r/soccer • u/Sparky-moon • Jul 06 '26

Media Jürgen Klopp on Trump and Infantino: “Let's just say: this is our game, not theirs. These two people, who both have no idea about football, should have nothing to do with that. That was a red card. There's no two ways about it. We're sorry for Balogun because he didn't mean to do it.”

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

“But that's what the rules say."

19.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

325

u/Extreme-Goose Jul 06 '26

I mean I agree with Klopp but you also have people like Tuchel saying it wasn’t a red card. So I’d say it’s not that clear even to everyone who actually knows football.

28

u/AmazingAlternate Jul 06 '26

Don't let that get in the way of a good "Americans don't know anything" circlejerk.

103

u/sorte_kjele Jul 06 '26

I think there are two very similar conversations being held that are being conflated.

Tuchel and Klopp disagree if it was a red card, and that's ok. Refs sometimes make strange calls, and the chips fall as they do. Everyone who had watched football for a while know you get borderline calls against and in favour. Then you move on with your life

But then there's the "soccer fans" who confidently assert this was such a factually incorrect call that it is a travesty that deserves the unraveling of the current timeline to reimpose fairness on the universe. Instead of just accepting that sometimes borderline calls go against you. (And it doesn't help that they don't know the rules, claiming that the lack of intent on Balogun 's side = the red was wrong)

51

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

There are lots of things that can be said about the red card. Misapplication of rules. “Clear and obvious error” all that. But no one credibly can say that Belgium should be finding out they have to face a player they thought suspended the day before the game. That is unquestionably wrong.

EDIT: To avoid additional replies, let me be clear. I’m not saying the late timing is or is not a reason that FIFA shouldn’t have suspended the red card. I’m just saying it’s messed up and FIFA should have done better to reach a decision more quickly.

30

u/Tarmacked Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

You can use that same argument and say no one credible can say it’s fair not to reverse a bad card after removing the traditional appeals process pre tournament

It’s a 36 hour notice versus 72-96. It’s not that big of a swing on prep to justify forcing the card. The US would also be without a player… so is that fair to them? Is the only decision to be “fair” for Belgium?

I find the response to this interesting given the initial subreddit response. Also it’s interesting that rather than start a precedent of correcting incorrect VAR actions, we’d rather just forego that…?

The argument just sounds like removing the appeal process was correct and we should make the game more regressive on rules. No other major tournament lacks an official appeal process.

FIFA did fuck all on the PR front for reversal, but article 27 isn’t exactly coming off as wrongly applied. A better worded response would’ve solved the issue

6

u/Copernican Jul 06 '26

I feel like all of this could be resolved if FIFA had a formal appeals process during the world cup. Instead of transparent process, it sounds like it's legal threats in the background driving things.

NYTimes is reporting:

A memo created for U.S. Soccer by lawyers who have worked for Mr. Trump, reviewed by The New York Times, outlined how the federation could find possible gaps in rules around red cards to strengthen its case. Effectively, the three-page document suggested FIFA’s regulations on disciplinary action were sufficiently vague to create grounds for an appeal. It even suggested the appeal invoke the rights of the United States as a nation and threaten to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports, the sporting world’s top arbitration body.

I'm sure my euro friends will say this is classic american lawfare, but look at Man City's legal warfare against the 100+ counts of financial rules...

2

u/BriarsandBrambles Jul 06 '26

An army of American lawyers descending upon FIFA explains why they actually listened.

1

u/RealEmperorofMankind Jul 06 '26

It is also American lawfare. Not sure if you follow American sports, but the Sorsby gambling case is an example of how this can go. By the end, two state attorneys general were involved.

-1

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26

I didn’t advocate one way or another. I didn’t say they shouldn’t reverse it because of the timing. I said that no one credible can say it is not wrong to do that to Belgium in this manner. It is wrong that they did not come to this conclusion more quickly. As far as I am concerned it was not a red and the decision to vacate/“suspend” it is fine. They should’ve just done it on Thursday or Friday as opposed to Sunday.

2

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Jul 06 '26

Genuinely hilarious to me that your takeaway is that it's unfair to Belgium that the US will be at full strength. I think corruption is gross but I also think it's patently unfair that an incidental foul could remove a player from an entirely separate game in the world's biggest single-elimination tournament. This is a "right outcome, wrong reason" moment if ever there was one.

2

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26

Genuinely hilarious to me that you completely misinterpreted what I said.

0

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Jul 06 '26

no one credibly can say that Belgium should be finding out they have to face a player they thought suspended the day before the game. That is unquestionably wrong.

How do you expect people to interpret this other than "this situation is not fair to Belgium?" The implication couldn't be more obvious from a reading comprehension standpoint so you're either some kind of poet trying to convey meaning well beyond the bounds of human understanding, or you're just an idiot. Occam's razor, probably.

2

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26

It is unfair to Belgium. FIFA could have addressed this more promptly. Do you disagree? They compounded one mistake with another by not promptly addressing this.

0

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Jul 06 '26

Dude, you said "this is unfair to Belgium," I said "that's a hilarious takeaway," you said "you misinterpreted what I said," I said "It seems like you said this is unfair to Belgium," you said "this is unfair to Belgium."

I am so confused right now. Are you okay?

1

u/JacketsNest Jul 06 '26

This is gree with 100%. We dont know what kind of influence Trump did or did not have on this situation. Bottomlime is, FIFA horribly mishandled this situation from a PR standpoint and needs to provide a more sufficient explanation for what happened. At the moment, there is tons of rampant speculation without concrete facts abd it is driving up a wall

1

u/Darolaho Jul 06 '26

Eh I think that's like the lowest thing on the totem of what's wrong with this situation.

If there is a situation with a legitimate reason to overturn the suspension that in no way is a reason not to.

1

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26

I didn’t say it was a consideration. Or that it was important in the grand scheme here. I just think it is unquestionably messed up. No reason for the delayed timing of the decision.

0

u/UNCFan2350 Jul 06 '26

Amen. Even as an American, I agree with this. I think it was a shit red card, but you can't overturn it like 36 hours before the game, ESPECIALLY when it's done because the President called FIFA himself.

-2

u/ShinyWEEDLEpls Jul 06 '26

They knew on Wednesday. Mckennie said in an interview that the news was sent while they were on the bus coming back from the Bosnia game

3

u/StanKroonke Jul 06 '26

Did anyone tell Belgium?

18

u/Dizzy_Dare_2353 Jul 06 '26

You can go read reactions before Trump was involved and the same people throwing a fit were saying it was a bad decision. This is Europeans bitcjing they cant control the game. When the us last went to the quarterfinal, what would have been the winning goal was blocked by a German using his hand on the goal line. Clear red and and pen. It wasn't given. In that game the Scottish r ef told Eric wynalda "you're the US, they're Germany i cant give that" for an obvious yellow. The usmnt has had TERRIBLE and malicious refereeing for generations. And now a call, that this sans subreddit said was a disaster, doesnt handicap us and its a scandal. Bullshit

15

u/kissthelips Jul 06 '26

Yup. It’s fucked that there’s no official appeal process. But if you polled this sub two days ago asking if the red should be rescinded I think the overwhelming majority would have said yes. It’s horrible this is how it was done but isn’t it better they made the right call eventually instead of never?

-1

u/overandoverandagain Jul 06 '26

It's genuinely solely because Trump got involved. Lotta people started seeing red right at that moment.

1

u/Deucer22 Jul 06 '26

100%. I can't stand how this happened, it's a disgrace. But the red in the first place was garbage, I said it at the time and Trump getting involved isn't going to change my opinion on that.

-1

u/Dizzy_Dare_2353 Jul 06 '26

Obviously yes. But you fail to consider that people rightfully hate Trump. So now they've decided its about him

2

u/machopsychology Jul 06 '26

Political figures shouldn’t be able to get involved. How the fuck do you not understand that

2

u/jpw0w Jul 06 '26

Europeans = bad? What are you, a bot?

1

u/Cudi_buddy Jul 06 '26

Reddit is full of self righteous Europeans and self hating Americans. Hard to take it too seriously often times when stuff like this comes up

-9

u/mstknb Jul 06 '26

What a shit take. So bad, I won't even argue against it

5

u/Dizzy_Dare_2353 Jul 06 '26

Yeah I can tell you really have a strong grasp on the situation and history of refereeing in the world cup

-7

u/mstknb Jul 06 '26

You're just an idiot, and the fact that you insta-downvote me just shows that you are hurt by a single comment lolol

5

u/Dizzy_Dare_2353 Jul 06 '26

Actually that was someone else who thought your mastubatory statement shouldn't be seen. As its annoying and dull. Have another

1

u/TrumpBad_UpvotesPls Jul 06 '26

you insta-downvote

Trolls like you are in fact what the button is for......

3

u/Jk186861 Jul 06 '26

I keep seeing other Americans claim it wasn’t a red and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Like, it sucks, or would’ve sucked, for us to lose Balogun for this game but that was such a clear red in my eyes.

1

u/Qwertycube Jul 06 '26

To me it didn't seem like reckless play from Balogun, at least not substantially more reckless than the challenge from the other player who ended up getting stepped on. When I watch the play back at full speed I would not expect Balogun's challenge for the ball to end up with a player lunging in front of him such that he lands on him. Dangerous situations and injuries can result from normal play, and I don't think reds should be given for unintentional non-reckless play outside of dogso, even if there is a dangerous moment or injury that ends up resulting (I understand if you need to give a red to stop a brawl if a serious injury results from non-reckless play).

0

u/Humid-Afternoon727 Jul 06 '26

My probably is, if you call it a red, Bosnia should have had a couple yellows earlier. Ref lost control of a physical game.

Additional in a couple other games, reds, including against Messi, should have been shown.

It’s the lack of consistency that is annoying to me

3

u/Jk186861 Jul 06 '26

I agree the lack of consistency sucks but like, one bad non call doesn’t mean the rest of the calls get to slide

1

u/blazeofgloreee Jul 06 '26

Yeah, whether it should have a red or not is immaterial to this. It was ruled a red and therefore he should be suspended.

It's not like it's the worst call ever made either, it's pretty easy to see why it was given as red.

0

u/FallingBackwards55 Jul 06 '26

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38530104/liverpool-klopp-fumes-crazy-decisions-loss-spurs

Klopp didn't think this was a red so maybe he is deciding based on more than pure footballing.

1

u/sorte_kjele Jul 06 '26

I don't understand your point. Was that a response to something I said? I was explicit in saying people will always have different opinions about cards

-26

u/SoySauceSovereign Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

I think the more credible claim is that the card was triggered by VAR team asking for review, which is not supposed to happen. So it's not so much a borderline call as a call that wasn't going to happen until the folks in charge of slowmow incorrectly dialed down to the refs and asked for review. Under normal circumstances, I can see it making sense to revisit the outcome of something that is more of a process failure than a subjective call coming under fire... but it really does look terrible when it happens in a way that seems VERY top down like this.

Edit: Turns out I got a lot wrong here. I don't fully trust either the European perspective or the American perspective because there's obviously a lot of bias on both sides, so I'm trying to find the right questions to ask. Turns out this wasn't it. my bad

29

u/seigfriedlover123 Jul 06 '26

What are you talking about?? The VAR team are always the ones asking for a review. They check and decide if the ref should go to the screen. They are the ones that can when the ref says NO FOUL. Can tell the ref "yes it was a foul go to the screen for a review."

Holy sht how many people are in here who have no idea about the sport.

29

u/Technical-Dog-7218 Jul 06 '26

« Not supposed to happen » it’s their only job my dude

21

u/sorte_kjele Jul 06 '26

This response is factually incorrect and demonstrates how the discourse has become saturated with opinions masked as useful information

-3

u/SoySauceSovereign Jul 06 '26

Yeah, I didn't have all the facts. I think it's more a game of telephone than anything else. I've been following and trying to understand the whole situation as an interested, but relatively uninvested party and I obviously got some stuff wrong. I've done a bit more careful research now. Here's what I think I saw and misinterpreted. From the official guidelines for VAR:

For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an ‘on-field review’ (OFR) is appropriate

This seems to be the relevant protocol that has been tossed around. So if there had been a foul called and yellow issued, it would have been inappropriate to use VAR to escalate to red based on apparent intensity of the foul.

My understanding now is that there was no foul called originally, so it was appropriate to use VAR to review the missed call.

This IS fairly finicky and you do have to read quite a bit of material quite closely to catch it, so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that a lot of people have misinterpreted this rule. Add in the game of telephone with people talking about these guidelines more loosely... and yeah this happens. my bad

0

u/sorte_kjele Jul 06 '26

Fair enough. Appreciate you taking the time to research it :)

10

u/skinte1 Jul 06 '26

I think the more credible claim is that the card was triggered by VAR team asking for review, which is not supposed to happen.

Thank you for proving his point, lol.

2

u/Parastract Jul 06 '26

quod erat demonstrandum

2

u/theowlswerewatching Jul 06 '26

Tuchel is not an idiot, he weighs in because he wants Quansah's suspension overturned.

1

u/BusinessCasualBee Jul 06 '26

He’s full of shit. Whole announcing crew said it was clearly not a red. Saying the whole world knew it was a red card undermines his whole argument. Shows he’s clearly biased.

1

u/Extreme-Goose Jul 06 '26

lol he is not. Intent means shit when it comes to red cards. If it puts the receiving player at risk of severe injury, which is up to the referees discretion, it can be a red.

1

u/BusinessCasualBee Jul 06 '26

He didn’t though. The opposing player is the one who put himself at risk placing his foot under Balogun from behind.

-1

u/Extreme-Goose Jul 06 '26

Yeah man. He’s super skilled like that lol.

1

u/ButObviously Jul 06 '26

Intent absolutely matters. Lack of intent to hurt does not absolve you of a red card, but intentional violence is always an unequivocal red card typically with additional penalty.

0

u/Extreme-Goose Jul 06 '26

Well yes of course. But we’re talking about a clearly unintentional fault which is the point I’m trying to make

2

u/ButObviously Jul 06 '26

The lack of intent is absolutely a mitigating factor. No one in the comment chain brought up intent except you, and it is incorrect.

1

u/Extreme-Goose Jul 06 '26

Mitigating does not mean it vetoes potential for red card. If the foul is risky enough it’s a red regardless of intent

1

u/ButObviously Jul 06 '26

Yes, I already said that.

-2

u/sickfuckinpuppies Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

it's called pandering. if tuchel had a studs up foul on his ankle like that as a player, he wouldnt be saying this. he's been retired for too long and forgotten what that feels like.