I don;t think anything is clear here. It's very hard to be certain in this instance. And, in such cases, I'm of the view that if you are still guessing after a bunch of views, then leave it alone. VAR should be helping refs see what they missed or may have missed with what the eye can actually see, not getting into granular analysis of maybes after the fact. i think we;d need a different angle to be able to say that (from that different angle) VAR got this one wrong. From the angles they were using its very difficult to say.
I forgot to get back to this on Friday - but you are missing the point on a couple of levels (1 = above). (Before reading any further you might want to actually take a look at that video again in real time and not just my still-shots, because in real time it is clearly a foul. And I would deem your statement below incorrect, as i would say hardly anyone disagrees with me that this is/was a foul.) That's agreed, and exactly the point here. Not all pushes are. We know. But all pushes where there is no other possible reason or effect other than to push a player out of where he wishes to be and which succeed and then have an immediate knock-on effect on his playing of the ball/game, are fouls - whether they subsequently need to be called or not, due to no major incident arising. That was why I said "pushes as such" and not just "pushes". There's no instance where a player can reach out of anything that can reasonably be claimed to be his own space and push another player with transfer of momentum to gain advantage, and have it be not a foul. It's just not afoul that refs deem necessary to always call in corner jostling situations (nor do we know that they always see these.) That type of push IS ALWAYS a foul, just as a trip for a trip's sake is. The fact that it is not always going to be called because it might have no resultant meaning is also completely nullified due to the fact that it directly led to the pushed player playing the ball with his head to the player who then scored. If VAR isn;t there to spot such things and if you truly don't think that it is there to spot such instances of missed fouls (that are not subjective - see below for that quick analysis) then you might want to visit a head doctor. A great example of this would be a goalkeeper running back to the goal-line to catch a bouncing ball and a guy running just behind him pushing exactly as was done here, causing the goalkeeper to step over his line with the ball. You'd be saying that was a foul, and if VAR needed to catch it that VAR should, and you'd be right. But it's the exact same thing. Nothing else is involved except an absolutely unnecessary push that gains an otherwise nonexistent (and serious) advantage on the unfolding play. Why do I say it is not subjective in this case? For a thing to be considered subjective, there must be at least two or more ways of looking at it or seeing it. In this instance there is only one item to see. A player doing something he should not do. There's nothing else to be subjective about. His reach out is completely unnecessary, removing all subjective analysis. Does it in normal cases contain a secondary element of subjectivity for the ref to analyze, as in, did it matter at all? Sure. But those cases are all removed by the goal. Go look at it again in real play, and see if you can truly see anything else going on?
When you say this is not subjective, again I'm not going to go back and forth, but that's the nature of this incident... it is by definition subjective. So, I don't know how to engage with this point. And this has always been the problem in this thread, for years. All the bold is literally subjective, as it pertains to the LOTG, because it all requires interpretation. I may agree with you 100%, that this is a push and should have been called a foul, but it would still be a subjective decision. Are you just saying you strongly disagree with the call? Why do we have to use language like "it's not subjective"?
I wonder what they'll do from week 4 onwards? They do this kind of thing every effing year, it's meaningless. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cvgqrlkr24zo Premier League referees will change the way they judge hair pulling next season after three players were sent off for the offence in 2025-26. Officials will also be asked to place a greater emphasis on grappling and holding inside the area after it became commonplace on corners and set-pieces. A solution to stop the goalkeeper "tactical timeout" is also set to be introduced. The measures were agreed at the Premier League AGM earlier this month after consultation with the game improvement advisory group. They form part of the "football principles" and "refereeing points of emphasis" for 2026-27. All three red cards for hair pulling came through a video assistant referee review, and led to criticism from the managers of the players involved. Everton's Michael Keane, Manchester United's Lisandro Martinez and Sunderland's Dan Ballard were all sent off for hair pulling after a VAR intervention. United boss Michael Carrick called it "one of worst decisions I've seen" but lost an appeal to get the three-match ban overturned. Stockport County defender Josh Dacres-Cogley was dismissed for the offence in the League One play-off final too. But from next season, not every time a player is seen to pull an opponent's hair will a red card be shown. Instead, greater emphasis will be placed on both the level of force and the intention. Everton boss David Moyes criticised the red card shown to Keane, claiming his player had received a ban for "absolutely nothing". However, the new guidance does not mean hair pulling will suddenly be tolerated. Referees will be told to look for a "clear and deliberate action" which has "excessive force and/or brutality". It is likely that Keane would still be sent off - his holding and pulling the hair of Wolves' Tolu Arokodare deemed violent conduct. But Ballard and Dacres-Cogley would probably be judged to be yellow-card offences - though the VAR cannot intervene for bookings. Martinez's red card would be considered a borderline case and open to interpretation. The change is in intended to give more latitude to players who may accidentally hold onto an opponent's hair. Enhanced focus on grappling and holding A match between Everton and Manchester United in March encapsulated a season of corner chaos. Set-pieces were blighted by holding, grappling and pushing inside the area - instigated by both teams. The Toffees had several players standing on top of goalkeeper Senne Lammens. Leny Yoro was pushed into the net by James Tarkowski. Then Harry Maguire got involved too. "You get the feeling now that referees really don't want to get involved in any of it," Moyes said. "It's really poor that they've not tried to deal with it." Next season, referees will be told to pay much more attention to "holding actions that have clear material impact". This includes players who are "clearly only focused on opponents and making a holding action". Challenges on goalkeepers will be penalised if there is no intent to play or challenge for the ball. It comes as no surprise that the issue would be highlighted by the game improvement advisory board. Goalkeeper tactical timeouts a major frustration The "football principles" are created based upon the results of the annual football survey - sent to captains, coaches, commentators and other stakeholders. This then determines the "refereeing points of emphasis". The game improvement advisory group recommends adjustments that will enhance the game and meets regularly across the season. The Premier League Football department, PGMO and representatives from clubs take part. In the past this has resulted in a more relaxed application of handball and has been used to set the thresholds for challenges and for VAR. The goalkeeper "tactical timeout" came out as a particular issue this year. The tactic is used by managers to get new instructions to their players, or to impact the momentum of the opposition. The goalkeeper sits on the turf and signals for the physio and the other players rush to the technical area for a team talk. The survey found that 85% felt this was a problem. Players at the World Cup have been banned from going to the touchline to outlaw this "tactical timeout". The Premier League is discussing a solution ahead of the new season. General timewasting by goalkeepers was an issue for 73%. This will be tackled by a new law which has just come into force. If keepers delay a restart on a goal-kick a referee can start a five-second countdown. If time runs out, the opposition will be given a corner. The results of last season's survey also showed: 96% support the high threshold for penalising challenges by on-field officials 65% back the VAR threshold 85% support the continuation of open and transparent communications 68% would back live audio and footage of VAR reviews 43% in favour of wider VAR powers 37% support VAR reviews for corners The key theme about VAR was the slow speed of decisions. Based upon the results, the Premier League will not adopt the competition opt-in for the VAR to check corners which is in place for the World Cup.
Haven't even noticed VAR checking corners at the WC.... but I haven't been watching/paying attention nearly as much/closely as I'd prefer.
That can be said of all the VAR activity at the WC I think. I'm watching very little of the games but I haven't seen any complaints about minutes-long delays while the VAR gets a microscope out to look at something and replay it 30 times. Thank you Mr. Collina. PGMOL's insistence on analyzing things to death is looking more ridiculous all the time.
Yup, saw one corner decision (correctly) overturned into a goal kick quite quickly. Furthermore, it was only the slightest of touches that made the difference so not easy to spot. Well done VAR!!
Small sample size, but really letting them play in a number of matches I've watched. I expected many more fouls to be called immediately after seeing the challenge... then play just continues.
Been pleasantly surprised by the reffing in the tournament. They've had a light whistle and the refs have been quite willing to tell guys to get the hell up. Been a little nervous that the players are going to catch on and the knockout stage will turn into a hack fest but the refs have been a little quicker with the cards in the R of 32 so far which has kept it under control. Still suspect that one of these will get away from them but we've seen that in earlier tournaments and it can be quite funny as long as I don't care about the result. Anyone remember Holland-Portgual in '06? VAR has been good, better than the prem for sure. They are in the same catch -22 as the prem in terms of the "high bar" I've seen them wave away pretty strong penalty claims, including England's today, which is fine, but does set up the scenario that any VAR awarded penalty then feels suspect. Final thing that I have liked is that they are playing advantage further out. It's led to some late whistles that has taken some getting used to but overall I like giving the fouled team two bites at the cherry. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the later rounds. It's one thing to let the "players play" when it's the group stage and players are on their best behavior. It'll be something else when the pressure builds and guys are happy to risk a red to stop a goal or take out their opponents best player.
VAR just gave a pretty ********ing crazy red to the US... might just ******** up their entire tournament. 20 minutes to hold on to this 1-nil down a man. By the letter of the law I can see the argument. But feels very, very harsh. Intent may not be in the laws for straight red, but there being absolutely zero intent to even MAKE a challenge with studs feels real, real bad.
The problem is the slow motion replay and the screen freezes. With those it looks bad. At real speed and to anyone that's played the game, it's never a red. It's a normal football action with no intent at all. If they want to freeze the frame or use show motion, Dzeko should have seen red for the use of dangerous force to Adam's head. Neither was called a foul in real time. VAR chose to intervene in only one situation.
yep. VAR can make any kind of natural "coming together" look really malicious. I like complaining about refereeing as much as anyone but sometimes you just can't tell. I find the head-worn cameras give a sense of how often the ref's line of sight is totally obscured - or obscured enough to really make it hard to know who did what - and highlights the speed the game is played at.
Remember the Curtis Jones red against Spurs (I believe) - they used every still image possible to blame Curtis for his leg rolling over the ball to give him a red.
They changed the process since that Jones red... was supposed to help in Balogun-like situations. Evidently they're not supposed to use slo-mo/freeze frames except to identify the moment of force after ruling on the red or whatever? But that didn't happen for Balogun, were looking at slo-mo to make the actual call. Supposedly a good reason to appeal. Will see if the ban is rescinded. He's a big loss for Belgium, who feels beatable if he's on his game... assuming they can contain Doku a lil better than their last friendly.
Ban cannot be rescinded for single-match reds in int'l competition, only for multi-match bans. Feels pretty miserable, that.
Yep this reminded me of that too. But in the Curtis situation he does go to ground and make a tackle that results in his studs going into another guys shin. In this case all Balo does is jump and then try and land. If this tournament had seen a lot VAR interventions than I would be more sympathetic. But I've seen numerous cases where I see a replay thinking "uhhhhh that's probably a red" only for VAR to not intervene. I was already shifting my expectations to the point that VAR just wasn't going to be involved which I was okay with as long as they were consistent. And then they drop this bomb. Just make it make sense.
Balo wasn't even a challenge, per se... I know we went round and round on Jones years ago, but it's not terribly analogous. That said Balo did stand on a guy. Just feels way harsher than Jones, as it seems much more accidental/flukey as far as ankle/shin stomps go. Might be one of the harshest VAR reds I've ever seen? Nothing else is springing immediately to mind. Pepi has a few days to get ready for the biggest match of his life. Encouraged by the fact that he came on down a man and played damn well against Bosnia. Maybe his grift and muscle can pave the way for someone like Tillman or Dest or CP to make some magic happen against Belgium.
He played "damn well"? I honestly don't remember a single positive thing he did. Must have been the double IPAs i was enjoying.
I think they're analogous in that both were sent off for where they're cleats ended up basically allowing a single freeze frame to damm the player. Like you said I don't want to go round and round about the Curtis one again, but I agree with you here that this one is even less of a red because he doesn't make a challenge.
That's really all I meant by calling it disanalogous. Now they are saying Balogun might be banned for more than one match. Honestly one of that worst VAR decisions that wasn't termed an actual, literal mistake that I can think of. Really, really bad. If they do get past Belgium it's not like Balogun would be the magical piece to see them beat Spain and make the semis... but still. Feels really shitty when this is arguably the most exciting play/run from the US side since 02.
Oh I thought he did really well holding up the ball and relieving the pressure. Especially down a man.
OK so 2 pretty bad reds given by VAR in two huge matches. Balogun challenging in the air accidentally comes down on a shin/ankle. Zero intent (obviously not part of the law), obviously not brutality... arguably serious foul play / excessive force? While the word intent isn't used to define that, I feel like it is somewhat implied. I don't really see how this is serious foul play, but I guess the argument is he "endangered the opponent". Considering the force of it, I guess? It's so accidental -- wasn't even making a play with feet at all -- that it doesn't really land for me. Am I crazy in thinking the Quansah red was even worse? He is sliding on the ground, makes contact with the ball (again, not part of the law) and his leg bounces up off the ball into the shin of a Mexican attacker. Again no intent (doesn't matter) but how is this forceful enough to endanger anyone's safety? Seems incredibly soft to me. IMO he was having a good game until then too. So by the letter of the law, Quansah "lunged from the side" and committed "excessive force / endangered safety" of opponent. This seems so weak to me. It was an incidental high cleat, sure, but the focus on "anything above the ankle" has made these yellow card offenses automatic reds. Feels incredibly shitty to watch, IMO. These would be good 5-10 minute orange card offenses, maybe. But straight red? Missing the next match? Ludicrous. So much for the "they do VAR so much better in international competition" argument. They threatened to ruin one of the best runs (US) in the tournament and literally the best match of the tournament (ENG/MEX).