Chris Knepshield

@lmyml17 @johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown That’s where I guess we disagree and that’s fine. I think the contact was incidental. All good.

@knepdog258 @johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown -it would be treated as incidental contact since regular collisions happen all the time. If one player is jumping into the other person at an angle while the other one jumps straight up, and then the weird angle jumper lands on his ankle, it would probably be given a foul/yellow-

You are clearly a psychopath if you think that’s not a dangerous play thus not a red. 👍

@Automatic_Slop @Toju93 @OldTownJG Reckless is included in excessive. I never said intent was necessary. Intent and reckless are different standards. Bali’s actions were neither.

@knepdog258 @Toju93 @OldTownJG Nothing about the definition of excessive includes intent that is as true in real life as it is for referees

Non soccer fans not understanding what is and isn't a card is always the most frustrating part of every World Cup cycle. It sucks for Balogun since it was clearly accidental, but it was definitely a red card.

@lmyml17 @johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown It’s a fascinating discussion. Lots of ways to interpret each play. I just think in this case they got tangled and Balo really lost his balance more than anything. But can’t change it now.

@knepdog258 @johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown No because he won the ball, but either way I don’t see how this scenario could ever happen 😂 In this hypothetical, if the other player is close enough to him where he could land on his ankle, he would probably also be jumping for the ball, and if he didn’t jump and just looked-

@DivingxDown @johnfartas40355 I agree on intent not being necessary but the word “dangerous” means at least recklessness is necessary just based on its definition. I see legs tangled and his foot had to come down somewhere. I see an accidental foul but not reckless.

@johnfartas40355 Intent/natural movement doesn’t matter though in regards to “dangerous play” and fouls. It’s only for handballs. Sure you can argue the rules should have more nuance. But they don’t.

@dejahazina @Reaganman18 @OldTownJG I saw at least 50 tackles yesterday where one stepped on another’s foot with their studs. Only one red. Lots of yellows. Only one red.

@knepdog258 @Reaganman18 @OldTownJG Intentional or accidental has no bearing on whether it’s reckless or not. Reckless means not being in control of one’s actions or causing great risk of injury (which is why a studs up tackle is pretty much always a card regardless of making contact or not). Red card was correct

@DivingxDown Not sure name calling is warranted lol

@lmyml17 @johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown So what if he jumped in the air on a corner and heads the ball but lands on his ankle. Certainly that’s forceful but completely accidental correct? Is that a red?

@johnfartas40355 @DivingxDown Typically, any challenge where a player forcefully places their studs into an opponent is a red, unless it’s on the top of their foot/toes (because this happens a lot). Now, you may have seen many different examples of fouls from this tournament that had studs forcefully lunged-

@Automatic_Slop @Toju93 @OldTownJG Again “excessive” must have an element of recklessness or intent based on its definition. If my car loses its brakes and slams into another car on a downhill that’s certainly force, but it can’t be excessive as it’s accidental.

@knepdog258 @Toju93 @OldTownJG Textbook definitions of reckless certainly include baloguns tackle: tackle from the side or back, studs into opponents ankle, and excessive force (knocking over opponent and self).

@Automatic_Slop @Toju93 @OldTownJG I guess we will agree to disagree on the facts then. His momentum carried him into the player as he was off balance.

@JoshSnyder78 @dilcps And “dangerous” has recklessness built into the definition. So although intent indeed doesn’t matter there must be a recklessness in order for it to be dangerous. This was completely accidental. Zero recklessness.

@dilcps I can’t tell if you guys are being purposely stupid or not. Yes “intent” doesn’t matter but whether the challenge itself is inherently dangerous or not does. Balogun did nothing dangerous, he got shoulder barged from behind and then stepped on the guy while regaining his balance

The only argument that could be made is that the referees at the World Cup are incredibly inconsistent That, however, is a red card Intent plays no role, otherwise Assim Madibo wouldn’t have gotten a red for unintentionally breaking Ismaël Koné’s leg & feeling bad about it 🥺

@derBovo Intent is not required but at least recklessness is required. It wasn’t even reckless IMO.

Crazy how Americans argue and genuinely believe that wasnt a red card and continue to call it a mistake by the referee. "Football will never be big in the US" But If you look at Basketball / the NBA you have the flagrant foul rules: Flagrant 1 is "unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent", while the more serious Flagrant 2 is "unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent. Thats equivalent to yellow/red and intent isnt required either. I guess If you want to see the world being against your team you will find or make up shit for it 💀

@derBovo And just so you know, the word “excessive” implies doing something too extreme either purposefully or recklessly. Balo was completely accidental, so there can’t be excessive force by definition.

@derBovo lol don’t get me started on NBA refs. My reasoning for it not being a red is primarily because he wasn’t reckless or late on a challenge. It was an accident that his foot ended up where it did. To me, just like in the law, the severity of the injury doesn’t matter.

@CalcioMoneyball And I got kicked, stepped on, etc thousands of times but never fell to the ground like my leg just got cut off lol

I’m sorry but I made thousands of tackles in soccer without ever raking somebody’s leg like that It’s not about whether it was a red - it’s a matter of not giving the referee a choice to send you off

@KentraHagatra No actually intentionally doing it doesn’t matter, but recklessly doing it does matter as the word “dangerous” which is in the rule and “reckless” are synonymous. So there must be at least recklessness. IMO it was just an accident, not reckless.

I personally don’t understand the two arguments on the Balogun red card… 1. Lack of intent. Intent isn’t a factor for serious foul play offenses so why does that matter? Saying it’s an accident and it shouldn’t be a red card makes no sense. (cont.) #USMNT #FIFAWorldCup

@DivingxDown Just so you know that the word “dangerous” entails at least reckless intent. More than accidental, which is what that was.

Since this is getting some traction, I’ll explain why this is a red, and where your anger should be directed at. 1. Intent does not matter in regards to dangerous play/tackles. Even if you’re trying to play the ball/aren’t looking at the player, that isn’t accounted for according to IFAB. 2. Natural movement doesn’t matter, as long as the play can result in an injury, it is considered a dangerous play. Balogun clearly could’ve injured the Bosniak given how the ankle bends unnaturally. Thus it’s a dangerous play and a red. Is it stupid that there isn’t more nuance? You can argue that. But based on the current rulebook, it’s a red. Now why did other similar calls not get called reds? It’s because the VAR isn’t sending the referee as often as they should. Which is an issue. As if other similar plays got checked by VAR, they probably would’ve been reds. The issue is inconsistency with the refereeing.

Why are Americans crying? That’s a clear red. Saw someone compare it to the messi no call. Well one bad call not being called doesn’t mean others should be. Also this one was way more dangerous and on the ankle like what the fuck??

@joshhammerlies @gonca_seu @RobberBeren @CrewsMat10 In order to use “excessive force” doing anything there has to be intent, as the word “excessive” assumes purposeful. I can’t possibly be excessive doing anything unless I’m trying to be. There’s the intent necessary.

@gonca_seu @RobberBeren @CrewsMat10 It’s “using excessive force or brutality that endangers players safety.” Not a natural movement to clearly set his feet….

Can’t even defend that. It’s a straight red card every single time. Balogun had absolutely no reason to make that challenge.

@Gbrielhmm @Nick___Collins Ok fair enough but if you kill somebody driving recklessly 100 miles an hour the punishment is more severe right? That’s because reckless is actually different than accidental.

@knepdog258 @Nick___Collins Only is it is like that in the states because in Brazil and in many country if you kill someone by accident you go to jail, of course the time served is a lot less, maybe a year or two depending on the severity of the accident

Americans have stopped crying about “offsides” for 5 minutes. They’re currently crying about “accidental” fouls that shouldn’t be red cards. They’ve all just discovered this sport and are just utterly clueless 😂 That foul was a clear red card too. Not even a debate!

@Automatic_Slop @Toju93 @OldTownJG You are correct. Reckless is a standard though above accidental. What Balogun did was completely accidental, not reckless or intentional. If it was reckless, that’s what a red is for. The word “dangerous” in the rule basically means reckless.

@Toju93 @OldTownJG This is a bad take, what if someone is reckless but doesn’t have bad intent and just has a lack of control over their challenges