Incidental is restating the idea of intent.
Players have a responsibility for the safety of their opponent. Balogun doesn’t gave some right to put his foot down in that space
1 Like
It’s his responsibility to control his body and where his foot comes down. He is either intentionally fouling the defender, which is a straight red for Violent Conduct, or he is accidently fouling the defender and it’s a straight red for Serious Foul Play. In a circumstance where you land on the back of a player’s leg, rake that leg and then stand on the ankle there really isn’t an alternative decision for the referee to make. Intent changes the wording of the offence but not the result of the punishment in this instance.
3 Likes
That’s got absolutely nothing to do with intent.
Incidental is accidental contact.
Reminds me of the Curtis Jones RC situation vs Spurs years ago
The rules distinguish between incidents like this where there is intent or not, but with both allowing for a straight red card. So yes, its got nothing to do with intent because intent is not required for it to be a red and therefore your defense doesnt hold.
That’s just the theoretical.
In reality it is not always the case, which is what the onfield ref is there for
And the onfield ref watched the incident again and with the benefit of hindsight changed his decision to correctly red card Balogun for Serious Foul Play.
Both do not allow for a RC. We already saw this in this tournament
The protocol for which shots the ref was given was apparently not followed
You really should read the rules. Or even any of the responses made to you in this thread
Whether other incidents in this tournment were not interpreted as not being enough to qualify as serious foul play and justify a red is not the same as point to lack of intent as a mitigating factor for this not being a red. That consideration is not relevent because intent is explicitly not required for a SFP red
So what then is the difference between SFP and VC?
I am curious as to whether you have ever done a match official course
And actually the referee/FIFA have already allowed for the fact it was an accident in that it is only a 1 game ban. If they deemed it intentional they likely would have extended it for Violent Conduct like they did with the South African guy who hit someone in the first game.
2 Likes
Magenta TV in-depth analysis on the pitch invaders during the Belgium vs Senegal match
It even had the runners speeds captured, as well as pressing graphics. 
I do not think the embedded video works properly. So I am also posting the link to the reddit post with the video.
Embedded video
2 Likes
Serious foul play applies only to tackles or challenges on the field of play while actively contesting possession.
In this case its neither a tackle nor a challenge
I believe he is using Messi raking his studs on an opponent in the 1st Argentina match and not getting punished as a baseline.
Why do you keep bringing up intent?
Intent has nothing to do with this
1 Like
You brought up the lack of intent as a reason why it cannot be a red
That’s the baseline that FIFA set here
Not me. Go and read all my comments on this
I am not sure what definition you are using for ‘challenge’ there, but even most American commentary saying it is a terrible red card are using the word ‘challenge’ to describe the situation. The ball was right there
The ball was where?
The ball had not arrived before the contact as both players were in the process of establishing a position