Home field advantage being obliterated by the three lions.

Here we go, another straight red after VAR

Why can’t they give yellow after VAR?

That was an actual red card though. When you catch someone just below the knee with your cleats then you’re getting sent off 9 times out of 10.

10 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Why can’t they give yellow after VAR?

They can but when it's a reckless challenge that endangers an opponent, they go straight to red. This one could've been avoided by the full back. Not remotely as controversial as Flo's.

7 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

That was an actual red card though. When you catch someone just below the knee with your cleats then you’re getting sent off 9 times out of 10.

Yep, when it's avoidable. Flo couldn't have done a whole lot to avoid that, whereas this guy went to ground running full speed with his cleats up. It's akin to launching yourself as a DB and leading with the crown of the helmet.

What a game. This whole tournament so far has been F'ing bonkers. Never seen anything like it.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

What a game. This whole tournament so far has been F'ing bonkers. Never seen anything like it.

I watched SB52. That was pretty wild too!!

Just now, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I watched SB52. That was pretty wild too!!

Nothing will ever top that insanity. I still haven't rewatched it. Gives me too much anxiety. Maybe at the 10 yr mark.

5 hours ago, devpool said:

The bottom line of this entire incident is that there never should have been a card. No one is calling THAT a scandal. No one outside of america is calling the validity of the call into question despite it openly being stated that VAR was used improperly. But it's the US, so no one cared that it hurt us. But now everyone is crying because it was corrected. I hope we win the whole Fing thing and Balogun scores 50 goals

No one over here is saying the red card was correct. Least I haven’t seen that.

I hate FIFA with their repeated corruption time and again and especially when Trump is involved but at least this reversed a terrible call. Yellow was warranted but it was never a straight red. We take it and go on to beat Belgium. Go USA!!

Yikes - A new twist may be emerging. Apparently Belgium is considering an appeal to CAS (some sort of binding sports arbitration court) and it is likely that CAS does not have time to take a decision before the game is played. However, if it goes to CAS and if the decision is taken in Belgium's favor and if it occurs after the match then the US would forfeit the game if Balogun has played in it. Maybe we should just take Greenland after all.

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Yikes - A new twist may be emerging. Apparently Belgium is considering an appeal to CAS (some sort of binding sports arbitration court) and it is likely that CAS does not have time to take a decision before the game is played. However, if it goes to CAS and if the decision is taken in Belgium's favor and if it occurs after the match then the US would forfeit the game if Balogun has played in it. Maybe we should just take Greenland after all.

Pretty weak of Belgium. Just go play and win. Use it as motivation, etc.

5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

However, if it goes to CAS and if the decision is taken in Belgium's favor

There's no plausible way for that happen. They're not a governing body and the text of rules make it clear that FIFA has the power to rescind punishment in this manner. Apparently the language of this article 27 was updated 3 years ago to give FIFA more discretion in making these sorts of judgements.

Were the rules wrongly applied using slo mo to give the red card in the 1st place?

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Were the rules wrongly applied using slo mo to give the red card in the 1st place?

I don't know where people are getting this from but the use of slo mo is not prohibited in deciding whether to book someone.

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I don't know where people are getting this from but the use of slo mo is not prohibited in deciding whether to book someone.

Here ya go

The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#procedures

27 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

"No one cares, Trump and USA bad! No integrity! Ignore our government officials making calls!"

13 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Nothing will ever top that insanity. I still haven't rewatched it. Gives me too much anxiety. Maybe at the 10 yr mark.

Me neither.

39 minutes ago, devpool said:

Here ya go

The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/#procedures

It literally says right there that it can be used to determine point of contact physical offenses. It also prefaces the text by saying "generally", implying this is more of a guideline for VAR officials and refs rather than explicitly forbidding use of slow motion in cases like this. You can't on one hand champion the use of article 27 which gives extremely broad discretion to their disciplinary committee while also decrying the use of slo mo in VAR when it's written as a guideline and utilized at the discretion of the VAR officials and refs. You're trying to have it both ways.

9 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It literally says right there that it can be used to determine point of contact physical offenses. It also prefaces the text by saying "generally", implying this is more of a guideline for VAR officials and refs rather than explicitly forbidding use of slow motion in cases like this. You can't on one hand champion the use of article 27 which gives extremely broad discretion to their disciplinary committee while also decrying the use of slo mo in VAR when it's written as a guideline and utilized at the discretion of the VAR officials and refs. You're trying to have it both ways.

You think that point of contact warrants a straight red?

Edit: Also nitpicking "in general" as if this isn't a challenge that occurs 100 times a game, so in fact this is a case that "generally" doesn't require slow motion

6 minutes ago, devpool said:

You think that point of contact warrants a straight red?

Edit: Also nitpicking "in general" as if this isn't a challenge that occurs 100 times a game, so in fact this is a case that "generally" doesn't require slow motion

No, I said it warrants the use of slow motion to determine the point of contact. I've been very clear from the moment this happened that this should've been a yellow, not a red. It might help if you read the words in my post, not the ones you're hearing in your head.

Are you ready for some football?1? A Monday night party?!?

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No, I said it warrants the use of slow motion to determine the point of contact. I've been very clear from the moment this happened that this should've been a yellow, not a red. It might help if you read the words in my post, not the ones you're hearing in your head.

It shouldn't have been used at all. There was no call on the field, if they VARd every challenge like that the games would be 6 hours long. The guy got up and played the rest of the game no problem, like every other player in this sport.