[40four]

I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the way the rule is written, the issue here is the way VAR was applied. VAR is only supposed to intervene when there is a “Clear and obvious error.”

Balugun’s play certainly “endangered the safety of an opponent”, as the red card rule reads. Intent doesn’t matter as far as the rule goes. But the call on the field will always be subject to the referee’s judgement on the field. They are weighing a variety of factors, and intent plays into that judgment I think.

Bologun’s challenge was certainly red card “worthy”, but I think most people agree that the initial yellow card was the right call, especially since it wasn’t intentional. The ref saw it full speed, made his judgement, and that should have been the end of it.

VAR likely overstepped their mandate here asking for the replay review. I don’t think that was a “Clear and obvious error.” so they influenced the ref to upgrade to red. It’s especially upsetting when there are many other glaring examples of yellow cards in the same tournament that they did not send to review.

[ortusdux]

The match commentator I was listening to during this game actually predicted an upgrade to a red once the VAR was announced. Their argument was basically what you said, this looks like a yellow live, and a red when viewed slowed down and in isolation. The question is, is this a flaw or a feature of the VAR system?

[EPWN3D]

For these types of incidents VAR protocol is expressly to not offer the referee a slow-motion replay and to only let him see it in real time. Everyone knows that when you slow this stuff down it always looks worse, so the protocol is designed with that in mind.

That's why this was a misapplication of VAR. The on-field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong, and the manner in which VAR intervened was against their protocols for reviewing this type of incident.