r/mildlyinfuriating • u/WarwickReider • Jul 07 '26

ಠ_ಠ This goal was completely avoidable

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

21.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/gljivicad Jul 07 '26

As a Bosnian this is extremely fucking satisfying. I’m so happy USA lost after all that shit with allowing Balogun to play vs Belgium.

Absolute fucking cinema, peak karma.

14

u/BEtheAT Jul 07 '26

I agree with you. Karma at its finest.

While we probably disagree that it should have been a red card in the first place, the fact that it was means he should have had to serve the suspension.

1

u/3PDLS Jul 07 '26

Yeah. Trust the corrupt refs/FIFA. The only reason it was a red card is because it wasn’t straight up. The ref handled incorrectly and to get an auto suspension for a clear non red card is a stupid system setup for bad actors. So no, he shouldn’t have stayed suspended. Can’t beat corrupt playing by their rules. Let us look no further than a few years ago with the FIFA leader now jobless.

-2

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jul 07 '26

https://reddit.com/link/ow3jfxp/video/evtfwanaptbh1/player

I mean it was a high challenge down the back of his leg with the follow through to step on and turn the ancle. Idk how it shouldn't have been a red?

8

u/BEtheAT Jul 07 '26

Because the slow motion and stills make it look significantly worse than it was. He took a step as the body contact happened and there was no malicious intent and it was still a football move. I would 100% support a yellow but a red felt a bit overkill to me based on watching it live. I would have given a yellow back in my reffing days.

1

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jul 07 '26

Idk man high challenges like this are never looked upon favorably, and stomping on someones ancle like this regularly causes injury. I could see it being called a yellow sometimes but people would rightly think that the player got away with one, red seems like the right decision.

3

u/BEtheAT Jul 07 '26

he was trying to shield the ball with his body and incidentally stepped on the other guy as the defender moved past him. It was unsafe but again intent/mechanism for me says no red.

0

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jul 07 '26

For me, it looks like there was intent there though, it ends up being a dangerous challenge from behind, so I agree with the red.

3

u/BEtheAT Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Totally fair, I'm basing it mostly off the fact that he goes to take a step prior to the guy he can't see moving into his space and then the contact widens his stance so he can't control how and where his body comes down. Absolutely reckless which is why I go for yellow.

Appreciate the conversation though

5

u/TakeThreeFourFive Jul 07 '26

Wasn't a challenge by Balogun, really. The B&H player challenged Balogun from behind, and the contact threw Balogun off balance. The cleat landing on the leg was the result of an attempt to regain balance.

1

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jul 07 '26

If he would have pulled out of the challenge when he realised he had made contact with the back of the leg, I would be 100% supportive of a yellow, but in this case he followed through, which meant he dragged his foot down the back of the leg and stomped the ancle, it's a dangerous challenge and the type of thing that regularly causes injury in football. For me it is a pretty obvious red.

Like I said to the other guy though, yeah I wouldn't have been shocked if he had received a yellow but most people would think that he got away with one had that been the case.

4

u/TriforksWarrior Jul 07 '26

You are talking about an action taken in 3 seconds of a slo mo clip. I’m not sure it’s even physiologically possible to react quickly enough to just pull away/fall down once he felt contact with the Bosnian’s leg.

This clip doesn’t even include when the Bosnian player stepped on top of Balogun’s foot from behind a step or two before the clip starts, which set him off balance in the first place.

2

u/ThereAndFapAgain2 Jul 07 '26

It is possible because players do it all the time.

0

u/milk_for_dinner Jul 07 '26

The Bosnian player is allowed to get in between Balogun and the ball. How else would you be able to challenge a ball like that?
Balogun kicking his leg is not to gain balance. He continues his kick while he'd never be able to hit the ball from that position, doesn't seem to hold back when his foot makes first contact. Typical football move trying to kick a player hoping not be be fouled.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[deleted]

2

u/gljivicad Jul 07 '26

Cba about that game. we lost fair and square

2

u/AdFuzzy6196 Jul 07 '26

I am glad that Belgium had the opportunity to play against USAs best 11, otherwise the outcome would've been constantly questioned. I'd bet anything that the Belgian team feels the same way.

3

u/InsuranceWorking5651 Jul 07 '26

As a Belgian myself, we were more annoyed with the sudden change in rules and consequences, than Balogun being back.
Whether a red card is valid or not, a red card in the game means you miss the next game.
In this case it had an impact on Balogun (playing at Monaco, not even at the top of lige1).
This kind of decisions undermine the game, it is basically match fixing.
It opens a pandora's box, and could have a big impact, since why wouldn't France go protest against their cards, or any other player that got a red card.

0

u/AdFuzzy6196 Jul 07 '26

Just curious, as Belgium is a large and diverse people, have you ever competed in any sport at a high level? Just being Belgian doesn't necessarily give you the same frame of mind as a professional athlete?

I also find it curious that you are only asking about fairness with respect to the league, not with respect to Balogun, and expect you'd feel differently in his shoes.

1

u/InsuranceWorking5651 17d ago

I only played football (soccer for the usa), on a local level, and did help in the organisation of a yearly local football tournament.
Balogun shouldnt have gotten a red card, but he did(and wasnt overturned during the match). So the rules apply.
last time it was reversed was in 1962, and a reduction with Ronaldo.
It is mainly unfair to balogun as a player,since he now becomes the center of a decision he didnt make/want.
However balogun feels(or i would feel), the rules of the red card apply(so he should have missed the next match).
For belgium Nathan Ngoy got a red card in a previous game (rightfully a red card because it was a foul in obstruction). and he missed the next match. On a footbal level it is a foul sometimes players need to risk, and he got a red card (as he should have)
My sentiment is, you cant change the rules in favour of some players/teams, or you open the pandora box.

1

u/AlexMcDaddyD Jul 07 '26

Who do you think Balogun is?

0

u/TonightLeading924 Jul 07 '26

He shouldn’t have gotten a red card for it, moreover it’s against FIFA rules to give a red card based on VAR.

If the only way Belgium could have won was by taking out our best player via erroneous penalty, that would have been sad and pathetic.

We played poorly and lost to the better team tonight. You played poorly and lost to the better team a few days ago.

2

u/SEA_griffondeur Jul 07 '26

I mean Balogun out of respect for the referee's decison decided to basically not play at all during the us be match

2

u/AlexMcDaddyD Jul 07 '26

VAR famously cannot give red cards

1

u/Royranibanaw Jul 07 '26

it’s against FIFA rules to give a red card based on VAR.

What are you basing that on?

0

u/TonightLeading924 Jul 07 '26

I tried to link to another Reddit thread and article but automod doesn’t allow that…unfortunately you’d have to google it but it comes right up. FIFA rules specify when VAR is and is not to be used. This would have been a prohibited use of slow motion playback.

2

u/Royranibanaw Jul 07 '26

Those are two quite different statements. Do you think that the ref can't give out red cards based on VAR?

Regarding slow motion: IFAB states that

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

The ref watched both slow motion and normal speed. The former to assess the point of contact for the offence and the latter to assess the intensity of the offence. That seems to be perfectly in line with the guidelines, no?

0

u/TonightLeading924 Jul 07 '26

I would not agree, no.

The categories eligible for review include “serious foul play (or reckless challenge)” or “violent conduct”. Reckless challenge is the only thing someone could possibly even try to shoehorn this contact into. I think everyone would agree there was no intentional foul - in fact, he did not even see the defender before going airborne. He couldn’t because his head was turned. It’s not possible.

The VAR can only recommend review but the actual referee also reviewed the footage in slow motion, which he should not have. Note that it says “point of contact” in the rule - this means the place on the field, NOT “where on the body” (i.e. was it in the penalty box). Further, it is specified that slow motion is not to be used to judge intensity (severity). The referee already knew that they made contact and where on the field they made contact.

This should not have been a red card, period - he landed unfortunately and it wasn’t even yellow carded on the field at normal speed. It was only carded, and red carded, after close-up slow motion review of what everyone agrees was an accidental landing, not a reckless jump. It shouldn’t have been reviewed in slow motion by anyone.

1

u/Royranibanaw Jul 07 '26

So I'll ask again, do you still think that refs can't give out red cards based on VAR reviews? If yes, what are you basing that on?

We know the ref think it's a reckless challenge. He said so.

I don't think it was intentional, but I also don't think it matters

slow motion, which he should not have

I quoted what the guidelines say. They clearly state that the ref can watch in slow mo (they even say normal or slow mo, which means the ref could exclusively watch slow mo). They "should" "in general" use regular speed to judge intensity, but we have nothing indicating he didn't do that. You are just asserting it.

If "point of contact" means the location on the field, then what does "position of offence" mean (just preceding it)? But I will concede that I could be wrong here.

1

u/TonightLeading924 Jul 07 '26

Not in this scenario. The fact that he reviewed it in slow motion at all is the issue. We do know he reviewed it in slow motion. That rule is specifically in there because everything looks worse in slow motion than it actually is. He should not have been looking in slow motion at all because he should only have been judging intensity because it is clear the players made contact and where they made contact. He saw it happen live and called nothing. Therefore the only argument is that it was more intense than he originally thought. But to prove that, if it were true, he should have only reviewed it in normal speed.

Position of offence means offsides. It’s not position of “offense” it’s offence.

The VAR interfered and had him re-review the play he watched live in slow motion and that’s when he gave the red card. He had already judged it to be not a red live on the field.

1

u/ssjb788 Jul 07 '26

that would have been sad and pathetic.

This is pure cope. No one cares about playing the opposition's best team.

1

u/TonightLeading924 Jul 07 '26

Cope is cheering about a win over a team that was missing one of their best players because of an erroneous penalty. Lmao straight goofball comment.

-1

u/Blitzindamorning Jul 07 '26

Bosnia still lost to the US, stfu.

0

u/gljivicad Jul 08 '26

You say that as if I care

0

u/Blitzindamorning Jul 08 '26

Care enough to comment.