The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So it's that time of the decade again. The world cup is here.

I watched the Mexico v South Africa game yesterday and while it had 3 red cards, it was still a hugely entertaining match. I think mostly because the crowd was very into it and the game was surprisingly open.

The favorites are Spain, France and Argentina. I think Argentina is way too old. France is extremely talented, but they feel like a choke job waiting to happen. Spain are a real threat to win it all. I don't think England is going to do well this time around.

I'll be rooting for Portugal obviously, maybe this is the year we can win the big one.

Everyone that knows soccer is shitting on the US team, but I like them to make it out of the group, but unfortunately not much farther than that.

I am hoping for a US - Iran match (If they both come in second in their groups they will meet in the first knock out round) just for the entertainment value of the unhinged comments of the nation's troll in chief. 

I haven't watched any yet but will watch the US game tonight. When was the last time England did much of anything?

Last time they made it to the quarter finals.  The time before that they made it to the semifinals. 

IMO the best thing that could happen to soccer is if they added a shot clock.  Make them attempt a kick on goal one minute after they cross the half field line.

Last night was the most impressive men's national team game I can remember. I wasn't very impressed watching some of the games over the last year of friendlies but the Germany loss left me optimistic and the game last night blew me away.

I saw something interesting during the pre game. A donor suggested Pochittino watch the movie Miracle when he was hired on. The man is Argentinian and really didn't know about hockey,  the 1980 Olympic win, or the American approach to athletics.  I think that is a pretty good idea to help acclimate with the team. I know that the game at this point almost resonates like the 1972 Dolphins but for those of us old enough to have been watching that game it is a day we will never forget.

I don't presume to speak for the millions of fans worldwide but I expect most would agree with me in saying thank you for your suggestion but we really don't feel that the beautiful game needs to be changed in order to draw a few fans with the possibility of alienating more fans that the sport already has.

Australia 2-0 Türkiye

To all the US "experts" who said we were an average side, a bunch of no-names who would not win a game or score a goal... choke on that.

10 World Cup debutantes in this Socceroos squad, and I could not be prouder right now of this young team.

It sets up a juicy second game against USA who looked outstanding in their 4-1 rout of Paraguay. The USA have to be favorites, and that three goal margin first up sets them up to top the division. Australia getting the first game win with a clean sheet certainly gives them a chance to progress, but we still have to accept the underdog status right now.

On the flip side, it sets up a shock game between Türkiye and Paraguay where the loser is eliminated already.

I suspect that the only people who would even consider that to be an even remotely good idea call the sport soccer instead of fotball

It's funny you say that. I was saying we looked to be playing more of a european style than ever before. Could have been the opponent but they knocked the ball around pretty well. Much better than I have ever seen them do it.

In my humble opinion the USMNT is getting a boost from playing in the US with US crowds. This is not like your typical home game, this is the World Cup, you only get to play in your own back yard once in a lifetime if that. I expect they will do fairly well because of that, maybe the best they've ever done in a World Cup in the modern era. Having said that, I'm not really expecting too much, it's possible they also do a complete reverse and lose to Australia and they're back to square one. It's a great start, but that's all it is and it's a very long tournament. I'd be happy with coming out on top in their group, anything beyond that is gravy.

I honestly haven't watched more than a few minutes, cumulatively, of any soccer match, men's or women's, world cup or otherwise.

Ever

It just isn't my game. It's like hockey (or golf)...I'd really rather watch paint dry.

With how many 3rd place teams advance, a win plus a draw should be more than enough to advance, just a sole win could be enough so I would be very surprised if Australia didn't advance.  

You are underdogs for beating the USA when they are at home, and certainly underdogs for winning the tournie, but not underdogs at all for advancing.  


I recall reading an article that looked at home field advantage, and among, soccer, football, baseball, hockey and basketball soccer had the largest homefield advantage by a very large margin. 

I'm surprised baseball wouldn't have the largest homefield advantage.  One would think the ability to score and win without the opponent getting a chance to respond would be quite significant.

I would think baseball as well for the home field advantage...

I really don't know what you mean by this. Everyone gets 27 outs in baseball. The home team just doesn't always need them.

I think it is similar to the argument that is better to kick in NFL OT.  In the nineth inning and beyond the visiting team starts each inning blind.  Whereas the home team knows exactly what must be done to win or get another inning.  You might be more willing to do a sacrifice fly if you know one run wins the game than if you know you need at least 5 runs to go to one more inning or if you don't know what the inning requires.  

But in reality, baseball has the smallest. 

This might be the article I was thinking of....its what came up when I did a search

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/home-field-advantage-facts-and-fiction

Yes, but if home field in baseball was that big of an advantage the home team should already be up and not need the bottom of the inning in most instances.

LOL.  Very well stated.

Bald Eagles 1

Kangaroos 0

USA USA USA

Feet/lbs 2

Meters/grams 0

 USA clinched advancing

A Paraguay win or draw clinchs winning the group

Nice!

Congratulations to the USA for winning today and advancing to the next stage. Just way too good for us, and deserved to top the division.

Australia needs to beat or draw with Paraguay to advance now. Just got to hope our coach doesn't repeat his idiotic idea of leaving our two goal scorers from game one on the bench for the first half again.

Win or draw Australia advances as the #2.  If you lose you still have a shot at advancing as a #3, depending on the other #3s. 

Coach must have had the BIG BRAIN idea, "The USA is going to spend all their effort leading up to the game focusing on how to defend the two guys who scored goals against Turkey.  We'll confuse them by not playing those two guys."

In case anyone wants to plan out future USA watching:

Thur 6/25 10 pm LA the US will play a completely meaningless game against Turkey.  US already has the 1 seed; Turkey has been eliminated.

Wed 7/1 8 pm SF vs TBD 3 seed, SF

If they win, Mon 7/6 8 pm Seattle

If they win, Fri 7/10 3 pm LA

if they win, Tue 7/14 3 pm Dallas.

If they win on 7/14 Sun 7/19 3 pm NJ.

if they lose on 7/14 Sat 7/18 5 pm Miami. 

So even if the US does play Mexico or Canada, it will be a home game for USA. 

If we don't win or draw against Paraguay, we really don't deserve to progress. I don't like our chances if that happened anyway... we're back to a zero goal average now, if we lose we're in the minus column by x goals. The tournament is really rewarding mediocrity when it rewards a team with a losing record and a losing goal average.

As far as what our Coach was thinking... Was it just playing for the draw to go through and going all defensive from the kick-off, or thinking we'd try and confuse our opponent? Either way, it was just plain dumb, and our press over here has let rip about just how stupid it was. Hopefully he got the message, and won't be such a pussy.   

My earlier comment was a joke.  I think USA still wins even if the Aussie coach plays those two players.  But playing for a draw is a lot like playing a prevent defense in NFL, it typically backfires.  The best defense in soccer is having a very strong counterattack.  If you are in a purely defensive posture the other team can take more chances on offense because you don't have a strong counterattack.  If you spend the entire game defending your own goal eventually the other team will score and you won't. 

If I was an Aussie fan I would be pissed, not at the loss (most folks were expecting that anyway) but that the team wasn't playing to win. If the team is as pissed at the coach as the rest of Australia, that doesn't bode well the game against Paraguay.   

FIFA is definitely rewarding mediocre teams in the new format.  Eight of the twelve teams that come in 3rd in their group will advance. 

Just a heads up for anyone who doesn't know ... Alex Freeman, who currently has 1 goal and 1 assist in the World Cup, is a South Florida product. He grew up playing in Weston, graduated from American Heritage in Plantation, and started his career with Orlando City in their Academy before making their pro team. His father is Packers HOFer Antonio Freeman.

More teams advancing means more matches, which means more TV revenue. Can't expect FIFA to buck the current trend when everyone else is doing it.

Even if Australia doesn't advance, you guys win best chant.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FEV-zK06fUA

Meaningless games. 

This is the first world cup in which the first tiebreaker is head-to-head instead of goal differential.  While I understand the rational of having head-to-head be the first tiebreaker (it is in the NFL) the result is more meaningless games.   Consider the group the USA is in.

The USA has already clinched the #1 spot and Turkey is already eliminated, making their game meaningless.  Australia and Paraguay will be playing for the #2 spot.

Under the old rules.  Turkey would not be eliminated and still have a shot at advancing as the third-place team.  Both Australia and Paraguay would have a shot at first place.  The USA would be guaranteed to advance and unable to fall beyond the second-place spot.   

If FIFA is going to give us additional games they should be meaningful ones. 

Not really a soccer fan but if the games are meaningless, you play for pride.   And also, if you're the coach, you play the younger guys for the purpose of auditioning for the next World Cup.

Those games already exist.  They are called "friendlies."  Tickets don't cost $1000+.

The crowd at the game doesn't seem to share the opinion of it being a meaningless game.

Next up for the USA is Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Up next for Australia is Egypt. 

It would be cool if USA and Australia get to play against each other again.  (The only two ways that can happen is if they both advance to the championship or if both lose in the semifinals and play for 3rd place)

I can't agree with you, I like the new rules.

Did you happen to watch the US/Turkey match? Turkey was playing like it mattered to them and it mattered to all the US players on the pitch. The US did the smart thing and rested their players and then reporters wondered why Pochettino was annoyed with them asking him if he was disappointed with the loss. Really? My team is moving onto the knockout stage and Turkey isn't. My players are healthy and rested and my backups got valuable playing time. Why should I be disappointed?

I'm wondering if you would be saying the same thing if in Week 17 New England could lose a 1st round bye on points differential even if they won the head to head matchup? As you said, head to head should be the 1st tie breaker. The games are only meaningless if you have already proven you're either the best or the worst of the group. It doesn't happen that often and it's a reward for the team that's already proven themselves, sort of a bye week as it should be.

I guess from a purely fan perspective it would be nice, but from the standpoint of the competition itself, it doesn't make sense.

I mean, the NFL explicitly detests "meaningless" games and rigs the schedule as best they can to prevent them.
They are obviously bad for viewership; if you're not a fan of the teams playing, you're not likely to watch.

(Though in the age of increasingly popular gambling, this is becoming less and less true.)

I try to avoid measuring a rule based on the idea of "does it help or hurt my team this year"  But rather what is better for the sport as a whole.  Keep in mind the USMNT is my team and the rule helped them.

That being said, I would support rule changes in the NFL that delay how soon teams clinch or get eliminated.  Thus increasing the number of meaningful games.  I am not sure if I would move the 7th tiebreaker to the number one spot is the best way to do that.  I do support the idea of making it that you start the season playing your inter-conference games, followed by conference games followed by the six division games, to keep teams mathematically alive for as long as possible.  

I think this is particularly important for an event like the WC.  There were fans who flew from Turkey to watch the game.  

Also the NFL doesn't have the problems of WC.  You can't clinch the number one seed with only 2/3 of the games played.   Even the season the Pats went 16-0, only 1/8 of the games were meaningless.  

And yet they happen practically every year and no one gives them much thought when they do because there's plenty of other games to watch. Same is true for World Cup games. If you don't like the matchup wait a couple hours for a better one. We only get world cup games once every 4 years, true fans of the sport are watching regardless of the outcome. For example more people on average watched the USA VS Turkey match than watched the USA VS Australia matchup. Are we really complaining about 1 meaningless game out of dozens of great matchups? C'mon. We have better things to complain about.

English-Language Viewership:

Match                       Average Viewers        Peak Viewers
USA vs Paraguay       18.037 million           21.526 million   
USA vs Turkey           17.015 million           19.471 million   
USA vs Australia        16.217 million           21.219 million   

Spanish-Language viewership:

Match                       Total Audience Delivery (TAD)
USA vs Turkey           7.4 million   
USA vs Paraguay        7.0 million   
USA vs Australia         6.8 million

Maybe this is the issue. Sounds like maybe you are really only interested in the matches that USMNT plays and so from that stand point I can understand your complaint, but there are dozens of terrific matches which makes this 1 match unimportant. Had it been Iraq in a meaningless game would you have even known or complained?

I'm sure there were a few that flew into the US to ONLY watch the Turkey/US match and not the previous 2 they played, but I'll bet there weren't that many and I'd be willing to bet there weren't even that many that didn't watch the coverage of the match. I still watched the TURKEY/US match and thoroughly enjoyed it despite the fact that the outcome didn't matter. Perhaps that's because I can watch a USMNT friendly and still enjoy the match, maybe you not so much? Now had the US been totally uninterested in playing the match and lost 5-0 or something, then maybe you would have a point, but that's not what happened at all. The match was exciting right down to the last minute and both teams repeatedly had chances to win it. The match was EXTREMELY competitive despite the fact the outcome didn't matter.

I am not saying having some meaningless game ruined the world cup or that nobody would ever watch one. IIRC a meaningless game between the Patriots and Giants was at the time the most watched regular season NFL game. 

But I am saying that it is better to have *LESS* not more meaningless games.  And this was a rule change that didn't need to occur, and which resulted in more meaningless games than the old rule.  And US vs Turkey wasn't the only one.   

For me once my team is no longer capable of advancing the season is over.  i don't really mind meaningless games if my team has clinched.  (The US perspective of the game or the final games of the 2007 NEP season).  But I am not interested in games when my team has been eliminated (Turkey perspective) As a football fan games like that have been pretty rare during the last 25 years, but a common occurrence pre-Brady. i think it is better for the sport to have as many teams (and thus fans) still in contention for as long as possible. 

And yes.  My primary interest is in the US team.  I watch some others, just like I watch some non-NEP football games, but I prefer sporting events where I am actively rooting for one team rather than as a nuetral observer.     

Fewer meaningless games doesn't trump the right teams moving onto the knockout rounds. When you have a round robin setup where everyone plays everyone else in the group one time, Head to head is the ultimate tie break, not points differential. That's how it should be. Besides, the USMNT were moving onto the knockout stage regardless of the rules change and Turkey's chances weren't good. Even if the rules were not changed the outcome would have been the same. Essentially the game was pretty meaningless even without the rules change.

Egypt scores for a second time!  To tie the score 1-1.

Of course a Patriots fan would propose a schedule change that mandates both games against Miami fall within the last six weeks of the year meaning no games in theat.  ::)

That was not part of the thought process. 

Maybe not consciously but it immediately came to my mind. LWill give you the benefit o doubt.

Let's go England.  I'm rooting for anyone against Mexico.

Too good for us.

Again we went in way too defensive again... I really don't know why we went away from what worked against Türkiye in the first game.

There has been such great attacking football in many games in this tournament, particularly from France, Spain, Morocco, Columbia, England and the USA. It seems bizarre that we go in with such a young team, and don't back their skills after winning the first game.

Anyway, as I mentioned, this is a stepping stone for this team who will hopefully be much better in four years with this experience, and with some luck, the core winding up in much better international teams in the interval. Plus a better Coaching team. 

Was shocked to see that FIFA decided to suspend the implementation of the 1 game ban for a red card. Even though I think most agree that the red card wasn't deserved, it's still pretty ballsy for FIFA to suspend the implementation of the 1 game ban. It's still possible for FIFA to reverse the decision as Belgium has been given the right to appeal the decision, but I think it would look even worse for FIFA to reverse themselves.

Belgium set to apppeal as FIFA reverses Balogun's World Cup Suspension (https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/05/trump-fifa-balogun-world-cup-red-card-suspension.html)

This decision could impact further rules changes. For those of you not familiar with the incident, Balogun was given a red card after a VAR review in which they slowed down the video. VAR was not initially designed to be used to determine red cards and slowing down the video to review it was not supposed to happen either. I imagine those 2 things helped with suspending the 1 game ban and I think there very well could be some changes to the use of VAR and handing out red cards. VAR and slow-motion is great for determining things like offsides, touchlines and goal/no goal etc, but we don't need it to try to prove intent for red cards. Just like the NFL, video review has started to become a bit abused in my opinion, I think FIFA would like to limit how/when it's used.

Below is a different point of view, but I think he's missing the fact there were questions surrounding how VAR was used and he's basically saying that the US was "gifted" this decision maybe being a host country, which I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. In my humble opinion the VAR review was flawed and led to a flawed red card being given which FIFA has now tried to correct. It's messy, but it might lead to better governance around the use of VAR which I feel would be an improvement to the sport.

Nobody benefits from FIFA letting Balogun off the hook (https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49278521/nobody-benefits-fifa-letting-balogun-hook-not-even-usmnt)

This is like the NFL admitting a penalty was called incorrectly. 

It's similar and yet in some ways even more than that. How many times have we been disappointed when the NFL says they missed a call, but there's nothing that can be done about it now that the game has ended. Well in this case something can be done about it. The red card in the game forced the USMNT to play with 10 men the remainder of the game. Nothing can be done about that and fortunately for the USMNT they still won but the resulting 1 game suspension was the icing on the cake. FIFA took a look and said, I think we messed up. We can't change the game, but we can suspend the resulting 1 game ban. It's actually pretty cool in my opinion they did that, but not everyone agrees. It's a unique situation.

I don't watch enough soccer to have an opinion on what is a red card vs a yellow vs a common foul.

I was at a bar with a bunch of international soccer fans rooting for the US and the consensus there seemed to be that the card was legit, though unfortunate.

In my humble opinion they are wrong and their description that it was unfortunate gives it away. A red card is given for intentional or dangerous play, it was neither. It was an accident, but that's all it was. If a yellow would have been given, no one would have batted an eye but you can't use VAR to review a yellow card. Since they used VAR essentially the ref is forced into a decision, either give a red card or simply give the foul call on the field, but the mistake the ref made was looking at the severity of the injury and trying to imply that because it looked severe that means it's a red. The severity of the injury is not really the factor here, it's intent. There was no intent to hurt. It wasn't a dangerous challenge, it was purely accidental. There have been far worse infractions that went without red cards in the world cup (Messi comes to mind, but no one was really injured on that play). This isn't hockey, whether or not the challenge results in an injury is not the deciding factor. No red card should have been the call.

And that doesn't even go into the fact they only used slow-motion to replay it which makes it looks worse than it really was which is not to be used to determine red cards.

That's just my opinion, but that opinion has been backed up by several former and current players and even a professional ref and obviously FIFA agrees.

They thought it was unfortunate because they were rooting for the US.

Oh gotcha. The foul was indeed unfortunate which is why it's not a red card.

I honestly don't know if a red call was deserved or not. 

I do know that there is something fishy about FIFA changing it after a phone call from Trump. 

The concept of a red card is like nothing in American sports.

It's so severe of a penalty.  The concept of a team playing down a man is already kind of weird (hockey does it), but to do it for the whole game is crazy.  And then to have to be suspended for the next game is also crazy.

It's just such a huge swing between "no foul" and "your team has to play the rest of the game one player short + you get an additional game suspension".  Wild.

Well there was already precedent set in this World Cup. FIFA suspended Ronaldo's 3 game red card ban in the World Cup Qualifiers and allowed him to only sit for 1 game prior to the World Cup starting so very similar. The question then is what if it's not a star player or perhaps a host country? I think that's a reach, but I could be wrong.

Europe is furious over Balogun reprieve but FIFA... (https://www.foxnews.com/sports/europe-furious-balogun-reprieve-fifa-suspended-red-card-bans-ronaldo)

So then it would be like an NBA player being suspended for a game because he was called for too many flagrant fouls, but then they look at the tape of the last game and determine that one of the fouls was just a regular foul and not flagrant.   So they tell him he is not suspended.  It can happen.

That's a really good analogy and I would say spot on.

Oh and one more thing, England also received a red card in it's game against Mexico. It will be interesting to see if England then is wanting a suspension for a 1 game ban on that. I would say it's 50/50 on that. In my opinion that red card was deserved because the challenge came in late and he went to the ground to make the challenge which in my book meant it was a dangerous play, which is why he got the red card. We'll see what FIFA thinks. Could be more fuel to the fire though if they don't suspend the ban.

It only works as an analogy if it wasn't the team's GM who filed the appeal but rather a senator or governor. 

 

There was no appeal. FIFA has a disciplinary committee that looks at stuff at their discretion. They looked at it and ruled. At least that is what FIFA said. The fact that Trump called infantino is not relevant. Whether you believe that or not is up to your own discretion, but I think it's more than plausible given the buzz surrounding the initial red card that the discretionary committee would have ruled on this even without Trump lifting a finger. Let's not give Trump more credit than he deserves.

^^^ When it comes to dishonesty and corruption, it really is impossible to give Trump too much credit...

This is true in exactly the same sense that FIFA "independently and objectively" decided to invent a "FIFA Peace Prize" and give it to Donald Trump, who has been lobbying furiously for a Nobel Peace Prize.

all totally above board, nothing suspicious whatsoever

Oh I'm sure that Trump WANTED to intervene in the process. The only question is whether or not he actually had any impact on the process whatsoever. This is what the disciplinary committee does. The 1 game ban falls directly under their watch. In fact they had to rule whether or not it would be a 1 game ban or more regardless of what Trump did and they ruled to suspend the 1 game ban which is within their rights to do. No one expected that but they can do it.

Look, I'm not stupid I'm sure there were people that were putting their 2 cents in with the disciplinary committee on what *should* be done in fact the Europeans were up in arms this was all rigged, but then where were they when the disciplinary committee ruled that Ronaldo would be allowed to play in the World Cup after he was given a 3 game ban in qualifying and only sat for 1 game because his 3 game ban was changed to a 1 game ban and suspended the other 2 games? Did Trump call for that as well? Does Trump even know who Ronaldo is? I doubt it.

Well unless you think it was the disciplinary committee that invented the FIFA Peace Prize, it's not really relevant.

Surely there is a rock-solid firewall between "the leadership that invented the FIFA Peace Prize" and "the disciplinary committee"!

If FIFA doesn't like being accused of corruption then maybe they shouldn't invent awards to give to despots?  It's not as difficult as it initially sounds.

I don't know, let's ask Copilot.

Question: Who's idea was it to give Trump the FIFA peace prize?

Copilot answer:


I believe 2 things can be possible. FIFA made a huge mistake in giving Trump the FIFA peace prize and the disciplinary committee honestly looked at the Balogun red card and thought a 1 game ban during the World Cup was too harsh of a penalty. Heck, pretty much everyone in the futbol world was in agreement with that assessment prior to the decision, it was just assumed the disciplinary committee wouldn't actually change it.

No one is claiming that Trump called the disciplinary committee; he called Infantino, FIFA's president.
The idea that FIFA's president simply has no influence over the disciplinary committee is so ridiculous as to be insulting.  It's like saying that Trump bragging about calling Roger Goodell and telling him to change a rule mid-playoffs would have "nothing to do with" the Competition Committee miraculously changing that rule.  And "miraculous" is the correct framing here:

They probably assumed that because since automatic suspensions for a red card were introduced in 1974, no automatic suspension after a red card had ever been overturned in the history of the World Cup.  Such suspensions aren't even allowed to be appealed!

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/world_cup_suspensions.jpg)

What a glorious miracle/coincidence!

What's insulting is your belief that the disciplinary committee couldn't have come to this conclusion on their own without FIFA's president and/or Trump stepping in. As I said I'm sure that Infantino and Trump would have WANTED to get involved if needed, but there was no need. The committee was going to rule on whether it would be a 1 game ban or more regardless of what Trump and Infantino did and no one thought Balogun would get more than 1.

Your graphic is nice but unfortunately it's not completely correct because Balogun wasn't even the first in this world cup to be granted a suspension to a red card for the World Cup. Ronaldo was given a 3 game ban in World Cup qualifying that would have resulted in him missing Portugal's first world cup game and it was changed to a 1 game ban and 2 games were suspended by the committee under the exact same reason as was supplied for Balogun's red card so that he could play in Portugal's last qualifying match and first world cup game of 2026. As I said before there was already precedent set in this world cup prior to Balogun's red card. So either Infantino made that decision for the committee without Trump's behest or the committee/Infantino made both decisions without the help of Trump. For all we know the committee may have felt they had already opened Pandora's box with Ronaldo and just decided they couldn't shut it again without appearing to be prejudiced toward Portugal and/or Ronaldo and Balogun just happened to be the first lucky recipient of that prize. There's more anecdotal evidence that was the case then what you are suggesting.

The red card wasn't appealed and it wasn't waived either. It was suspended by the disciplinary committee for 1 year which means that basically if Balogun commits another infraction in that time he will be more harshly penalized than 1 game ban, probably will get a 3 game ban as they already had reviewed the red card to determine if the ban would be the automatic 1 game ban or more. This was the 2nd time in this World Cup that a player played a world cup game on a suspended red card. Ronaldo was the first.

Red cards (are SUPPOSED to) carry a mandatory 1 match suspension; Ronaldo served that 1 match suspension.  Additional games are a judgement call, and the judgement was that the extra games would be suspended (delayed).  Balogun is the ONLY player in the history of the automatic suspension era to be issued a red card and not serve ANY suspension.

And once again: If FIFA doesn't like being accused of corruption, then maybe they shouldn't invent awards to give to despots.  If FIFA had instead decided to get on its knees and give a sloppy blowjob to the President of Portugal last year, that decision for Ronaldo would look like the decision for Balogun does right now.

Yet. If he gets another red card in the next year he could in fact serve more than a 1 game ban and probably would. Won't happen in the World Cup though which I'm certain was the intent of the disciplinary committee for both players.

if

As I just said: Balogun is the ONLY player in the history of the automatic suspension era to be issued a red card and not serve ANY suspension.  Since that rule was created, every other player to EVER be issued a red card has immediately served a 1-game suspension.

The only exception in history is the top goal scorer for the team of the country whose leader FIFA invented a ridiculous sham award for.  If this is not textbook corruption, it is strongly simulating it.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  From what I saw there was some (but not all) in the US who thought it was unfair and almost no one outside the US was calling for the red card to be rescinded.   

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Earazz8XQAA3mKF.jpg)

I'm not a Futbol guy, but once they reached the knockout stages I've watched a lot of very good games, more than I thought I would.  Once they are playing for elimination there is a lot more intensity.

Tommy,

You have no self-control.  You saw the meme today and JUST HAD TO POST IT somewhere.  Never mind, that if you just waited a little while there would eventually be a thread where it made sense. But no, you had to post it in the first thread you could find even though none of the posters are the ones who made the World Cup political, but rather your cult leader.       

First of all, my name is Jeff, not Tommy.  Get your names straight.

Second, and more importantly, it's irritating to see politics spill over into sports discussions.  That's why I don't allow politics in any of the Facebook sports groups I own.   

Now back to the World Cup and let's leave Trump discussions in the Off Topic.

Tommy, when FIFA invented a BS "Peace Prize" award to give to Donald Trump, and by his own account Trump called the President of FIFA to lobby for Balogun's automatic suspension to be overturned, THEY "made this about politics."

And attempts to silence discussion about the corrupt despot in charge of this country and his hamfisted public attempt to obtain unfair advantage for the USMNT is another form of "politics": you're trying to quash relevant criticism of your glorious orange emperor.

So you're starting up too now?  Again, the name is Jeff.

And while Trump might've made it about politics, you and Hoodie brought it up IN THIS THREAD, just like with all your other rampant bullshit in a bunch of other threads

Everything is political.

Why do people not understand that?

No one was saying the red card should be rescinded because you can't, but most thought the red card was undeserved and/or that the VAR review was incorrectly applied because they only showed the play in slow motion which they are not supposed to do when they review a play for a potential red card. The reason is that when you slow the play down, it often looks worse than it does at full speed which was the case here. When the play happened in real time, it looked like just an ordinary challenge and a foul was given which was the correct call, not even a yellow card was given, it just so happens that while both players were going to the ground Balogun steps on the defenders ankle and it twists badly. It looks worse in slow motion, but again they are not supposed to use slow motion in reviews of red cards for just this reason because the red card is not about if the player was injured or how badly the player was injured, it's about the intent and you learn nothing about intent by slowing down the video.

There's been a lot of talk about VAR overreaching in this World Cup by all countries. VAR hasn't been around as long as the World Cup, this is only the 3rd World Cup where it's been used so the fact that this is the first World Cup where the disciplinary committee stepped in and suspended a red card call that was made due to VAR is not really all that surprising. It's a relatively new thing and they are still working out the bugs, remember the World Cup only comes around every 4 years. I imagine there will be some changes to the way VAR is used before the next World Cup. In my opinion the problem here is that you can't review a play for a yellow card, you can only review a play for a red card. Why? Most likely because they don't want every single foul on the field to be reviewed which I completely agree, but they could review every single yellow, it doesn't happen that often. If there's a yellow card and you want to review it then you could do 1 of several things, change it to a foul, keep it a yellow or make it a red so basically increase or decrease the severity by 1 degree or keep it the same. But in this situation because they decided to review it with VAR and because he had already called it a foul, not a yellow card, he couldn't award a yellow card, it either stays what he called on the field or they change it to a red. I can see changing it to a yellow on review, but it should have never been changed to a red and if it was called a yellow card in the first place we wouldn't be here discussing it because the game would have gone on without any discussion whatsoever. By giving him a red card which was not deserved which carries with it a mandatory 1 game ban and a review for more, it made it an issue that it should have never been and the disciplinary committee felt the need to step in and suspend the 1 game ban.

There's very few people claiming that VAR reviews haven't been a disaster this world cup. It's pretty apparent that refs and VAR officials don't know how to use it properly. VAR is supposed to correct OBVIOUS mistakes, it's not supposed to be to used to see if someone's toe was stepped on 15 seconds before a goal at the other end of the field. Yes that happened and yes it may have cost Egypt a win. Unfortunately there was nothing the disciplinary committee could do to rectify that mistake.

Edit: Actually I was wrong, there's already been a change to the way that VAR will work in this World cup.

FIFA rolls out major VAR update amid World Cup criticism (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/fifa_world_cup/fifa-rolls-out-major-var-update-amid-world-cup-criticism/ar-AA27G0HO?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=6a51a763e46a464bb27a534ecc2835af&ei=312)