Curmie has a couple of essays already in progress, but he’s
going to do something a little out of the ordinary: there are ways in which this
piece will be passé within a few hours or so after it’s posted, so it’s
quite possible that you, Gentle Reader, will know things that, as of this
writing (morning and early afternoon of Monday the 6th), are still unknowable.
It’s an interesting time of the year for sports fans. If you narrow your vision to the major team
sports in this country, there’s not a lot happening. The NFL, NBA, and NHL seasons are over, and
the MLB pennant races haven’t really shaped up yet: fans know who they want to
win, but it’s unclear as yet what other team they want to lose to help their team’s
chances. But Wimbledon is heading into
its final week, there’s the WNBA, horse racing (that dead heat in the featured
race at Saratoga yesterday was pretty fun), golf… and above all, there’s the World Cup.
Tonight, the USMNT attempts to move on to the quarter-finals
for the first time since 2002, and they’ll do so with star striker Folarin “Flo”
Balogun in the lineup. He has three
goals in this tournament and no other American has more than one, so that
matters. Balogun received a red card for
dangerous play in the second half of the Round of 32 game against Bosnia-Herzegovina;
that carries with it not merely being sidelined (without being replaced) for
the remainder of the match in question, but a suspension for the next game, as
well. Well, it did… for a while. We’ll come back to that.
As the photo above shows, there’s no question that Balogun
stepped on the ankle of Tarik Muharemovic in a scuffle for a loose ball. That part is undeniable. It’s also clear that it was completely unintentional,
not malicious or even reckless; Balogun wasn’t even looking at Muharemovic. Furthermore, it appears that the VAR (Video
Assisted Referee) review of the play showed the referee only still and
slow-motion images. A full-speed version
would have added important context; former English Premier league referee Andy Davies says the omission “does not align with VAR protocols.” Anyway, a play that the referee didn’t initially
even call a foul turned into a red card.
Curmie’s own athletic career is, shall we say, rather
undistinguished. He never played in an
organized league at a level above collegiate intramurals. There was one incident, though, that’s pretty memorable,
even over a half-century later. Curmie
was in goal for his dorm against our arch-rivals (the dorm just up the hill
from ours). I made a pretty good save
(if I do say so myself), diving to my right, making the stop, and covering up
the ball while lying on the ground. One
of the other team’s forwards proceeded to kick me in the left ear. Was it intentional? Maybe.
I think it was in that grey area: not really intended, but he could have
jumped over me pretty easily.
A moment later, there was a referee’s whistle. Any thoughts I might have had about a delayed
foul call against the guy who kicked me soon vanished. That dude did get punished, though… just not
in the way I’d contemplated. One of my fullbacks,
who happened to be a linebacker on the varsity football team, didn’t take kindly
to seeing his friend and teammate kicked in the head, especially by someone
from that team… so he body-slammed the guy. Yeah, he got the equivalent of a red
card. I appreciated the gesture, but
would have preferred not to have played the rest of the game a man down. (To be honest, I don’t remember if we ultimately
won. I think so, though.)
Revenons à nos moutons… It’s difficult to say whether the red card
against Balogun was considered legitimate by objective and knowledgeable
viewers. The folks on Fox thought not,
but it’s difficult to say where the line between neutrality and jingoism is
drawn. It’s worth noting that the
British newspaper The Guardian described the play as “a seemingly innocuous challenge” and the red card as “widely
condemned as extremely harsh.” And the quality
of the officiating in general has been, to put it politely, somewhat less than
what would be appropriate for an event of this magnitude. The France/Paraguay match may be the most egregious example, but it’s not alone.
Balogun, to his credit, reacted to the suspension about as professionally as he possibly could have: “It’s important for me to
say, first and foremost, it was totally unintentional. The choice of the referee was his choice. I
don’t think it was the correct choice. I think a yellow card would’ve been
fair, due to it not being intentional…. It’s
something that happened; we have to move forward, and I have to accept it.” Elsewhere,
he says, “There’s still lots of people we’re inspiring, little kids, boys and
girls who are watching, and we have to show them the correct way to handle
things, even when you think it’s unjust.”
He’s a class act.
According to FIFA rules, such suspensions cannot be appealed. Uh huh. Yesterday, FIFA (the Fédération Internationale
de Football Association) announced that the ban against Balogun had been suspended
for a year. The rationale was not
clearly stated, at least not in any place Curmie has been able to find. It’s presumed that the misuse of VAR was the
determinant (fig leaf?). If you put enough
modifiers on the change of direction, it’s unprecedented. It’s the first time since the next-game
suspension rule was put in place that a player did not, in fact, have to sit out
the next game for a red card in a World Cup game per se. There was a case in 1962 (before that rule),
and a number of players, including Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo,
have been granted suspended sentences, as it were, for red cards in
international competitions held before the World Cup got underway.
Needless to say, FIFA, the organization Curmie once described as “The perfect blend of corruption, arrogance, incompetence, sexism, and boorishness” bears a lot of responsibility. The sexism isn’t as foregrounded in this Men’s World Cup (Curmie’s earlier comments were linked to the 2015 Women’s World Cup), but the other descriptors are certainly on display.
The situation is complicated further by the intervention of
Donald Trump into the whole business.
His phone call(s?) to FIFA Head Honcho Gianni Infantino
may have been simply a political leader sticking up for his nation’s team, but you
can be certain, Gentle Reader, that the rest of the world won’t see it that
way, especially after that utterly bizarre “FIFA Peace Prize” nonsense a few months ago. Of course,
Trump felt it necessary to brag about his intrusion into the process, thereby
intensifying the suspicions of everyone who isn’t, well, American... and plenty of us who are. It’s also worth noting the irony that Balogun
wouldn’t be playing for the US at all except for the birthright citizenry Trump
seeks to overturn. La la, how the life
goes on.
Even Sepp Blatter, the former Exalted Poobah of FIFA, and one of the most loathsome creatures ever to slither across the planet’s surface, argues that “Red cards are not overturned by political phone calls. They are overturned by rules, evidence and independent bodies. If a U.S. President intervenes with the FIFA President—and a player is suddenly cleared before a World Cup knockout match -- the question is unavoidable: Quo vadis, FIFA? Football must never become a playground for political power.” True, Blatter is not the best spokesperson for such an argument, but he does have a point.
Tonight’s US match is against Belgium, whose coach, Rudi
Garcia, and the Royal Belgian Football Association [RBFA] aren’t thrilled that their
team will now face an American squad at full strength instead of one missing its
greatest goal-scoring threat. Garcia brought
out the snark: “I didn’t know that 5 July was equal to 1 April at FIFA.” Part of the Belgian complaint sounds whiny, however
much they say they’re protecting the sanctity of the game rather than their own
interests. They do have a point,
however, that they prepared for three days for tonight’s game with the
assurance that Balogun wouldn’t play, so their entire defensive strategy has to
be revised on short notice.
UEFA (the Union of European Football Associations) issued a statement which pulls no punches. Here’s part of it:
Sometimes rules are open to interpretation. In this case not. A minimum automatic suspension of one match following a red card is not a discretionary option and does not require the decision of a competent body to be enacted. It is a principle embedded in regulations, which cannot be made subject to exceptions, let alone in the middle of a tournament where several other players have been in the same situation and regularly served their suspension…. We express our disbelief at such an unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable decision.
Tell us how you really feel, guys…
Former England star Wayne Rooney calls the reversal “an absolute disgrace” and “wrong in every way,” but he
makes the further point that if FIFA lifted the red card altogether, which he
calls “probably the right decision,” things would be different. But leaving it while postponing the suspension
is sort of the worst of both worlds.
There are plenty of other expressions of dismay, but… as a dear friend and former colleague was wont to say, “What
is, is.” Balogun will almost certainly
play. It would be a display of
extraordinary sportsmanship were he not to do so, and that Instagram post with
Michael Jackson’s “Bad” playing over the top certainly suggests that he’ll be
in the lineup. He will no doubt be booed
by opposing fans for a situation he didn’t create. Previously neutral fans will flock to whoever
is playing the US. Belgium will seek to
appeal, but will almost certainly be unsuccessful. Should the US prevail over Belgium, especially
if Balogun plays a significant role, it and any subsequent success will be tainted.
Curmie finds himself agreeing with ESPN’s Mark Ogden that,
as the headline says, “Nobody benefits from FIFA letting Balogun off the hook—noteven the USMNT.” The integrity of the competition is compromised,
and “Who wants to win if victory becomes tainted by murky interventions that
take place without any explanation or transparency?”
As US soccer fans, the best we can hope for is for an American victory in which Balogun is a non-factor—that we get goals from Christian Pulisic or Tim Weah or Weston McKennie or whoever… or a 0-0 draw going to a shootout the US wins despite Balogun missing his shot. Not that Curmie wouldn’t be happy to see Flo get a hat trick, but it would just be weird.
No comments:
Post a Comment