Thoughts on a Red Card
Nit pickers and rule pedants unite. This one’s for you. Our man wasn’t given his Miranda warning.
I’ve seen a flurry of tweets suggesting we’re on the precipice of sporting autocracy because no red card awarded in the World Cup had ever been overturned before yesterday. That’s not quite true. For starters, the upsetting violation of norms they’re referring to, the ruling on USMNT striker Folarin Balogun’s red from last Friday’s game against Bosnia Herzegovina, didn’t happen quite the way it’s being bandied as having done. The red card stands. The suspension is postponed until after the World Cup. Secondly, it’s not unprecedented. Manuel Francisco dos Santos, mononymed in the Brazilian tradition as Garrincha, was sent of in a 1962 semi-final against Chile but, after some testimony and cross examining of officials in an appeal, had his one game suspension commuted until after the tournament. This was not an inconsequential decision. Pele was sidelined early in the tournament. The additional loss of Garrincha, who won both player of the tournament and the Golden Boot for most goals, probably would have given the trophy to Czechoslovakia. But that was a while ago. The game has changed. Rules have changed.
Four players carded before the tournament have had their suspensions deferred or revoked so as not to coincide with this year’s World Cup. Argentina’s Nicolas Otamendi, Ecuador’s Moises Caicedo, and Qatar’s Tarek Salman were all set to miss one or two group games. After the bans were given, FIFA amended it’s rules. This doesn’t seem to be a case of FIFA acting on behalf of any one specific player. The organization wanted strong squads for their big to-do and these three were beneficiaries. Seperately, special intervention seems to have been made on Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo’s behalf. In qualifying he elbowed an Irishman in the face off-ball, got an immediate yellow, and after consulting replay, it was upgraded to a red. A later infractions board decided his offense was egregious enough to deserve a three game ban. In the end, he served a one game suspension in a warm up with Armenia and the other two hover over him to be forgiven assuming he plays nice during a probationary period. Fishy, but too much is made of Renaldo in relation to Balogun. None of the other suspensions quite parallel.
Balogun’s happened during the tournament. I like to think of the World Cup Finals as existing on its own. Injuries can’t be waved away so those creep in, but as can be controlled, everybody involved should start fresh and fully armed if we’re to decide the best national team in the world. Ban a guy for psychotic attacks or intentionally trying to break someone’s leg in the run up, but otherwise let all the teams come in with a clean sheet. The tournament should be decided by what happens in the course of the tournament. That should include consequences meted out to rule breakers. I don’t like the idea of postponing punishment for actions that affected the discrete outcome until after a champion is decided. Ledgers should be balanced, equilibrium maintained within the event.
The Balogun decision “has set a dangerous precedent,” according to Mark Ogden, ESPN’s Senior writer on World Cup and European soccer. “What happens if Lionel Messi or Kylian Mbappé receives a red card in the games to come? Will they also be given disciplinary immunity?” Since there is an appeals process of some sort in every league at every level, we know the answer. Were Ogden’s scenario to come, the player or team would appeal and those to whom they appeal would rule. There was a first appeal in the English Premier League, a first in the Bundesliga, and a first in Serie A. All three are still going concerns. It’s an oddity that anyone might think that only during their most celebrated and cherished extravaganza, FIFA would deny a mechanism to right mistakes.
This is why Mark Ogden gets the big bucks (I hope) and fancy title. FIFA does deny a mechanism to right mistakes. That surprised me. In the World Cup, there is no allowed post game reversal after a red card decision is given. There are, however, rules governing what a referee can look at during a game when reviewing a play to see if a red card should have been given.
There was no call on the Balogun foul at first. Either an on-field assistant or one of the VAR officials alerted the head referee to the incident. It’s in his discretion to review video. Here are the relevant parameters from the organization that codifies rules for FIFA, the International Football Association Board:
“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.”
Ogden quotes former Premier League referee Andy Davies, “only slo-mo and still pictures were presented to the referee.” I have my assumptions, but I am not privy to why it was decided that stills and slow motion are allowed only as supporting evidence. I bet there were debates and deliberations. I’m certain the final decision was not arrived at without consideration. What we have with Balogun is a technical violation.
FIFA isn’t saying it wasn’t a foul. They have a procedure for reviewing and ruling missed calls on the field and in this case they used stills and videos despite that being prohibited under the circumstances. Nit pickers and rule pedants unite. This one’s for you. Our man wasn’t given his Miranda warning.
That should end it. We should be done with the matter, but Trump is involved. The charge exploding on X, and I’m sure elsewhere, is that Trump strong armed FIFA and now everything reeks of illegitimacy. It’s been reported that US officials say Trump called only to ask about the rules, why the US player was suspended, and that FIFA assured him the ruling was already under review. Reports from those covering FIFA have corroboration from that body. Immediately after last Friday’s game, FIFA said there would be no appeal so, this is but one reason on a long list, I don’t put much faith in what FIFA says. Besides, it’s what both sides have to say.
Trump may or may not have asked them to review the red card situation. There was definitely a conversation on the matter between him and FIFA head Gianni Infantino. But did Trump ask Infantino to take any action? Axios White House reporter Mark Caputo quotes one of his sources as saying “If Trump had put his thumb on the scale and achieved this result, he would have a field day bragging about it.” That’s certainly funny and probably true. If the only reason the matter was investigated was because of pressure from the White House, there’s a hell of a scandal brewing.
To my knowledge, no one is questioning that, as Davies told Ogden, only stills and slow motion were shown to the referee and that it was stills and slow motion on which he relied to make the call. In the end, the post game FIFA appeal or review got it right. FIFA says it was in the process of reviewing the situation despite their earlier statement that there would be no appeal. I hope that’s true. If not, FIFA has a review process it ignored. Does it never review unless prompted? Does it only sometimes review? Worse case: did it review and do nothing?
That would be a scandal. That would mean bias against the US and/or who knows how many other nations. If FIFA was not in the process of review, I hope Trump said something. Had it been an English player wrongly suspended, would he have gotten reprieve? Kier isn’t lighting a fire under anyone. Not every nation has a leader uncooth enough to stick up for them. Saying the process was already under review knowing that the card was given in violation of process saves FIFA another black eye and avoids questions about bias against any particular team.
My fear is that this affects our game tonight. How will those referees react? No one likes to be overruled no matter that they were right or wrong or agree with the heirarchical organization structure they’re part of. Even though the crew tonight is not the same one that officiated last Friday, they’re referees. Is there solidarity among the ranks? I figure there are three possible mindsets they come in with: They put impartiality front and center to reassure fans and showcase the integrity of the game. They misappropriate that urge for impartiality and, though not on purpose, call unfairly against Belgium to show that they are not biased against the US because of the perceived comeuppance. They crucify the US and even if we get out of this we’re hobbled by vindictive yellows.
Game’s at 7:00. Here’s to hope.
***
As to whether a foul should have been called against Balogun in the first place? I don’t think so. Per Ogden, Davies thought the call was incorrect, too. Here’s the rule from IFAB:
“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.”
I don’t think he lunged or challenged.
This guy has the video (click the tweet to get his full argument):
