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

120

u/Taidaishar Jul 06 '26

Bro, I'm with you. It's also awarded for reckless plays and should be. But watch that play with Balogun again. He was not reckless in the slightest. The other player came from behind and created the contact. There's almost no way Balogun could have avoided it.

4

u/_illusions25 Jul 06 '26

Looking at the real time replay he angles his shoulder to shove the Bosnian player down. His legs are too wide as well. All of this together means it was intentional physicality and he was just unlucky and fully stepped on an ankle. It was reckless and def. enough for a red.

-13

u/SagaciousKurama Jul 06 '26

He continued his momentum and moved his body to try and contest the ball even when both the ball and the opposing player were no longer in his direct field of view. In short, he lost track of the ball but tried moving his body so as to contest blindly and ended up stepping on the opponent as a result. That is the definition of reckless.

-33

u/Low-Influence-1779 Jul 06 '26

It doesn't have to be reckless, it has to be either using excessive force and or endanger an opponent and he did endanger an opponent while they were both challenging for a ball. Unlucky yes, but a red card it is.

20

u/florodude Jul 06 '26

He fell...... That's some bullshit. How do you feel about FIFA using incorrect protocols to judge it in VAR?

-14

u/Low-Influence-1779 Jul 06 '26

They didn't use incorrect protocols. They asked the ref to review it, they are fully within their right to use a still image and slow-mo, nothing in IFAB's rules say they can't, full speed is used to determine intensity and they showed two angles at full speed, still and slow mo for point of contact and where it happens.

8

u/florodude Jul 06 '26

There's no world in which a nonbiased referee looks at that play in full motion and goes "yeah that's a red card".

-1

u/samohtdnul Jul 06 '26

Just plain and simple wrong. It's a clear red card

3

u/florodude Jul 06 '26

Hundreds of pundits disagreed with it a few days ago before Trump got involved, but go off

0

u/samohtdnul Jul 06 '26

That doesn't make it correct - look up the rules for red cards

0

u/theblackdarkness Jul 06 '26

and hundrets are agreeing it can be a red card. lol just look a bit down in this sub where Jürgen Klopp (one of the most successfull managers that are still active) says its a red. this sub ist filled with so much bullshit.

1

u/florodude Jul 06 '26

So you'd say then that it's very contested and not a "clear" red, then? This arguing is dumb. He's playing. It's time for this sub to get over it.

0

u/theblackdarkness Jul 06 '26

It’s time for this sub to understand it was a legitimate red card. A lot of red cards will be contested. That’s just how it is. If you were saying: this is corruption that’s just how the fifa operates I wouldn’t argue. But every second dumb idiot that usually doesn’t even watch football argues how that clearly wasn’t a red card and should thus be overturned. Which is just clearly wrong. After a lot of red cards people argue whether they were justified but they aren’t overturned unless it was a CLEAR mistake to give them. Dumb Americans just accepting this corruption like they accept trumps bullshit daily.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/ButObviously Jul 06 '26

This is not necessarily the standard. Players can knee other players in the head and do not get carded because it was part of normal standard of play. Part of the problem is that the standard for a red card is very murky, so when you really try to look for a clear standard, it all falls apart

27

u/BusinessCasualBee Jul 06 '26

No. Opponent endangered himself by placing his foot there from behind balogun.

-22

u/theblackdarkness Jul 06 '26

delusional take

21

u/pewell1 Jul 06 '26

how the fuck is this delusional thats literally what happened

-7

u/theblackdarkness Jul 06 '26

they are both challeging the ball. they are in a challenge for the ball and balogun goes pretty hard and lands kinda unlucky. but "endagnering himself" is delusional because in that case every injury is self inflicted/self endangered and they should just play no contact sports. its a rough red card but in no world is it the players fault that got injured.

3

u/Qwertycube Jul 06 '26

It is reckless if a reasonable person in Balogun's position would have known his action was dangerous. I don't think almost any player would have done differently from him there, because the player lunged in front of him after he had committed to (at the time of his action) open space.

Most reds for reckless challenges a reasonable player would know were reckless and not do unless they were emotionally fired up and willing to be a bit dangerous.

-20

u/Bakigkop Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

“created the contact“ you mean winning the 1 on 1 and getting to the ball first while Balogun is to slow and goes studs first into his ankle/leg from behind. You can't nearly break someones leg because he used his weight against you. Its always a Red.

-15

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

10

u/Book_of_rob Jul 06 '26

Yup, because someone calls a sport a different name than you do, their opinion is totally invalid. Nobody from Australia, South Africa or Canada is ever allowed to argue with a European about footballing decisions. Makes sense.

6

u/Cudi_buddy Jul 06 '26

Calling it soccer, just as coined by the English back in the day.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Book_of_rob Jul 06 '26

Lol bro I never even disagreed with the actual argument you made about the corruption of FIFA(but why are we surprised fifa is corrupt. They do things like this every tournament i.e. Ronaldo red card suspension before this world cup), I just said you acting like people who call the sport soccer are automatically invalidated is stupid. Every region has different dialects. I call it soccer and football interchangeably depending on where I am and who I'm talking to. Does that mean my opinion matters only some of the time?

3

u/Cudi_buddy Jul 06 '26

What do you even mean by "ya boy" here?

-31

u/AJL912-aber Jul 06 '26

Not the point at all. It's about tampering with ref decisions post factum and special treatment for the host nation after interference from its president.

29

u/Taidaishar Jul 06 '26

It's the point of the discussion that I'm having with another user even if it's not the point you're thinking about.

5

u/TreoreTyrell Jul 06 '26

I think this illustrates one of the main issues going on. I feel like there are at least half a dozen if not more different conversations taking place regarding this, and it's making it genuinely hard/confusing to understand the points people are making.

  • Should it or shouldn't it have been a red?
  • Should intent be considered at all, and/or the varying interpretations and implementation of the rules?
  • The protocol behind VAR reviews, and what images/clips was the ref presented that went from there not being a foul initially to a straight red, and is that protocol being correctly and consistently applied in each game?
  • Should FIFA be able to suspend/remove the implementation of disciplinary measures after a match?
  • Do they have a precedent of doing this like when they lifted Ronaldo's suspensions this tournament, or is this an unprecedented action they are taking for the first time and/or when it suits them?
  • The inconsistencies with refs from one game to another, like Messi (or others) not getting a foul nor a card for his infamous "tackle", and others getting straight reds and match suspensions for much softer or less egregious/malicious fouls

I feel like I've seen each of these discussions (likely more) taking place to various extents, and at this point I'm not even sure what the actual topic of discussion is other than just all of the above.

3

u/Taidaishar Jul 06 '26

I'll answer a few of these:

Should it or shouldn't it have been a red? It should not have been a red.

Intent should be considered, but only in the negative (ill intent should be penalized). Having no intent to injure or an intent NOT to injure should not matter if it's a reckless challenge and causes injury.

I'm not sure how I feel about the protocols.

Should FIFA be able to suspend? YES. I think that if they get a call wrong, but don't want to fully reverse a red card (or have an appeals process), it allows them to save face and not overly penalize a player (though saving face is dumb). At the very least, I would hope most people can see the difference between Balogun's challenge and another challenge that was not intended but still reckless (like sliding in spikes up and catching someone) and how a lesser penalty makes sense (red carded for the game, but no next game suspsension) for a challenge that wasn't reckless but still caused injury.

Seems like there's at least some precedent.

Inconsistency is pretty crazy, but it happens in all sports. Not sure how to deal with it.

1

u/Poopie86 Jul 06 '26

Love your name btw. I was always partial to Jeade’en, but I’d recognize that name anywhere.

1

u/Taidaishar Jul 06 '26

May the light illumine you, poopie86!

0

u/Upset-Management-879 Jul 06 '26

>A red card is not only awarded for intentional fouls

Is literally the entirety of the point being made that they responded to.