this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
569 points (97.3% liked)
Not The Onion
21945 readers
1621 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was a red. It was dangerous and could have broken his ankle, even if he didn't intend it.
Belgium are crap, but would have comfortably beaten USA.
No one believes you can do it without that one guy before this. He's been carrying you.
They shouldn't have fucked with the ruling at all, but lmao at "dangerous"
It could only possibly be considered dangerous if you thought he intentionally stepped on Muharemović's ankle. Straight reds are typically reserved for aggressive plays that are either clearly malicious or willfully reckless.
Balogun was playing the ball without looking where he was stepping - at worst it should have been a yellow. Careless? Definitely. Dangerous? Lmao, I guess taking a reaching step is dangerous now
But thats really not the problem anymore - the league overriding the decision reaks of corruption and does a disservice to everyone involved, including the USA team.
You obviously don't know enough about "soccer". You been listening to your presidents definitions?
A red can be given for serious foul play.
"Serious foul play is defined as "a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality.""
It fits the definition. Even with FIFA suspended the sentence they didn't overturn it.
Quansah got a red card for England despite playing for and winning the ball. Intent is not the key ingredient of a red card.
Either way, Belgium's hammered the USA even with Balogun. Tis a lol.
No question - they shouldn't have even made it that far
The ref is intentionally given leeway to make whatever calls necessary to keep control over the game (which is why the reversal is so damaging to the tournament broadly). He had every right to send Balogun off, I just dont think it's was a good one.
A bunch of reasons why this comparison is bullshit:
I love how catty this is
A ref is given leeway, they choose whether to exercise or not and he didn't provide any leeway or special favour. He made a call and refs decision stands.
It still amazes me that you don't see how dangerous Balogun's challenge was. Did you not see the dude's ankle? Could have got broken. Quansah didn't even touch the guy with studs and won the ball. It was still a red. Both without intent, both deemed dangerous. One almost snapped a players ankle.
Yes, that last bit was catty, but the weird tribal defending of it it with weird justifications seemed to fit in with how Trumpy was arguing. Not necessarily within the rules of the game or historical precedents.
I don't think we're using 'dangerous' in the same way here. I'm saying there is no reasonable expectation that Balogun's play could have resulted in a serious injury, regardless of what injury almost did occur. Just because Muharemovic's ankle almost did get broken, doesn't mean that was due to any risky, aggressive, or malicious move made by Balogun to begin with. That the foul didn't even initially merit a yellowcard at the time points to the same conclusion.
When I was taught to be a referee (granted, that was 15 years ago), they urged us not to issue red cards unless the play itself was uniquely dangerous, where that if another player committed the same foul there would be the same high risk of injury. The two other remedies for keeping this type of play in-check are more reasonable and less likely to cause chaotic discontent from the bench, and sending the player off doesn't make anyone else on the field any safer.
Your job as referee isn't to doll out justice or retribution for harm committed on the field, it's to keep the players safe and the game fair to the extent reasonable.
That's not the point - he made a needlessly aggressive tackle against an attacker that wasn't an immediate threat on goal, and hit Gallardo midway up the shin with studs up. If someone else on the field made a similarly needless and dangerous tackle, the risk of serious injury would be just as high. It could have just as easily been a yellow card, but what made the tackle worse was that it was done without any apparent strategic advantage over staying on his feet, which made it seem like he did it in part because there was a risk of harm.
If the ref didn't take action, it was likely that the two would continue escalating their challenges until someone did get injured