The first time I heard about the taboo was in the mid-1960s, when it started to get scandalous that Corinthians couldn’t beat Santos.
In 1968, after 11 years, the victory came 2-0, and Fiel had the nerve to leave Pacaembu singing “one, two, three, Santos is a customer”.
Only two years later I learned from the magnificent anthropology professor Ruth Cardoso that taboo means something forbidden, approaching the sacred, the incest taboo, for example, which varies between cultures, but exists in all.
Well, go convince someone that America hasn’t just broken the taboo of six years and 21 games without beating Atlético Mineiro; or that Botafogo did not do the same with Flamengo after four years and nine games, with eight defeats. Or that in its tenth attempt, finally, Fluminense broke the taboo of not winning even a point in the new home of Palmeiras.
Writing has become taboo in the language of football, and it is no longer talked about, which is why the rare reader and the rare reader will read and hear many times, next week, the Majestic in Itaquera being treated as the possibility of São Paulo broke the taboo of never having won there — eight years and 15 games, with ten Corinthians victories.
And the legends that came true?
One of the most consecrated has just been revived in this Sheet for the beautiful report by Bruno Rodrigues about the Spaniard Adelardo Rodríguez, author of two goals that would eliminate the Brazilian team from the 1962 World Cup, in Chile, still in the group stage and prevent the second championship.
They would eliminate and prevent because they would decree the 2 to 0, already in the second half, with the canary team without Pelé.
They would eliminate and prevent it because of the two goals only the first was worth it, although no one knows to this day the reason for the annulment of the second, absolutely legal, of a beautiful volley.
Just fire up YouTube and see.
In Brazil, however, the move that became true of that game that ended with a 2-1 turnaround, with two goals from Amarildo, exactly the substitute for Pelé, is another: the penalty that would have been made by Nilton Santos, nicknamed of Encyclopedia of Football, about Enrique Collar and not marked by the Chilean referee Sergio Bustamante.
Adelardo has no doubt that there was a penalty as well as the alleged victim, Collar. And even Nilton Santos never denied it, he preferred fame for the cleverness of having taken two steps out of the area and misled the referee. Whales!
Nilton Santos, in fact, takes two small steps, but he stays on top of the area line, and on the line it’s a penalty.
In other words, the rascality so applauded and to the national taste would be worthless.
But the best thing is not even that: the best thing is that there was no penalty because, I insist, see on YouTube, Collar dives on top of the Brazilian left-back.
The finding will also be of no use because all those involved guarantee that it was a penalty.
From the free kick outside the area, then, the poorly canceled goal is born.
Hard to believe that the Cup was not ordered for Brazil to win.
Because in the semifinal Mané Garrincha was sent off and, for lack of testimony from Uruguayan linesman Esteban Marino, he was able to play in the final.
Marino turns and moves the whistle in the Paulista Championship and would have been quickly put on a Santiago-Montevideo plane by Paulo Machado de Carvalho, the Marshal of Vitória.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free accesses of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.