The Ref Stop

US v Bosnia

RefereeX said:
Thing is, the suspension hasn’t even been overturned, it’s been suspended. Which while less severe is actually worse, because it means they’re not saying the red card was incorrect, just that he doesn’t need to serve a ban unless he gets another
Click to expand...

As best I can tell from what I’ve seen, the rules allow the disciplinary committee o suspend. But I don’t see them having authority to rescind. And the non-statement leaves this whole thing up to a wide number of interpretations:
-the card was wrong and should not have been given
-the card may have been right, but the VAR protocol was improper
-the card was right, but the nature of the foul was such that a suspension of the suspension is warranted

The social media take seems to be a combination of one and 2, with the wide majority convinced the protocol was violated by showing a still or slowmo. But that is a gross overreading of the protocol—a still or slowmo to show point of contact is standard, with the full speed to evaluate the force/intensity. I have yet to see anything reliable saying the protocol was actually breached, though it is regularly being asserted as the truth. FIFA is doing itself no favors by giving no explanation for the decision and letting everyone fill in their own narrative.
 
The Ref Stop
RefereeX said:
Thing is, the suspension hasn’t even been overturned, it’s been suspended. Which while less severe is actually worse, because it means they’re not saying the red card was incorrect, just that he doesn’t need to serve a ban unless he gets another
Click to expand...
I just can’t get behind this, even as a US fan. It smells of something bad, and this is not how I want to see things progress.

I didn’t like the send off, but this is not the way to resolve it. If this was Doku or Trossard having this done, I’d be livid as a US supporter.
 
Belgium have issued this statement ...

1783285283086.png

Article 66.4 that they refer to states ...

1783285367252.png

Bottom line is they had absolutely no right to do what they did and there will be serious ramifications here.
 
As much as I think the decision stinks, Article 27 quite clearly allows a disciplinary measure to be partly or fully suspended, so the RBFA can quote other articles til the cows come home, but it won't make a difference.

How on earth they can decide that Balogun's red is only one (suspended) match whereas the Qatar player's tackle which was (correctly IMO) originally deemed a caution is a five match ban is beyond me.
 
ARF said:
As much as I think the decision stinks, Article 27 quite clearly allows a disciplinary measure to be partly or fully suspended, so the RBFA can quote other articles til the cows come home, but it won't make a difference.

How on earth they can decide that Balogun's red is only one (suspended) match whereas the Qatar player's tackle which was (correctly IMO) originally deemed a caution is a five match ban is beyond me.
Click to expand...
So effectively, what you are saying is that Article 27 is the trump(ed) card!!!
 
Last edited:
So there could be two Presidents who are not likely to make it next time round, though the USA President would have served his maximum number of terms in office.
 
Last edited:
DavidObs said:
So effectively, what you are saying is that Article 27 is the trumped card!!!
Click to expand...
mike-dean-yellow-card.gif
 
ARF said:
As much as I think the decision stinks, Article 27 quite clearly allows a disciplinary measure to be partly or fully suspended, so the RBFA can quote other articles til the cows come home, but it won't make a difference.

How on earth they can decide that Balogun's red is only one (suspended) match whereas the Qatar player's tackle which was (correctly IMO) originally deemed a caution is a five match ban is beyond me.
Click to expand...
It has never been used in a tournament before to stop a suspension. And it just happens to be for the host nation.
 
RustyRef said:
It has never been used in a tournament before to stop a suspension. And it just happens to be for the host nation.
Click to expand...
And that stops Article 27 being applicable how? We've already seen it used in Cristiano Ronaldo's favour to enable him to play in all of Portugal's group games. As I've already said the decision stinks, but you can't possibly claim they "had absolutely no right to do what they did" when it's there in black and white that they absolutely can do just that.
 
RustyRef said:
It has never been used in a tournament before to stop a suspension. And it just happens to be for the host nation.
Click to expand...
It has actually been used three times in this WC to allow players who should have been suspended for their first one or two games to haver their suspensions suspended so they could play. Including Ronaldo. This opens the dam further, but I think the desire to have a high profile player like Ronaldo play as many games as possible is really what set this off. Without those three, I don't think the Discipline Committee would have done it for the first time here.

Apparently there is supposed to be a written report that comes out. That should make interesting reading.
 
ARF said:
And that stops Article 27 being applicable how? We've already seen it used in Cristiano Ronaldo's favour to enable him to play in all of Portugal's group games. As I've already said the decision stinks, but you can't possibly claim they "had absolutely no right to do what they did" when it's there in black and white that they absolutely can do just that.
Click to expand...
OK, but it's never been used in a World Cup finals competition before and as others have said, the optics are just terrible.

The fact that, as reported by the New York Times, Trump personally called Infantino three times on Balogun's behalf, before the decision to use article 27 was made, just reeks of cronyism.

Screenshot_20260706_141436_Google.jpg
 
ARF said:
And that stops Article 27 being applicable how? We've already seen it used in Cristiano Ronaldo's favour to enable him to play in all of Portugal's group games. As I've already said the decision stinks, but you can't possibly claim they "had absolutely no right to do what they did" when it's there in black and white that they absolutely can do just that.
Click to expand...
Depends what trumps (pardon the pun) what, as it always the case when two rules contradict each other. The issue I have is, if what Belgium have said is true, FIFA have been putting weekly briefing out to clubs saying that the automatic one game ban will not be flexed in anyway. Then Trump calls Infantino and that is out of the window.

What now happens if Keir Starmer calls Infantino to get Quansah’s ban overturned? It is a total mess.

The Ronaldo one is different as it related to an offence before the tournament, plus he served a one game suspension. Article 27 has only been used once before for a sending off in the tournament, and that was in the 60s before the automatic one game ban was in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top