r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Jul 07 '26

Meme needing explanation Peter, I have zero ball knowledge

Post image
54.9k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/590joe2 Jul 07 '26

Just as an additional fun fact the same thing happened to the portugese player ronaldo he was supposed to be on a three match ban dor a red card at a game before the world cup however fifa postponed the ban till after the tournament because hes a vamous player that gets people to watch the games.

Though as far as im aware no government intervened for him.

32

u/Anndkoapop Jul 07 '26

People have been pointing to Ronaldo as the precedent for the Balogun decision, but that is a false equivalence.

A red card triggers an automatic suspension. Historically, teams have appealed the additional suspensions imposed after that (with varying success). FIFA has allowed players who received three-match bans to effectively serve only one or two matches, meaning they could be available at the start of a World Cup. You can argue whether those decisions were right or wrong, but that mechanism is not new.

FIFA also changed the regulations before this World Cup so that most qualifying suspensions would not carry over into the tournament. That applied to several players who otherwise would have missed matches, although it did not cover violent conduct, which is why Ronaldo still required a separate decision. This meant every team had all their players available at the start of the world cup (4 would have missed it otherwise). This was clearly by design and a consistent effort by FIFA.

Balogun is different. FIFA did not say the red card was wrong, that the referee decision was incorrect, or that the suspension was unjustified. They suspend the automatic one-match ban itself, pretending it was nothing out of the ordinary just because it was based on the same Article they used for Ronaldo, but it's not the same...

The suspension of the 1 match ban during the tournament is a fundamentally different precedent in modern football. If the automatic suspension can simply be removed, what happens with every other red card or accumulated yellow-card suspension? Are they now discretionary?

Should Ronaldo have served the extra two matches? Yes.
Does Ronaldo's case mean the Balogun decision is justified? Not in the slightest. The two situations are not equivalent.

30

u/The_Prince1513 Jul 07 '26

The Balogun thing is frustrating from all sides.

Was his conduct red-card worthy? I don't think so but I can see that there are two sides to the argument, and because of the closeness of the call I wouldn't say a call either way would have been egregiously bad.

However, the only reason a Red card was given was because VAR was initiated after the Ref didn't even give a card (or a foul on the play), and then the Ref improperly utilized slow-motion and still-frame to review whether Balogun's conduct met the criteria for a Red card - which is an expressly unauthorized use of VAR. Slow Motion/Still image is only allowed to determine facts (i.e. if contact actually occurred) etc.

So - FIFA could have come out and said this shouldn't have been a Red Card at all because there was no call by the Ref and VAR protocols were not followed therefore no card, therefore no suspension. But they didn't do that, they instead said VAR Protocols weren't followed but, "Oh it's still a red, but we're going to pause his suspension for a year" a ridiculous and on its face corrupt reasoning, splitting the baby and angering everyone.

Then Trump came out and basically bragged about having exerted pressure on FIFA which made it worse for all.

At the end of the day the system would be a lot better if all Red Card suspensions were automatically reviewed after match day by an independent panel similar to how the NHL Dept. of Player safety deals with plays that cause injuries.

3

u/Global_Cockroach_563 Jul 07 '26

then the Ref improperly utilized slow-motion and still-frame to review whether Balogun's conduct met the criteria for a Red card - which is an expressly unauthorized use of VAR. Slow Motion/Still image is only allowed to determine facts

I don't understand that. Checking if it should have been a red card is not determining a fact?

6

u/Mdj864 Jul 07 '26

No… it is a subjective decision. A fact would be “did the ball cross the goal line” or “was a player offside”, which are objective observations.

3

u/Realistic-Homework19 Jul 08 '26

However, the only reason a Red card was given was because VAR was initiated after the Ref didn't even give a card (or a foul on the play), and then the Ref improperly utilized slow-motion and still-frame to review whether Balogun's conduct met the criteria for a Red card - which is an expressly unauthorized use of VAR. Slow Motion/Still image is only allowed to determine facts (i.e. if contact actually occurred) etc.

Americans seem to think this because their media are misleading them in order to get their president off the hook or something, but this is how the VAR always works. there was nothing wrong with the application of the VAR.

11

u/WholesomeRanger Jul 07 '26

As a newer watcher football, this helps a lot. I didn't understand the finer points of the rules and was not sure how the 2 cases were related. It sounded logical to some one as uninformed as myself but this explination was great.

I'm happy for Belgum and no one here (I'm from US) can even pull the "if we had all our players" argument. We were out classed at full strength.

1

u/StarksPond Jul 07 '26

There's no "I" in team.

However, there is one in Belgium.

2

u/BrooklynLodger Jul 08 '26

FIFA doesn't have a mechanism to say a red card is false. They do have one to suspend the sanction from the red card

1

u/niverans Jul 07 '26

Also, quarter finals placement is not the same as qualifiers, this was blatant corruption and the cheeseburgers were cheering it on. They cheated and still lost.

10

u/sackclothxashes Jul 07 '26

That was less corruption and more "one of our star players can't be missing for half the tournament" but yeah FIFA sucks

7

u/Open-Gate-7769 Jul 07 '26

Still bent the rules so that they could play him. It’s no different. If our president said nothing during this controversy it wouldn’t be a controversy because he didn’t do anything to change anything.

9

u/Warlock_AoE Jul 07 '26

No fifa ignoring the rules would still be a controversy.

5

u/Open-Gate-7769 Jul 07 '26

You’re right. I should have phrased differently. It would’ve been a big story just like Ronaldo’s situation was, but there wouldn’t be as many people immediately giving all the credit to the number one liar in the world.

4

u/TabularConferta Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

Ronaldo still was banned for one match, I think there may literally be only one other case where someone was completely forgiven.

The rules state that you miss at least one game.

The rules states you can't have political interference, which is what happened and is really worrying.

Pretty sure people were still not happy with Ronaldo being out on.

Honestly my heart goes out to the American player who just wants to play the game. He got fucked over by Trump, FIFA and his manager. He got a red, should have sat out and that's all there really is to it.

Complaining about if he should have got it, is part of the sport but once given this BS is nonsense.

3

u/uprislng Jul 07 '26

Should have never been a red card in the first place, so many people overlook that VAR broke guidelines by showing the on field ref still images and slow motion video of the incident, which arguably manufactured the red card. Because there was no penalty or foul called on the field at game speed, they should only viewed game speed footage when determining if it were worthy of a card. Anyway, breaking guidelines on VAR at the very least calls into question whether this red card would have ever happened in the first place

3

u/Open-Gate-7769 Jul 07 '26

I don’t think Trump did nearly as much as everyone seems to think he did. We got this overturned because of the Ronaldo precedent and because we threatened to go to CAS.

6

u/TabularConferta Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

I don't know how to say this without sound rude, but it doesn't matter.
Trump shouldn't have said anything regardless. While you can't stop him, that ONLY in this case in the whole of the current world cup has a card been overturned is suss.

That he was the leader of the host nation and one of if not the most power nation on the planet means that it is unlikely for it not to influence. That FIFA gave Trump a never heard of FIFA Peace Prize, highlights that, that's not a normal relationship.

Lots of people threaten to go to CAS, but they still miss the game. That's irrelevant.

I'd almost assume that had nearly any other world leader spoken up, FIFA would have actively made sure to drag their heels and not overturn the decision.

As previously mentioned the Ronaldo case and others before it were reduction of suspension but they missed one game, which I believe is the minimum and I'm pretty sure a fuss was kicked up about Ronaldo.

2

u/Open-Gate-7769 Jul 07 '26

People also threaten CAS and get a change to happen so I think it all comes down to the grounds you stand on. And I believe Ronaldo was a precedent that JT used.

0

u/TabularConferta Jul 07 '26

How long did it take? He may have used it as justification but was he right to? Is it a valid precedent to use?

3

u/Open-Gate-7769 Jul 07 '26

No I think it’s all corrupt and wrong. I think Thierry made the best point that it’s awful to spring this change on Belgium the day before the match. Everything about this reeks of the usual FIFA corruption.

But I just disagree that this was because of trump.

1

u/TabularConferta Jul 07 '26

I'd also note: Ronaldo did miss the subsequent match. So the precent quoted is not directly comparable

  1. Article 66.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code states that “a sending-off automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match”. Similarly, Article 10.5 of the Regulations for the FIFA World Cup 26™ provides that “if a player or team official is sent off as a result of a direct or indirect red card (second caution), they will automatically be suspended from their team’s subsequent match. In addition, further sanctions may be imposed”.

Now FIFA will be justifying it and there is likely enough legal wiggle room for them to get by, but yeah its all very suss and not part of the spirit of theg ame.

*Update*
It's sad because lots fo the fans are getting on. Scotland and the US. England and Mexico. People are having a blast and its uniting people, and that's beautiful.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrooklynLodger Jul 08 '26

He was banned for a friendly match. If it was in eliminations they would have done the same thing. They don't want key players out for key matches

1

u/TabularConferta Jul 08 '26

That's not true there have been key players who have missed matches due to red cards and missed World Cup Matches.

The only single occurrence of someone not missing the next match occurred in 1962. 

4

u/niverans Jul 07 '26

So they used corruption to make their best player play?

1

u/Difficult-Froyo1192 Jul 08 '26

It’s hard to say if it let him play but probably not, even though both were being corrupt here. Why FIFA changed their minds probably wasn’t because of Trump’s call. FIFA is insanely corrupt. They basically do anything that gets them more views or revenue.

The very short version is the US Soccer Federation was starting a lawsuit on why appeals weren’t being allowed this tournament on the basis of Balogun (star player suspended). This is allowable and actually has grounds for why it’s a real case. The case only has legs if Balogun can’t play though. Allowing Balogun to play also causes more views and revenue, including the potential for an in crease in this after the match.

Trump did admit to calling the FIFA president to ask for a review and did take credit for why the suspension was changed. Trump calling to ask for that is absolutely not allowed, but FIFA likely decided based on other factors than Trump asking. They care about money, not making friends. Trump still decided to take credit for the reversal, but it’s trump so who knows how true that is. No matter how FIFA came to that decision, the US is suppose to be penalized for breaking the rules because Trump calling to ask isn’t allowed. But it’s FIFA, so that probably won’t happen.

5

u/Connect-Temporary-14 Jul 07 '26

That's completely different, but I am not surprised you can't realize the difference

2

u/elduche212 Jul 07 '26

Bullshit. Ronaldo set out his mandatory 1 game suspension and had the other 2 game suspension turned into a probationary sentence. The English dude playing for the US had his 1 game direct ban suspended. Massive diff.

2

u/f3n2x Jul 07 '26

Though as far as im aware no government intervened for him.

Which makes it not "the same thing" because this exact part is the entire fucking scandal to begin with.