Donald Trump thanks Fifa for "reversing a great injustice"

Pogue Mahone said:
It’s incredibly noticeable to anyone who watches football, surely? The breaks kill all momentum and give teams a chance to rest and reset, when part of what makes football so challenging is keeping your energy levels and focus up for 45-50 minutes at a time. Plus the ebb and flow over those long periods of time is a key part of the experience of watching football. It’s basically a different sport in this tournament. All because Infantino has no spine. I’m amazed there isn’t a much bigger fuss being made about it.
Click to expand...
This is the way it starts.

Remember what the original intention of VAR was?

5 subs was means to be temporary during covid. Find an excuse to implement change, and then it never goes back.

I would t be surprised if they come out with reasons why players need these hydration breaks for player welfare, and it becomes common place in international tournaments. Then ITV will start using it for breaks, and the scope creep continues.
 
lex talionis said:
You're pushing against an open door. Like everyone else here, I deeply object to and resent the political intervention we all witnessed.
Click to expand...
That's why I said I know we don't disagree, but it's necessary to point out how enormous this scandal should be. It is mitigated by the fact that all things surrounding Trump are pushed to the maximum fringes of corruption, and a lot of the reactions to this incident have been met with a sense of "yeah well it's Trump/Infantino," but all that does is protect the perpetrators. Don't see my post as a rebuttal against yours, just a segue on the topic.
 
lex talionis said:
You're not following what I'm saying. I fully acknowledge that Balogun got the minimum sentence, but the problem with the sentence is that it really was too harsh given the nature of the foul. It was clearly not intentional, but it also clearly endangered the opponent. There should be a first tier of punishment that consists of only the team going down to 10 men, but that the player is not suspended for the next game. The severity of a severity of the punishment can be easily addressed by league authorities immediately after the match. It would not be very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that either results in no ban, a one game ban or a three game ban...or in the case of something outrageous like Cantona a much longer ban.
Click to expand...
And you're not following what I'm saying: it absolutely wasn't harsh punishment, and others have gotten worse than he did for similar actions. It was a foul that, even if unintentional, could have well sent his opponent to the hospital for a long time. Being sent off and having to sit on the stands for a single game is lenient, if anything.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
This is the way it starts.

Remember what the original intention of VAR was?

5 subs was means to be temporary during covid. Find an excuse to implement change, and then it never goes back.

I would t be surprised if they come out with reasons why players need these hydration breaks for player welfare, and it becomes common place in international tournaments. Then ITV will start using it for breaks, and the scope creep continues.
Click to expand...
...while simultaneously throwing the players into more and more games, endangering that exact same welfare for more and more cash.
 
Let's hope Balogun does not suffer too much as a result of this furore. He got a red card for a foul, maybe it was even a borderline decision, he accepted it, he misses the next game, the other player was not hurt. It happens frequently in football.

But no, the US "soccer" hierarchy has to make an issue of it and appeal to allow Balogun to play, thereby setting up a fiasco of their own making.

One assumes that England are smarter than the Americans and will just accept their red card.
 
ElectroManiac said:
Click to expand...


MarylandMUFan said:
:lol:
That seems like a joke, only for Redcafe members.
Click to expand...
The potentially sad thing here is that other than doing the Trump dance once to celebrate a goal I can't find anything linking him to Trump or MAGA. I mean, he looks the part (especially with his ridiculous tattoo), but is it possible we are doing him dirty?
 
lex talionis said:
You're not following what I'm saying. I fully acknowledge that Balogun got the minimum sentence, but the problem with the sentence is that it really was too harsh given the nature of the foul. It was clearly not intentional, but it also clearly endangered the opponent. There should be a first tier of punishment that consists of only the team going down to 10 men, but that the player is not suspended for the next game. The severity of a severity of the punishment can be easily addressed by league authorities immediately after the match. It would not be very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that either results in no ban, a one game ban or a three game ban...or in the case of something outrageous like Cantona a much longer ban.
Click to expand...

A straight red always has the punishment of a sending off and a ban because if you don't have the 1+ game ban part it incentivises players to take riskier tackles towards the end of matches, leading to more bad injuries. A one game ban is there to help protect the players as much as punish them.

If it didn't exist, I bet we'd see a rise in unintentional fouls at the end of games. The lesser the punishment, the more players will go for challenges that they're unlikely to win. With a 1 match ban on the table, you might think twice about challenging for a potentially dangerous 40/60 in the 90th minute.
 
Last edited:
Rolaholic said:
The whole feel good atmosphere for visitors that had been cultivated in the host cities and NT home base towns over the past month.

It was great PR for the US until reality hit everyone again about the US regime and FIFA :lol:
Click to expand...
Understood, thanks.
 
Trump: you know the Belgians are dogs. Horrible people. They font deserve to beat our fabulous soccer team. I’m in a mind to call up Pete Hegseth and see what he can do about those people.
 
golden_blunder said:
Trump: you know the Belgians are dogs. Horrible people. They font deserve to beat our fabulous soccer team. I’m in a mind to call up Pete Hegseth and see what he can do about those people.
Click to expand...
The sad thing these days is that even with extreme statements like that you still never know if it's satire or a real Trump statement.
 
They did the Trump dance in the dressing room. :lol:

 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
I don't really understand this point and it has been made a lot of times. That's the difference between a careless and reckless/violent foul, the former has a minimum of one game suspension and the latter 3 games.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is the current letter of the law. But the argument is that being sent off AND being suspended for the next game is excessively harsh for the kind of foul Balogun committed, which was careless but not reckless. It’s not like he went into studs up into the shin. He endangered the opponent, but completely unintentionally. A sending off sends the right message that you gave to be more careful lest you put your team down to 10 men, but missing the next game is excessively harsh.

Mind you, I agreed with the red card. I’m just saying that in the future we should punish the player less harshly for that kind of endangerment of an opponent.
 
Dansk said:
That's why I said I know we don't disagree, but it's necessary to point out how enormous this scandal should be. It is mitigated by the fact that all things surrounding Trump are pushed to the maximum fringes of corruption, and a lot of the reactions to this incident have been met with a sense of "yeah well it's Trump/Infantino," but all that does is protect the perpetrators. Don't see my post as a rebuttal against yours, just a segue on the topic.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I’m a Trump hater to the core, but since this is not the thread for that discussion I’ll leave it at that other than to say I personally know some of the Trump “intellectuals” at the leading think tanks and colleges who are breeding the next generation of sniveling shitbags and have upbraided them for their betrayal of a decent, though deeply flawed, country.
 
Bright_Eyes said:
A straight red always has the punishment of a sending off and a ban because if you don't have the 1+ game ban part it incentivises players to take riskier tackles towards the end of matches, leading to more bad injuries. A one game ban is there to help protect the players as much as punish them.

If it didn't exist, I bet we'd see a rise in unintentional fouls at the end of games. The lesser the punishment, the more players will go for challenges that they're unlikely to win. With a 1 match ban on the table, you might think twice about challenging for a potentially dangerous 40/60 in the 90th minute.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely. After the match it’s easy enough to see with nearly perfect clarity whether the player went in with intent or not.

During a game it’s a lot tougher as the referee is working against the clock to make a quick decision. But after the game you can always and easily judge what the intent of the player was.
 
lex talionis said:
Very unlikely. After the match it’s easy enough to see with nearly perfect clarity whether the player went in with intent or not.

During a game it’s a lot tougher as the referee is working against the clock to make a quick decision. But after the game you can always and easily judge what the intent of the player was.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that though. A player slides in, misses the ball and goes through the player. It looks like he's going for the ball, but it also looks like he doesn't care too much if he messes it up. Is it intentional or unintentional? You'd see a lot more dangerous challenges like that if there was no one match ban for unintentional but reckless challenges.
 
imagine being corrupt shites, who bend the rules in their favour only to end up humiliated on the world stage.

USA USA USA HAHAHA

The yanks can stick to their sports no one in the world cares about..
 
Bright_Eyes said:
It's not as simple as that though. A player slides in, misses the ball and goes through the player. It looks like he's going for the ball, but it also looks like he doesn't care too much if he messes it up. Is it intentional or unintentional? You'd see a lot more dangerous challenges like that if there was no one match ban for unintentional but reckless challenges.
Click to expand...

You're seeing ghosts.

The better argument is that the status quo has it exactly right, that even careless, though not reckless, contact between two players should result in a one-match ban, no exceptions. That would be a principled position, on which two minds could reasonably but honorably disagree.

I despise the political intervention on Balugon, but the absurdity of the excessively harsh penalty is what made the political intervention possible. When Balogun carelessly -- and no one argues that it was reckless or any way guilefully intentional -- landed with his studs on the Bosnia player, I agree it was a sending off offense bcause of his carelessness, but the additional penalty of a one game ban is simply excessive given the nature of the foul he undeniably committed.

In the hypothetical example you've created, which is reasonable, you're right to speculate that there will reasonable disagreements as to whether the player "didn't care too much about messing up" but in those cases where it is not clear and obvious that it was an unfortunate landing on a player's ankle and the referee in real time sent the player off, the player will have already served one element of the punishment (being sent to the dressing room and his team down to 10 men) but will be relieved of the second element (the one game ban). In your example, if there is doubt as to whether there was malice of intent, the one game ban holds. There would be no "a lot more dangerous challenges" as it under the reform I propose it would have to be clear and obvious that there was no malice of intent for the one game ban to be lifted.

In the case of Balogun, are we in agreement that it is clear and obvious no malice of intent?
 
DrRodo said:
Im fond of the theory that the best athletes in the US go for american football (egghand) basketball and the likes just because they earn more $$$ there
Click to expand...

It's handegg to you sir

Yes there is a cultural bias towards basketball and American football, and in many underserved areas it's seen as the ticket out. Soccer doesn't have that cache here, yet.
 
Wonder could we see a Canda/Mexico bid for 2038 after all this weeks shenanigans. With one or two smaller Concacaf members (Jamaica, Costa Rica ? ) contributing for the group stages.

Similar to the Womens 2031 except with the US swapped out for Canada. Granted Canda would probably have to some work on the stadia outside of Vancouver and Toronto


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2031_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup
 
Last edited:
Fr. Todd Unctious said:
Wonder could we see a Canda/Mexico bid for 2038 after all this weeks shenanigans. With one or two smaller Concacaf members (Jamaica ? ) contributing for the group stages.

Similar to the Womens 2031 except with the US swapped out for Canada. Granted Canda would probably have to some work on the stadia outside of Vancouver and Toronto


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2031_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it. By the looks of it by 2038 the World Cup will have been expanded to 64 teams and the US is the only country that has the stadiums.

How many stadiums does a tournament of 16 groups of 4 need? Mexico used 3 stadiums this time and they were great stadiums. But I am not sure they have any more that could be used.

Vancouver is nice stadium and while BMO field in Toronto is a great place to watch a game, compared to those American stadiums. It looked like a little league ball park. Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton is big enough but it's not really suited for soccer and there is no political or public will in this country to build anymore stadiums on tax payer money.

If anybody has seen games in the other Concacaf countries, those stadiums and the pitches are terrible. None of the countries in Central America can host a World Cup.

Whether we like it or not the US hosting World Cups is going to become the norm. I can see a time when every third or even every second World Cup is in the US. When it is not, it will.have to be spread out through two or three countries. It's becoming too big and too expensive for one country to host anymore.
 
Canuckred64 said:
I seriously doubt it. By the looks of it by 2038 the World Cup will have been expanded to 64 teams and the US is the only country that has the stadiums.

How many stadiums does a tournament of 16 groups of 4 need? Mexico used 3 stadiums this time and they were great stadiums. But I am not sure they have any more that could be used.

Vancouver is nice stadium and while BMO field in Toronto is a great place to watch a game, compared to those American stadiums. It looked like a little league ball park. Commonwealth stadium in Edmonton is big enough but it's not really suited for soccer and there is no political or public will in this country to build anymore stadiums on tax payer money.

If anybody has seen games in the other Concacaf countries, those stadiums and the pitches are terrible. None of the countries in Central America can host a World Cup.

Whether we like it or not the US hosting World Cups is going to become the norm. I can see a time when every third or even every second World Cup is in the US. When it is not, it will.have to be spread out through two or three countries. It's becoming too big and too expensive for one country to host anymore.
Click to expand...

Nah, they'll probably play the groups in a number of countries around the world before selecting one for the knockout rounds.
 
adexkola said:
It's handegg to you sir

Yes there is a cultural bias towards basketball and American football, and in many underserved areas it's seen as the ticket out. Soccer doesn't have that cache here, yet.
Click to expand...
There was an article in the Athletic today about Chris Richard’s and the exorbitant costs of youth soccer in America, which I think is the hardest part to overcome. You need money in the first place to get somewhere.

Anecdotally, my sister was good enough at a young age to receive interest from UCLA and USC, even at 14, but the costs for her to travel and play started to run into the tens of thousands, to the point where my parents could no longer afford it and she had to return to AYSO, and she lost attention of scouts.
 
TheRedDevil'sAdvocate said:
Nah, they'll probably play the groups in a number of countries around the world before selecting one for the knockout rounds.
Click to expand...
That's possible, but it would undermine the attraction of the World Cup for half the teams and their supporters. You would make the group stage a qualifying round and half the teams wouldn't even get to the actual tournament. No country is going to agree to that.
 
Canuckred64 said:
That's possible, but it would undermine the attraction of the World Cup for half the teams and their supporters. You would make the group stage a qualifying round and half the teams wouldn't even get to the actual tournament. No country is going to agree to that.
Click to expand...

Personally, I hope this never happens. Nobody batted an eyelid when UEFA did it for Euro 2020 though. If they want 16 groups (meaning that more than 30% of FIFA members will qualify for the final tournament), the group stage will eventually turn into a mid-phase between the qualifiers and the "actual" tournament whether they like it or not. That's how it felt to me with this version already. I think it will be accepted, and it can be sold as an opportunity for smaller nations to host WC games while also keeping the big European countries in the mix to host the "final" tournament on their own.
 
More American officials disparaging the referee even today. I'm so happy that they disgraced themselves on the pitch to match the disgraceful backroom dealing behind the scenes. Hopefully this has knock on effects that undermined the power of Infantino and the like.
 
lex talionis said:
You're seeing ghosts.

The better argument is that the status quo has it exactly right, that even careless, though not reckless, contact between two players should result in a one-match ban, no exceptions. That would be a principled position, on which two minds could reasonably but honorably disagree.

I despise the political intervention on Balugon, but the absurdity of the excessively harsh penalty is what made the political intervention possible. When Balogun carelessly -- and no one argues that it was reckless or any way guilefully intentional -- landed with his studs on the Bosnia player, I agree it was a sending off offense bcause of his carelessness, but the additional penalty of a one game ban is simply excessive given the nature of the foul he undeniably committed.

In the hypothetical example you've created, which is reasonable, you're right to speculate that there will reasonable disagreements as to whether the player "didn't care too much about messing up" but in those cases where it is not clear and obvious that it was an unfortunate landing on a player's ankle and the referee in real time sent the player off, the player will have already served one element of the punishment (being sent to the dressing room and his team down to 10 men) but will be relieved of the second element (the one game ban). In your example, if there is doubt as to whether there was malice of intent, the one game ban holds. There would be no "a lot more dangerous challenges" as it under the reform I propose it would have to be clear and obvious that there was no malice of intent for the one game ban to be lifted.

In the case of Balogun, are we in agreement that it is clear and obvious no malice of intent?
Click to expand...
What you don't seem or want to understand is that the rule says: red card=automatic one match ban (at least).

It was precisely been introduced because of dangerous challenges in the past, with or without malicious intent.

Whether Balogun's foul was intentional or not (it was not) is completely irrelevant. You can't rescind this kind of red cards because you're setting a precedent and opening a pandora box.

Especially after the call of the most corrupt president on this planet openly meddling in a WC his own country is hosting.
 
That_Bloke said:
What you don't seem or want to understand is that the rule says: red card=automatic one match ban (at least).

It was precisely been introduced because of dangerous challenges in the past, with or without malicious intent.

Whether Balogun's foul was intentional or not (it was not) is completely irrelevant. You can't rescind this kind of red cards because you're setting a precedent and opening a pandora box.

Especially after the call of the most corrupt president on this planet openly meddling in a WC his own country is hosting.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem or want to understand is that the rule says: red card=automatic one match ban (at least).

I understand the rule completely. I understand it so well that I propose a modification! It's reasonable enough to disagree with the proposed modification, but it is not reasonable to suggest that I don't understand the rule itself. It's as clear as clear can be that today, if you are sent off with a straight red that you must serve a one-game suspension. I propose an exception to that rule, an exception which a reasonable mind may disagree with.

It was precisely been introduced because of dangerous challenges in the past, with or without malicious intent.

I'm glad you used the word "precision" as you yourself misapply the word "challenge" in the situation that I describe. If I'm challenging for ball or just going straight into the man like Keane v Haaland and you get the man, you're off with a straight red and a one-game or more ban. But Balogun was not "challenging" in any recognizable sense of the word. I agree with the red card because the danger he accidentally and incidentally put the opponent under, though most people seem to agree that it was nothing more than a yellow card offense, but what is out of order is that what is regarded by most to be a yellow card offense result in a one game ban. In that game, there's no time to dither over the severity of the post-match punishment -- the player is sent off and his side is down to 10. But in the post-game assessment of the play it should be possible to rescind the one-game ban, a decision that should be made after the game, not during it.

Whether Balogun's foul was intentional or not (it was not) is completely irrelevant. You can't rescind this kind of red cards because you're setting a precedent and opening a pandora box.

I agree that intent is not an issue. Read the word more carefully before wheeling out strawman arguments.

Especially after the call of the most corrupt president on this planet openly meddling in a WC his own country is hosting.

I'm with you on the depravity of the most corrupt elected leader in the history of the western democracies and the disgrace he brought to the World Cup by imposing his foul will on FIFA who shamefully awarded him the "FIFA Peace Prize" before he bombed a girls school in Iran while he games the stock market before and after he bombs Iran to smithereens and then self-declares peace, but that's not at issue with the proposed modification to the punishment for red card offenses.
 
King Kendrick said:
There was an article in the Athletic today about Chris Richard’s and the exorbitant costs of youth soccer in America, which I think is the hardest part to overcome. You need money in the first place to get somewhere.

Anecdotally, my sister was good enough at a young age to receive interest from UCLA and USC, even at 14, but the costs for her to travel and play started to run into the tens of thousands, to the point where my parents could no longer afford it and she had to return to AYSO, and she lost attention of scouts.
Click to expand...
Went through the whole club system with my son. Played at St Benedict’s Newark until the coaches brought in overage kids ect..Lot of college showcases costing a lot of money. I couldn’t keep that up after the first few. With all the clubs out there you would think the USMNT would be a force. I believe it is the biggest participation sport in the country for kids. They are doing something wrong it seems.
 
njred said:
Went through the whole club system with my son. Played at St Benedict’s Newark until the coaches brought in overage kids ect..Lot of college showcases costing a lot of money. I couldn’t keep that up after the first few. With all the clubs out there you would think the USMNT would be a force. I believe it is the biggest participation sport in the country for kids. They are doing something wrong it seems.
Click to expand...
If I had to make a fairly educated guess, it has to do with how vastly different the high school to college to the pros pipeline is in comparison to the other major sports from a recruiting, youth coaching and just literally how they progress through the different levels (mls academies notwithstanding) standpoint.

Basketball has its own problems with AAU costing a fortune but the pipeline and access to quality coaching still works. Tyrese Haliburton recently spoke about how he was a zero star recruit because he never played AAU, got recruited for his play in high school, and eventually made it to the league.
 
WI_Red said:
The potentially sad thing here is that other than doing the Trump dance once to celebrate a goal I can't find anything linking him to Trump or MAGA. I mean, he looks the part (especially with his ridiculous tattoo), but is it possible we are doing him dirty?
Click to expand...
He’s registered Republican, did the Trump dance as a goal celebration, and worse he liked an Instagram post by Seth Jahn that advocated for shooting Antifa members. Maga Garancho is a shitty person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.