- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Belgium with some salty tears ETA UEFA in on the crying too now
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:38 am to The Pirate King
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:38 am to The Pirate King
Vocal for the US audience, I've not seen him on my screen
0
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:46 am to Bigdawgb
The “intent doesn’t matter” crowd are just showing their own arse and lack of understanding. There’s an obvious intent element written into the rule.
Players kick each other, knee each other, elbow each other, step on each other, head each other with force and in dangerous manners all the time and it’s not given as a red card. Goalie wins the ball diving to ground and then is kneed in the head. A player wins a header and then is elbowed in the head by the other player jumping for the ball. A defender makes a successful slide tackle just as the attacking player is about to shoot or take another touch and gets kicked or stepped on. On and on the examples go.
The “intent” element refers to how bad the challenge is, not whether there was a challenge at all.
Players kick each other, knee each other, elbow each other, step on each other, head each other with force and in dangerous manners all the time and it’s not given as a red card. Goalie wins the ball diving to ground and then is kneed in the head. A player wins a header and then is elbowed in the head by the other player jumping for the ball. A defender makes a successful slide tackle just as the attacking player is about to shoot or take another touch and gets kicked or stepped on. On and on the examples go.
The “intent” element refers to how bad the challenge is, not whether there was a challenge at all.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:47 am to tigerfan88
Imagine jumping to head a ball, an opponent falls down, and your feet land on his chest.
INTENT DOESN'T MATTER!
INTENT DOESN'T MATTER!
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:52 am to tigerfan88
I know your point, but some of these examples suggest you've never watched a professional game of football.
Jump for a header and elbow someone and there's a good chance your bring sent off or booked regardless of if you meant to or not. It's been that way for 15+ years
Jump for a header and elbow someone and there's a good chance your bring sent off or booked regardless of if you meant to or not. It's been that way for 15+ years
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 11:53 am
Posted on 7/6/26 at 11:56 am to engvol
Ref in Norway vs Brazil gave a penalty kick for an elbow to the head on a cross. Not even a yellow card or a look from VAR. Literally about 7 hours ago in a huge game with billions of viewers there was an inadvertent elbow to the face called a foul and no one batted an eye that there was no card. Nor should there be. Because it wasn’t intentional. That same action done intentionally is a red card.
There have very occasionally been red cards for elbows where it was determined that the player “intentionally” threw their elbow into the defenders face. Literally dozens of time on a weekly basis in the EPL defenders and attackers playing long balls go up and one of their elbows hits the other in the head. Occasionally a yellow is given but even that is rare.
Because there is no “intent” to throw the elbow.
There have very occasionally been red cards for elbows where it was determined that the player “intentionally” threw their elbow into the defenders face. Literally dozens of time on a weekly basis in the EPL defenders and attackers playing long balls go up and one of their elbows hits the other in the head. Occasionally a yellow is given but even that is rare.
Because there is no “intent” to throw the elbow.
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:06 pm to bbap
They’re all confusing intent to make the challenge with intent to have a certain result.
There’s the same distinction in every day life.
For example, in a lot of states intent “doesn’t matter” for certain crimes.
For example manslaughter. If you you hit someone in the head with a metal pipe and they die, you have committed manslaughter even though you did not “intend” to kill them.
However, let’s say you are carrying some metal pipes and a guy is running down the street and as you turn a corner your pipes hit him in the head and he dies. You have not committed manslaughter because you did not “intend” to hit him.
It’s the same distinction in soccer. The lack of intent refers to the severity of the outcome, not the original act itself.
There’s the same distinction in every day life.
For example, in a lot of states intent “doesn’t matter” for certain crimes.
For example manslaughter. If you you hit someone in the head with a metal pipe and they die, you have committed manslaughter even though you did not “intend” to kill them.
However, let’s say you are carrying some metal pipes and a guy is running down the street and as you turn a corner your pipes hit him in the head and he dies. You have not committed manslaughter because you did not “intend” to hit him.
It’s the same distinction in soccer. The lack of intent refers to the severity of the outcome, not the original act itself.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:09 pm to tigerfan88
They also talk about "intent" in challenges. I don't even see a challenge. Two guys off balance jostling for a 50/50 ball is not the definition of a challenge. It's just two guys jockeying.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
UEFA response
Just seeing the UEFA response
LINK
quote:
"We express our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision," Europe's football governing body said in a statement posted on their website. "Yesterday's decision to suspend for a probationary period of a year the implementation of the one-match automatic suspension following the red card issued to the player Folarin Balogun crossed a red line."
Oh wait!
You don’t have an army
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:18 pm to engvol
To move on a tangent, I don't think it's a stonewall red, but I've seen similar incidents given as a red, and would be annoyed if it was given against my team - Quansahs for example was a stonewall red.
The thing most people are upset about is/ annoyed about is it being moved to a suspended sentence. Im pretty confident in saying the examples being given e.g Ronaldo still served the 1 game ban, it was games 2-3 that were suspended. Which is the basis of some of these UEFA/Belgium commentary. Further to this the point is it's completely unprecedented, there has been plenty of dodgy red cards given where by nothing happened and the only time this has been done was in 1962 and shrouded in corruption allegations.
The thing most people are upset about is/ annoyed about is it being moved to a suspended sentence. Im pretty confident in saying the examples being given e.g Ronaldo still served the 1 game ban, it was games 2-3 that were suspended. Which is the basis of some of these UEFA/Belgium commentary. Further to this the point is it's completely unprecedented, there has been plenty of dodgy red cards given where by nothing happened and the only time this has been done was in 1962 and shrouded in corruption allegations.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:22 pm to engvol
Ronaldo's suspension of two games in infinitely worse. He deliberately elbowed the guy, it's clear as day on video. The fact that he served 1 game of the 3 game suspension and then all of the sudden got games 2 and 3 suspended actually makes it that much worse than the Balogun situation, not better.
This post was edited on 7/6/26 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:25 pm to engvol
We’ve also only had VAR for the second World Cup now.
VAR is a completely new wrinkle and throws those arguments out the window. If we only cared about just living with bad decisions and saying bad decisions are an apart of the game then why have VAR be as involved as it is?
For better or worse the game has moved to a “review everything all the time” mentality. In 2018 Balogun would never have gotten a red car because there’s no VAR. If we’re going to have one level of review then why not a second level where we can?
VAR is a completely new wrinkle and throws those arguments out the window. If we only cared about just living with bad decisions and saying bad decisions are an apart of the game then why have VAR be as involved as it is?
For better or worse the game has moved to a “review everything all the time” mentality. In 2018 Balogun would never have gotten a red car because there’s no VAR. If we’re going to have one level of review then why not a second level where we can?
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:31 pm to tigerfan88
If anything VAR is another wrinkle why things shouldn't be overturned post match. It means 2 different referees have seen it and both decided it is a red card. One to flag a possible mistake and the on field ref believing he's made a mistake and changing their decision.
I don't believe it works like that as seen by the lack of on field decisions staying the same, but if you look at it like that it counters your argument.
I don't believe it works like that as seen by the lack of on field decisions staying the same, but if you look at it like that it counters your argument.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:32 pm to bbap
quote:
Ronaldo's suspension of two games in infinitely worse.
The point is he still served a suspension of one game. His suspension was completely rescinded just reduced upon suspension of the rest.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:33 pm to engvol
Has there been a single instance of a ref in any league, not just international games, being called over by VAR and not agreeing with VAR?
That’s a separate issue but practically the way VAR works is not them calling the ref over and the ref then making a new determination. Once they call the ref over VAR has made the call.
That’s a separate issue but practically the way VAR works is not them calling the ref over and the ref then making a new determination. Once they call the ref over VAR has made the call.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:36 pm to engvol
quote:
The point is he still served a suspension of one game. His suspension was completely rescinded just reduced upon suspension of the rest.
And Balogun served a portion of his suspension which was the remainder of the game and had the rest of his suspension (an additional game) deferred.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:37 pm to tigerfan88
It is rare but does happened it's happened in this WC, I can't think of the exact case, think it was a pen not given and stayed not given.
I agree with you in terms of how it's being applied, but in a black and white interpretation of what's happening it is two separate independent referees agreeing on a decision.
I agree with you in terms of how it's being applied, but in a black and white interpretation of what's happening it is two separate independent referees agreeing on a decision.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:37 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
And Balogun served a portion of his suspension which was the remainder of the game and had the rest of his suspension (an additional game) deferred.
That's not how it works.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:42 pm to engvol
quote:
Ronaldo's suspension of two games in infinitely worse.
The point is he still served a suspension of one game. His suspension was completely rescinded just reduced upon suspension of the rest.
So worse, got it. They change the punishment mid-punishment.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:44 pm to bbap
They reduced to the minimum punishment of a red card to be served at the time that is a one game ban and suspended the rest.
Balogan was a one game suspension, therefore there is no element to be suspended while keeping it at the minimum level.
Balogan was a one game suspension, therefore there is no element to be suspended while keeping it at the minimum level.
Posted on 7/6/26 at 12:47 pm to engvol
quote:
Balogan was a one game suspension, therefore there is no element to be suspended while keeping it at the minimum level.
There absolutely is, its clear as day in the article they invoked.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News