I 100% disagree. This was NOT a red card. The USA played down a man for a horrible call by dumb ref for over 30 minutes. Balogun was sent off for a red card that should not have been called. The world was watching and EVERYONE agrees with you, that should not have been a red card. Now you punish the host country and a player that dreamed all his life to play in a tournament that comes around every four years to be blocked the next match? No, you get President Trump to "Lobby" on our country's behalf and for Balogun. It was a great call and now both teams will be complete. I played big time sports, and I would rather lose to a team that was complete then beat a team that was shorthanded because their best player was benched from a bad ref call. GO USA!!!
Has USMNT arrived?
- Thread starter Larzby
- Start date
Chelsea dad g09
SILVER
From what's being said, var should have never been shown in slo-mo because there was not a foul called on the play.
I also wanted to add that I love the way the men are playing futbol and moving the rock. The passing game is the best I have ever seen. My buddy lives in Bali and he told me the folks watching from around the globe in Bali are saying the same thing, "The USA is playing futbol the right way. No more kickball." It's why we needed a man with balls to make the call to FIFA and "lobby" on our player's behalf to continue the run. The dumb ref tried to destroy our one and only chance to win the world cup. I never thought I would live to see the day but with this team it could happen. The ref tried to stop our chance, but T made the call. Anyone with a problem with that and the results T got for our country have severe TDS.
CleatSniffer
BRONZE
Can Trump ask about the 2002 Western Conference Finals or the 2006 Super Bowl? Still waiting on those to be remedied.
It was not a red card, VAR didn’t follow protocol, ref ended up making wrong decision, FIFA has rules to review and reverse, all people across world said it wasn’t a red card, now all people say reversal is wrong.
Not a fan of the reversal for the integrity of the sport. But also not OK that the wrong call on the field wasn’t rectified before moving forward. Take 2 extra minutes to follow protocol - there has been a push to make fast decisions with VAR at the World Cup v. Standard league play. It’s leading to some wrong decisions being made. The worst time to be wrong. Makes no sense.
It was not a red card, VAR didn’t follow protocol, ref ended up making wrong decision, FIFA has rules to review and reverse, all people across world said it wasn’t a red card, now all people say reversal is wrong.
Not a fan of the reversal for the integrity of the sport. But also not OK that the wrong call on the field wasn’t rectified before moving forward. Take 2 extra minutes to follow protocol - there has been a push to make fast decisions with VAR at the World Cup v. Standard league play. It’s leading to some wrong decisions being made. The worst time to be wrong. Makes no sense.
Wow!!! The problem with FIFA reviewing it on its own is because they will not review on their own. A little pressure from Daddy Trump forced these pussies to take another look and look what they found. No red card!!! So, instead of allowing this bullshit to stay, we fixed it quickly and now all teams are square. The only people in the stands calling the USA cheaters will be you.
President Trump just spoke about his call with Johnny over at FIFA.
"Hey Johnny, WTF did your ref try to pull the other day. We have Super Bowl numbers, and the game between the USA vs Belgium will be record numbers. You need to reverse the Red Card or else."
Listen to T: https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/a6/s8/2/S/D/R/D/SDRDA.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
"Hey Johnny, WTF did your ref try to pull the other day. We have Super Bowl numbers, and the game between the USA vs Belgium will be record numbers. You need to reverse the Red Card or else."
Listen to T: https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/a6/s8/2/S/D/R/D/SDRDA.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
Chelsea dad g09
SILVER
Definitely wouldnt compare this to the Astros, more like Brady and the tuck rule.
Soccer is a game played in real time and at real speed. Studies have shown that slo-mo exaggerates intentionality and severity, and distorts time. It is not uncommon for it be deemed prejudicial in legal cases. Slo-motion should be banned from VAR use completely.
Can you imagine how different our perceptions of a soccer game would be if it was broadcast in slo-motion?
The far left that hates Trump is going crazy online about this.
But, isn't what he did what every head of state should have done if they were in the same position?
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
Today is the real test for the USMNT. If they win, I think this will be their first win against a strong-ish European side at a WC and their campaign will be deemed a success. If they lose, it will feel like they did not accomplish enough and that the US has not developed that much over the past few years.
Scrub It Kook
SILVER ELITE
I think this is what we’ve always expected from this group of USMNT players. Such ability and talent performing so poorly in the past really highlights the impact of a coach.
Scrub It Kook
SILVER ELITE
Belgium has maybe the oldest roster in this World Cup. I am surprised they made it this far while both Germany and Netherlands were knocked out.
I’m not a Trump fan, and I hate that any head of state needs to reach out to a governing body of a sport. But, ultimately the right thing did happen here for the red card.
To me the real issue is the lack of appeals process from FIFA for teams to challenge cases like this, where they believe a decision was made erroneously based off a misapplication of rules (slow mo and stills for VAR). If that existed, and rules were applied appropriately the US would have used that process and the red card would have been rescinded appropriately.
Again, ultimately the right decision was made. The process was terrible, because a process doesn’t exist, but they got there.
by pure application of the laws of the game, it seemed like an obvious red card to me. when I hear people arguing against it, they use arguments that are not from the LOTG. instead they talked about how Messi's foul was much worse ("whataboutism") or that it was unintentional, or the most common thing I hear: that it looked so much worse in slo-mo than at full speed. None of that comes from the LOTG.
The relevant law of the game provides:
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
.......
The key question is whether "excessive force" was used or was the safety of the opponent endangered. Those are judgment calls and importantly, the judgment of the referee is what is used to make the decision.
Law 5 says, "Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."
There is no requirement that it be malicious or "on purpose." Studs to the calf and following down to studs-first contact with the ankle is more than enough for a competent referee to conclude in his/her judgment that it endangered the opponent or that it was excessive force, or both.
I don't get it........how is it not a red card and the required one-game ban - if we stick to applying the LOTG?
The relevant law of the game provides:
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
.......
The key question is whether "excessive force" was used or was the safety of the opponent endangered. Those are judgment calls and importantly, the judgment of the referee is what is used to make the decision.
Law 5 says, "Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."
There is no requirement that it be malicious or "on purpose." Studs to the calf and following down to studs-first contact with the ankle is more than enough for a competent referee to conclude in his/her judgment that it endangered the opponent or that it was excessive force, or both.
I don't get it........how is it not a red card and the required one-game ban - if we stick to applying the LOTG?
At least at the half it looks like a very good MLS AD team playing a mid table MLS HG team. The AD team is trying to capitalize on counterattacks and set pieces. Their defense is outclassed. Their offense keeps getting stripped. The MLS HG team can cutback at will. Unless a different US team starts out at the half or unless there is extreme luck, this is already over.
If Argentina and Morocco are the only non-Europeans that survive into the quarters, and with Brazil out, the story will be the same: the b tier countries are playing better but the tournament is dominated by those with major pro leagues and academies (England, France, Spain). When Messi goes, the sun will set on Argentina too.
If Argentina and Morocco are the only non-Europeans that survive into the quarters, and with Brazil out, the story will be the same: the b tier countries are playing better but the tournament is dominated by those with major pro leagues and academies (England, France, Spain). When Messi goes, the sun will set on Argentina too.
Scrub It Kook
SILVER ELITE
Belgium seems much more comfortable in tight spaces and plays into them to create chances. The US needs more space to make anything happen but look to be the better athletes.
Wish it could have ended up different. But I agree with you 100%. At least it makes placing bets easy.Interestingly chat , but not Claude, when asked to crunch the stats predicted 4-1 Belgium before the start. It’s still moneyball to some extent.
A word about the third goal and us goalkeeping. Play was wholesale inadequate and embarassing. The correct answer was a controlled header to a teammate. Chesting it in that position is a rooky amateur mistake. With this performance we can say the era of us competence in goalkeeping is over. We relied on multi sport athletes like feuer and Howard that were really good with their hands and recommended kids not specialize in goal until age 12. Coaches are afraid to have young keepers come off the line or play with their feet because it risks a loss, and from personal experience I know they reem out their kids when they try stuff like this (which is an error a 12-14 year old should be making and which will cost their teams championships…last years mlsn u17 championship finals keeper had such a moment on a very wet field where he slipped and fell and people were ruthless in the criticism of the keeper for getting a Dogso red card). Europe in contrast is specializing at age 8 and pushing their keepers to play with their feet and sweep. If the kid isn’t tall enough after puberty well too bad so sad for him (they test the growth plates and parents to make a height judgment call to mitigate). The one reform us soccer can make from this is an absolute requirement that goalkicks (regardless of age or level) must be taken by the goalkeeper (or the gk must get second ball)….I’ve been harping on that for years and did so to the us youth soccer reform council years back when mlsn was formed. The difference with England v Mexico was Pickford and it’s a shame that the one thing we used to do well we now do poorly (that said the entire us team was awful especially Pulisic and played like a good ad team facing a mid hg team)
At the end of the day as a 16 we beat a 27, 28, 34 and a 61. We played a big boy team and it showed that we are still couple levels away from competing on an international level. The difference in first touch was the most obvious difference. Pulisic was non-existent, Ream was horrific and the team made mistakes that should have been cured at the AYSO level.
I think we were misled by our dismantling of Paraguay and their close game against France.
....also, by Iran's 0-0 draw against Belgium. How did that happen?