Peru Tops Brazil With “Mano Del Inca” Goal…

by Luis Eduardo Flores

If you’re a big fan of the sport, then you’re familiar with the “Mano de Dios” (“Hand of God”) goal. That is easily one of the most iconic and controversial moments in the world of soccer. Well, the “Hand of God” has reincarnated itself in the Incas.

To the surprise of Brazil and their fans, the “Incas” held their own an against one of the top dogs in the Americas. We all expected Brazil to control this match from the very beginning. Instead of Brazilian dominance over the supposed “weaker team”, Peru held their own for over 70 minutes. Huge props go to the Peruvians for showing no fear against a team that should intimidate the smaller team.

Perhaps the slaughtered over the Haitians made Brazil over-confident in their chances to beat Peru. If that was the case, shame on them. History and a name does not guarantee success.

At the 75th minute, Brazil paid the price. Andy Polo worked his way up the right side to feed the cross over to Raul Ruidiaz to score the goal. Ruidiaz was in the clear to score the goal without an obstacle in his way. Since scoring without anyone in his way wasn’t easy enough, he scored with his forearm. That was clearly an intentional handball, that goal should have not stood. Despite all the pleading and arguing on behave of the Brazilian side, referee Andres Cunha did not change his mind. Give that man an award for his humility. Sadly, Brazil was unable to find the equalizer, thus ending their run in this Copa America. Poor shame.

Mano del Inca

What is a tournament without some controversy? It’s boring but not fair to the teams on the receiving end of bad referring. This is one of the reasons as to why challenging plays (like in the NFL) should be heavily considered in soccer.

Thus Peru is now in the history book of soccer controversy with its “Mano Del Inca” (Hand of Inca) goal. “Welcome” says Diego Maradona.

To Colombia…try to finish the job early or else you’ll be at risk of another Peruvian “Mano Del Inca”.

Photo: nytimes.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.