U.S. the last remaining host nation.
2026 FIFA World Cup Thread
LOL and I'm pretty sure they're playing Football's Coming Home in the stadium.
Harry Kane being interviewed post game and his voice is basically gone.
Last time Portugal faced Spain ... twas a dandy in the nation's league final.
Best penalty taker of this generation
Does anyone know why Neymar was a sub?
FIFA opened up a can of worms let's see what they do now I guess:
www.independent.co.uk
Will Jarell Quansah’s World Cup red-card ban be suspended like Folarin Balogun’s?
Quansah was sent off during England’s last-16 win over Mexico and is set to miss the quarter-final with Norway but could he try to follow the precedent Fifa set by suspending Balogun’s ban?
www.independent.co.uk
Yep, there's precedent now and the US is viewed as the big bully on the block. It'll be interesting.FIFA opened up a can of worms let's see what they do now I guess:
Will Jarell Quansah’s World Cup red-card ban be suspended like Folarin Balogun’s?
Quansah was sent off during England’s last-16 win over Mexico and is set to miss the quarter-final with Norway but could he try to follow the precedent Fifa set by suspending Balogun’s ban?
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
FIFA opened up a can of worms let's see what they do now I guess:
Will Jarell Quansah’s World Cup red-card ban be suspended like Folarin Balogun’s?
Quansah was sent off during England’s last-16 win over Mexico and is set to miss the quarter-final with Norway but could he try to follow the precedent Fifa set by suspending Balogun’s ban?
Well - they didn't break VAR protocols to review the incident. But, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Sure but the decision to suspend is not contingent on the VAR protocols question, and they didn't actually overturn the red card. The red card still stands, as does the suspension. They just suspended the suspension for a year so presumably he'll have to serve it the next US game after that year is up. They could do that for any player, for any reason, and now England will argue that they should do it for their guy because they did it for Balo.
Those first two are different in that they are suspensions for red cards from non-World Cup games. FIFA did the Ronaldo one (which was purely because they wanted Ronaldo for TV viewership reasons) and then did the other two as part of an amnesty on all suspensions from WC qualifers, which they felt they had to after Ronaldo (which is exactly what might happen here with Quansah's suspension).
The 1962 precendent is the only one that is similar and that was a case study in corruption in sport. It involved political pressure, a president telling a referree from his own country to tone down his testimony, and out-and-out bribery. Not sure that's one we want to hang our hats on.
Bribery, secret calls and a vanishing witness: Inside the World Cup red card FIFA actually reversed
At the 1962 World Cup, FIFA gave Brazil's Garrincha a red card reprieve. That took diplomatic intervention, alleged bribery and a witness vanishing like Agatha Christie.
Some questions based on this:
1. Other red cards were issued based on VAR in this World Cup. 2 against South Africa in the opener. One against Iraq 3 minutes into its first game. Did anyone inquire into whether slow motion or stills were used in those red cards?
2. Do you honestly believe this decision happens without political intervention/pressure from Trump?
3. If no to #2, is it a good thing for the sport that powerful nations can get bad calls overturned but less powerful nations cannot?
EDIT to add, I don't think it's actually been established that the ref misapplied the protocol, which actually does allow the use of slow motion to establish certain facts, including point of contact. Here is what the protocols say:
“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.”
Last edited:
OrangeBlue98
Iowa is not in a great spot right now (LvilleILL1)
- Des Moines, IA
I made the exact same comparison to my brothers to explain Brazil. I also said “Nebraska football”.
From what I understand, the english red card stemmed from the english player's leg being raised above a certain level when it contacted the other players leg. (is this true?) If so, the english player should know this and make all his tackles with his leg lower than that. Plus, the english player was watching where his feet and legs were. So altho this rule seems dicey to me, he was in the wrong by choice, and the penalty seems reasonably called.FIFA opened up a can of worms let's see what they do now I guess:
Will Jarell Quansah’s World Cup red-card ban be suspended like Folarin Balogun’s?
Quansah was sent off during England’s last-16 win over Mexico and is set to miss the quarter-final with Norway but could he try to follow the precedent Fifa set by suspending Balogun’s ban?
Balo's incident was accidental, and he could not see nor control where his foot was coming down, which, also, was caused by his opponent bumping into him. So imho these 2 incidents are not remotely similar.
BTW, Why is the goalie allowed to elbow attackers in the head when he's going for the ball, but when the players do it, a penalty kick is awarded?
Very well said, and all very true.
I think this is why my eyes are glued to every game I get a chance to watch.
And this is in spite of me not being a fan!
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
1. None of those are similar, as the on-field ref made the call. In the US match, the on-field ref did not even issue a yellow card. VAR can only intervene for a "clear and obvious error". As most who saw that play said it was a yellow at most, it does not rise to the level of clear and obvious error and never should have even been referred to the on-field ref. Then they showed him slow motion and freeze frame shots, which is another error.
2. It is possible. The US had already had an appeal denied, but were ready to take their case to the Court of of Arbitration for Sport (CAS):
According to the source, U.S. Soccer presented to FIFA the prospect of bringing in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which acts as the supreme global judiciary for athletic disputes. CAS law is applied in sports cases that require a legal resolution.
CAS gets involved in cases such as doping violations, match fixing, corruption and on-field violence, among other issues.
“A legal appeal was sent to FIFA,’’ the source said. “They wanted to avoid CAS. The CAS legal was ready to go.’’
In the end, the Balogun case never reached any legal stage as FIFA and its disciplinary committee made its ruling, because FIFA blinked … and made the correct decision.
First I want to say I am not the person to discuss the finer points of FIFA rules. (The broader points either.) I am not even saying your interpretation is wrong. I am saying for whatever the reason, Balogun's suspension reversal is not the first and only time this has happened. It did not set the precedent. The reason may be unique but it is not as if it has never ever ever happened in the 96 years of FIFA. Whether it is right or wrong is a separate issue.Those first two are different in that they are suspensions for red cards from non-World Cup games. FIFA did the Ronaldo one (which was purely because they wanted Ronaldo for TV viewership reasons) and then did the other two as part of an amnesty on all suspensions from WC qualifers, which they felt they had to after Ronaldo (which is exactly what might happen here with Quansah's suspension).
The 1962 precendent is the only one that is similar and that was a case study in corruption in sport. It involved political pressure, a president telling a referree from his own country to tone down his testimony, and out-and-out bribery. Not sure that's one we want to hang our hats on.
Bribery, secret calls and a vanishing witness: Inside the World Cup red card FIFA actually reversed
At the 1962 World Cup, FIFA gave Brazil's Garrincha a red card reprieve. That took diplomatic intervention, alleged bribery and a witness vanishing like Agatha Christie.sports.yahoo.com
Also you may make a distinction between WC qualifying matches and actual WC games but I don't see the relevance. Both are governed by the same organization and both contribute to determining the ultimate WC champion. An argument could be made for International Friendly matches but for me, not qualifiers. Of course I can certainly be wrong.
As for your comment in your other post (#2), I am not a Trump fanboy. I would expect the leader (PM, President, Chancellor or whoever) to ask for clarification, verification, interpretation, review or anything else they can.) from the governing body to insure all options of recourse have been exhausted. I am interested to see what Keir Starmer and his staff will do. The situations are different. But I will still watch over the next few days.
TentakilRex
- Land O Insects between Quincy-Macomb-Jacksonville
If the U.S. wins today, Friday's game against Spain or Portugal becomes an unprecedented national holiday-type atmosphere in the U.S. Weird starting time (12 PDT, 2 CDT) to accomodate European viewers, but still possibly the most-watched soccer game in American history. Also likely the end of the road for the last remaining host country should we win tonight. To me, it would be very un-FIFA-like to put that at risk for an iffy, VAR-generated call whether the President got involved or not.
This isn't even true though. The second South Africa red was not called a foul on the field even though it happened right in front of the ref. play continued. At the first stoppage VAR was used. Slow-motion and stills were reviewed, and only then was a red card issued. (And in my opinion the red was every bit as questionalble as Balogun's). South Africa tried to appeal and do the things the US did and FIFA not only told them to shove off, the suspension was increased ro 3 games.
No it isn't the protocol allows for use of slow motion, the discourse on this has been rife with misinformation but the IFAB protocols are publicly available.
Anything is possible. The question is whether you believe that it would have.
If you just pause for a second and take an unbiased view, I think the answer has to be no. We know this because the only other time something like this has happened at the World Cup it was one of the most corrupt events in FIFA history (and that's saying something).
we need to win tonite first , but if we do , FIFA blows a chance to give the the game its due.
imo, it should be a no earlier than 5:00pm CDT start
I guess technically, in the same sense that there is a precedent for potential host countries to buy votes (Qatar 2022) and players to score goals with their hands (Maradona). But should we be ok with that?
I do think that was wrong but the justification was giving all teams a free slate for the World Cup. I don't like it, and clearly it was just cover for Ronaldo, but at least it was applied evenly. This one has not been, and cannot be, as Balogun's situation happened after other players received and served similar red card suspensions.
Based on reporting, and based on the last decade of observing Trump, that's not how it went down and I think we all know that.
And sure anyone can call Infantino I guess, but it's a problem that if you're powerful enough he will answer and actually listen. Not every country/FA will have that option.
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
Your interpretation is incorrect. Slow motion and stills can be used for confirming FACTUAL information only. It cannot be used to judge intensity, which is exactly what happened. The VAR booth used slow motion and stills to recommend the on-field ref review the challenge. This is against protocols.