dailynewsnblog
Was video review improperly used to determine that United States striker Folarin Balogun deserved a red card for his foul on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarek Muharemovic?
Balogun was sent off in the 64th minute of the USMNT’s 2-0 win in the World Cup Round of 32 on Wednesday night. As he and Muharemovic jockeyed for position for a ball bouncing towards them, Balogun stepped on the back of Muharemovic’s leg and turned his ankle.
Advertisement
The step appeared accidental — Balogun was looking straight ahead at the time and was a bit off-balance. But slow-motion replays made the step look brutal. And it’s an open question if those slowed-down replays should have been available to referee Raphael Claus as he decided to eject Balogun from the game and give him an ensuing one-game suspension.
Claus did not call a foul as the play happened in real time. The whistle only blew when the ball had gone out of play before Claus motioned for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s training staff to come onto the field.
As Muharemovic was on the ground in pain and Balogun was getting an apparent right leg cramp stretched out, video referees reviewed the play and VAR official Juan Soto told Claus to go to the monitor to look at the foul himself.
According to VAR rules, “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 offense/player, point of contact for physical offenses and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offense or to decide if it was a handball offense.”
Advertisement
The replays that Claus saw on the monitor next to the field were shown to viewers on the FIFA broadcast and the second replay of Balogun’s foul is slowed down dramatically. After that replay, another slow-motion replay is frozen at the moment that Muharemovic’s ankle is turned sideways on the ground.
The word “should” in the rule above is not a clear synonym for “must,” but it sure seems like the replays were being used to judge the intensity of Balogun’s foul in violation of how the VAR rules are written.
The foul does look nasty in slow-motion and freeze frames. Balogun probably deserved a yellow card — a card that he could not have gotten after replay. VAR can only intervene for potential red cards.
Advertisement
Had Claus given Balogun a yellow on the field in real time, is the striker assessed a red card after a video review? Maybe. But there’s a strong likelihood that Soto and his replay assistants deem a yellow card worthy enough punishment and don’t send Claus over to the monitor.
In that scenario, Balogun is actually punished even more for Claus’ refusal to give a yellow at the time of the foul. In an incredibly physical game, Balogun’s red card was the first card Claus handed out.
“For me, never is it a red card,” USMNT coach Mauricio Pochettino said after the game. “It was a normal action in football that happened by accident. There was never any intention … and that is why, for me, it is never a red card.”
Similar incidents have also gone unpunished and unreviewed throughout the World Cup. The most notable comp came early in the World Cup, when Lionel Messi avoided a potential red card for a foul that wasn’t called on Algeria’s Aissa Mandi that looked far more intentional than Balogun’s.
At the very least, the call against Balogun is a clear example of how the VAR rules should be rewritten to be clearer in what is and isn’t allowed in foul reviews. Especially considering that there’s no way the United States can appeal Balogun’s suspension for Monday’s Round of 16 match against Belgium.
Advertisement
While teams can appeal the three-game punishments for red cards for violent conduct, there’s no appeal process for a standard red card. That mean Balogun has gone from being the United States’ most important player to missing the team’s most important match of the tournament (so far).
