared to do was try and stop himself being kicked from behind by Giancarlo Maldonado.

Archundia then turned down a Peruvian penalty appeal — with Venezuela 1-0 ahead — and lost control altogether at the end of the game, which ended with ugly scuffles. Not content with that, he decided to go for a touch of the unusual when he booked Venezuela’s Alejandro Cichero for playing keepy-uppy — which he deemed ungentlemanly conduct.

South America has a good supply of officials used to dealing with the unique pressures of refeering on the continent. So bringing in an outsider seemed unnecessary in the first place.

But such controversies are nothing new. Remember the 1966 World Cup when England v Argentina was refereed by a German and Uruguay v Germany by an Englishman. Naturally, the South Americans were less than impressed when their teams lost both games.

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America for Reuters in Venezuela

Mexico’s 2-0 win over Brazil at the Copa America could signal the end of the international road for three players who had been regarded as fixtures in the team — defenders Ricardo Osorio and Carlos Salcido and midfielder Pavel Pardo.

The trio, all based with European clubs, pulled out of the Copa America saying they were tired. But without them, Mexico, who had stuttered to a 1-0 win over Guadeloupe and lost to United States in the Gold Cup, suddenly came to life.

Osorio, Pavel and Salcido were untouchables under previous coach Ricardo La Volpe, the gruff former Argentina goalkeeper who shocked stylists with his jacket-and-jeans combination at the last World Cup. So when La Volpe’s nemesis Hugo Sanchez took over at the end of last year, their future was immediately thrown into doubt.

Sanchez promised that there would no recriminations and kept his word by including them in the Gold Cup squad. However, as the tournament wore on, rumours abounded that the camp was split between “Huguistas” and “Lavolpistas”.

Osorio, Salcido and Pardo are all seen as hardline “Lavolpistas” and their absence in Puerto Ordaz on Wednesday seemed to give more harmony to the team. Rafael Marquez was the only survivor from the previous regime to play against Brazil — and he, in any case, is seen as a moderate Lavolpista.

Wednesday’s performance may prompt Sanchez to launch a purge of the Lavolpistas once and for all, especially as newcomers like Juan Carlos Cacho, Jaime Correa, Fausto Pinto, Johnny Magallon and, above all, the hugely gifted striker Nery Castillo all showed that they were more than up to the task. The other side of the coin is that Osorio, Pardo and Salcido all have the invaluable experience of playing in Europe.

“It is up to Hugo,” wrote Hector Huerta, a leading Mexican sports writer, after the game. “Either he submits himself to Lavolpism or he starts to make history with players who want to leave their soul on the pitch for the colours of Mexico.”

Brian Homewood is in Venezuela to cover the Copa America