It does not. The phrase "in general ... should" does not mean "must only".
It did not. Red cards did not exist in 1962; players were simply told to leave the field of play. It was actually as a result of this and the 1966 World Cup that FIFA came up with a system to make dismissals clear.
It reputedly came to a head in a match between England and Argentina in 1966, refereed by a German referee Rudolf Kreitlein. Neither the English nor Argentine players could fully understand him, and Kreitlein had attempted to dismiss the Argentina captain Antonio Rattin after cautioning him twice - the first being a foul on Geoff Hurst, the second for arguing over a free kick. Rattin either didn't understand or didn't want to (he says he didn't understand the reason for the free kick and asked for an interpreter, which the referee used as an excuse to dismiss him), and refused to leave, and FIFA referee supervisor Ken Aston had to come down to talk to him before he was then escorted off the pitch by police:
Edit: FIFA doesn't want to you watch this on GTPlanet 
That gave Aston the impetus for the idea to solve the communication problem, and he came up with red and yellow cards based on traffic lights. They were first used in the 1970 World Cup, and not widely adopted in the professional game for another couple of decades. Mandatory suspensions for a red card are even more recent, and did not apply in 1962.
What happened with Garrincha was explained in my post. A disciplinary panel neglected to add any further penalty beyond the sending off. This also applied to two other players in the 1962 World Cup (Vladica Popovic and Angel Cabrera), though they were in group stage games. Garrincha was dismissed in the semi-final and played in the final. His dismissal was not overturned.
All other reds in the tournament have resulted in the automatic one-match suspension affirmed at the FIFA Vancouver Meeting in April (and part of the May 2026 rules for the competition) that, up until yesterday, was information included in the pre-match briefings.
Is this back to Cristiano Ronaldo's non-suspension for an offence in UEFA qualifying again? The rule you quoted includes a carve-out:
Ronaldo had a two-match suspension (of three) pending for a direct red card for serious foul play in the UEFA qualifiers, after elbowing Dara O'Shea in their defeat to the Republic of Ireland. This was not carried over into the Finals, as the rule above suggests.
This doesn't pertain to the Balogun situation at all, which is a suspension of a suspension for a red card within the actual competition where it has already been stated that there is an automatic one-match suspension which may be upgraded:
It is unprecedented.
And, to be very clear once again, it was a bollocks red card that should never have been shown. Once it was, the outcome is an automatic one-match suspension. It applies to Sithole, to Almiron, to Hincapie, to Quansah, and it should apply to Balogun.
Look, I'm not an expert in soccer rules; I'm going by what's being talked about ad nauseam across various forms of media and what's being cited as the reason why. I wasn't alive in 1962, but it's also what's being routinely cited as the other red card that's been overturned. It's difficult to take one person's interpretation of the situation at face value when it contradicts everything else I'm reading/watching, especially when those things I'm reading/watching directly cite the rulebook and have experience in soccer. You could be right, and everyone could be wrong, I don't know. I'm going by what appears to be the most correct take on the situation based on the evidence being presented.
I'm sorry, but did you even see the incident? This is what the VAR is for, and a red card was the only correct card for that infringement. It could've resulted in a horrible injury.
Funny how only the USA seems to defend FIFA's decision. I wonder why?
The refereeing and VAR this World Cup as a whole has been an absolute disgrace and frankly, a farce.
Yes, I saw the incident. Why would I think I didn't? It was a yellow card since there was absolutely zero intent behind the play. Per the rules consistently cited by both US and European soccer outlets, VAR cannot be used to determine the severity of an incident. In real time, that was a yellow card.
Never mind that Bosina got away with way more throughout the match and was literally headhunting. Dzeko crashed into Adams despite Adams not having the ball, and no card was given. The ref allowed for certain plays to continue but not others, which is a problem. Referees need to be consistent, or else you end up like the NFL or NBA, with people convinced it's all rigged.
Their coach even scooped up the ball and acted like a brat, only to get a yellow. Per the rules, he should've been assessed a red card due to this in the IFAB Laws of the Game:
A red card is shown to a team official who:
- delays the other team’s restart of the game, e.g. by holding onto the ball, kicking it away or obstructing an opponent
I'm defending FIFA's decision because what they did is within the rules, especially under Article 27, which allows them to do exactly what they did. The debate about Article 27 is one that can be had, but it exists, and it was used. People are more salty over this because Trump is somehow involved, despite not really being involved. Yes, Trump is an enormous pile of crap who rapes children, but his fatass is trying to be wedged into a situation where he likely had no bearing of the outcome. This assumes he actually called since the reports seem to go back to an anonymous source who was familiar with the situation. What's now being reported is that the USSF was lobbying the CAS, and FIFA clearly thought it was going to lose that case.
And if you're going to criticize VAR, I'm assuming you disagree with Youri Tielemans being awarded a penalty that let Belgium get past Senegal? Because that was due to VAR.
www.bbc.com
www.cbsnews.com
nypost.com
www.bbc.com
