The most debated moment of Club América’s 2-1 loss to Pachuca on Sunday was not a goal. Around the 20th minute, while the VAR reviewed a possible penalty, Carlos Álvarez covered his mouth to say something to Pachuca defender Sergio Barreto. Barreto immediately alerted the referee, Pachuca’s players demanded a red card under the Ley Prestianni, and after reviewing the images, Maximiliano Quintero Hernández gave neither the penalty nor the sending off.
What the Ley Prestianni Actually Says
The rule punishes with a direct red card any player, substitute or substituted player who covers his mouth while addressing an opponent in a situation of confrontation, mockery or provocation.
As Claro Sports laid out, the provision sits in Law 12 of the IFAB Laws of the Game, among the disciplinary measures. The modification was approved on April 28, 2026 as an option competitions could adopt, and its wording covers covering the mouth when communicating with an opponent in a provocative, contemptuous or heated manner.
Two things follow from that wording. The red card is not automatic for covering your mouth, because the referee has to judge the context. And nobody outside that exchange knows what Álvarez actually said, so there is no basis for claiming an offensive or discriminatory remark was made.
Why the Referee Did Not Apply It
The sequence began with the penalty itself. Quintero Hernández pointed to the spot after Luis Ángel Malagón came out and brought down Jorge Berlanga, but the review showed the goalkeeper touched the ball first, and the penalty was overturned. The mouth covering happened in the same stoppage, and it was reviewed too.
Fernando Guerrero, the former referee who works as a refereeing analyst for TUDN, explained the reasoning on air. “To clarify the Ley Prestianni, it applies only in a case of confrontation between players,” Guerrero said. “If the referee considers that there is no confrontation between the players, he cannot apply the Ley Prestianni.”
That was the judgment on the field. Pachuca’s players protested the decision at length, but Quintero Hernández held firm and play continued with América still at eleven men.
The Case for a Red Card
Not every former referee read it the same way. Felipe Ramos Rizo, the former World Cup referee now at FOX Sports México, argued that a confrontation did exist in the exchange with Barreto and that Álvarez should have been sent off.
Pachuca coach Benjamín Mora took up the theme after the match. In his press conference he described the non-expulsion and the annulled penalty as controversial, but he refused to hide behind them, said they were no excuse, and accepted the result.
What Happens Next
On the pitch, the story had a tail. Álvarez, who had only been cleared to start a few hours before kickoff, stayed on until the 59th minute and, per Mediotiempo, started the move that produced Henry Martín’s equalizer early in the second half. Oussama Idrissi’s late goal still won the match for Pachuca, and América remain top of the Apertura 2026 table on 27 points.
Off the pitch, nothing is settled formally. There has been no statement from the FMF or the Comisión de Arbitraje, no formal Pachuca protest has been reported, and the Jornada 14 disciplinary report has not been published. Unless the federation opens a proceeding of its own, the referee’s reading of one word, confrontation, is where the matter ends.
