3 ms·

The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then ther

The rules need to be updated to better ensure accurate calls. If we can agree that Balogun's red card was overkill because his trip wasn't intentional then there should be a way to reverse the call. And Maradona's "hand of god" goal should have been reversed as well. There should be MORE than one ref on the pitch during these games. And spare me the, "This is how's it's always been" argument... It's the World Cup. Let's do better!

glimshe 3mo ago
There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.
- CodingJeebus 3mo ago
  I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene. This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
- this_user 3mo ago
  The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
  - charles_f 3mo ago
    Quite especially when the process seems to have been triggered by the head of state of that host nation
  - glimshe 3mo ago
    So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face. The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer. Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
    - rjrjrjrj 3mo ago
      Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
      - glimshe 3mo ago
        Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here... What kind of super secret, complex scheme was Belgium creating for Balogun?
        rjrjrjrj 3mo ago
        > Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here He's their leading scorer. His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
        glimshe 3mo ago
        It's not about being important, simply fair. I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
  - 5555624 3mo ago
    FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
CodingJeebus 3mo ago
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
runarberg 3mo ago
Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.
redwoolf 3mo ago
The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation. The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender. I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.
- LanceH 3mo ago
  > I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is. It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up. Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong. I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked. Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
  - redwoolf 3mo ago
    Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.
    - LanceH 3mo ago
      Ok, I agree with this. The offside rule is just weird. A person with a wide stance would simultaneously be close to be both endlines. In any normal sense if one person is further south, the other person is further north -- not so with the offside rule. It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with. At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear. None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR. The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense. At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.
40four 3mo ago
I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.” Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think. Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it. VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.
- ortusdux 3mo ago
  The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
  - EPWN3D 3mo ago
    For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind. That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.

glimshe 3mo ago

There is a rule to reverse the call on the books. Article 27 allows FIFA to replace the suspension for a probationary period. Of course the online mob didn't bother checking that.

CodingJeebus 3mo ago
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene. This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
this_user 3mo ago
The rule does exist, but in all of World Cup history, it has been used once for this purpose over 50 years ago. During a tournament, it is understood that a red card means an automatic suspension for at least the next match. That is something that is universally applied. FIFA are clearly breaking with precedent here by using an obscure rule to lift the suspension of the host nation's player, which very much looks like favouritism.
- charles_f 3mo ago
  Quite especially when the process seems to have been triggered by the head of state of that host nation
- glimshe 3mo ago
  So what? It has now been used twice. I challenge anyone who's a soccer fan to look at the play that led to the red card and say "Yeah, that deserved a red card" with a straight face. The outcome was fair. That was a scandalous red card and a rule that exists to be sparingly used in situations like that was triggered. Hopefully it will keep being sparingly used but they should not hesitate to overturn unjust punishments that are clearly against the spirit of soccer. Why are people so upset about it? Is Belgium afraid to face the full US squad? If Belgium wins, which is the most likely result, nobody will be able to say "the US could have won if it wasn't for that red card!"
  - rjrjrjrj 3mo ago
    Doesn't seem fair that Belgium has to alter their game plan the day before the match because FIFA dropped a totally unexpected decision 4 days after unequivocally stating there was no appeal process for the red card suspension.
    - glimshe 3mo ago
      Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here... What kind of super secret, complex scheme was Belgium creating for Balogun?
      - rjrjrjrj 3mo ago
        > Gee, we're not talking about Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo here He's their leading scorer. His exclusion seemed kind of important to you a couple posts back. Along with the Secretary of the Treasury, and the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient.
        glimshe 3mo ago
        It's not about being important, simply fair. I'm also not saying he makes no difference. I'm just saying he's not good enough to deserve some complex plan from Belgium. A small tweak on their plan and they will be good to go. He's a good player but no superstar.
- 5555624 3mo ago
  FIFA also used the rule to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play in this World Cup. Ronaldo got a red card in a World Cup qualifier, last November, for "violent conduct" (an elbow). It would have kept him out of the opening match for Portugal in this World Cup. He was issued a suspended suspension, under Article 27, allowing him to play.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]

CodingJeebus 3mo ago

There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.

runarberg 3mo ago

Maybe so, but if so then it should be integral that such decision needs to be taken by an independent panel, and not a single powerful individual of the organization, and that heads of state should not be allowed to influence such decision.

redwoolf 3mo ago

The on the pitch call was not a red card. VAR told the ref to go to the monitors to review and then the red card was given. If the on the pitch call stood, which was the right call, then we wouldn't be having the conversation. The level of scrutiny we place on foot position when determining offsides with VAR is an example of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Offsides was not meant to catch players who were half a foot length beyond the last non-goalie defender. I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is.

LanceH 3mo ago
> I'm not sure VAR is the net-benefit we think it is. It is for offside. Offside calls were so egregiously bad it was painful to watch. Any time a defense got burned badly, the flag would go up. Early 2000's someone watched an entire world cup and found that 25% of offside calls were obviously wrong. I just rewatched the US v Germany match from 1998, and Kobi Jones was called offside on a breakaway when he was onside by 4 yards when the ball was kicked. Also, goal line and maybe handball seems to be handled pretty well.
- redwoolf 3mo ago
  Then perhaps it’s the offsides rule that needs revision. Do you think the spirit of the rule is captured by foot position analysis? If two players bodies are in alignment and the attackers leg is just beyond the leg of the defender, does that really matter? The rule was designed to stop attackers from sitting deep between the defenders and the goalie.
  - LanceH 3mo ago
    Ok, I agree with this. The offside rule is just weird. A person with a wide stance would simultaneously be close to be both endlines. In any normal sense if one person is further south, the other person is further north -- not so with the offside rule. It also used to be that "even with was onside". Now there is no such thing as even with. At this point with this tech, they could view both torses and say an entire torso has to be clear. None of this helps soccer below the level with VAR. The rule was designed to keep attackers from being "offside". For practical purposes, the offside trap has turned into a right for the defense. At least the current rule is deterministic, rather than erring on the side of the defense over and over.

40four 3mo ago

I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.” Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think. Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it. VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.

ortusdux 3mo ago
The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?
- EPWN3D 3mo ago
  For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind. That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.