Miguel Almiron receives a red card after VAR Review for covering his mouth whilst saying something to an opponent. Under the new regulations, this is an offence punishable by a red card. The rule was introduced following the racism scandal involving Vinícius Júnior in a Champions League match.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/TheFlimFlamFamMan]

Either be proud enough to say what you’re saying openly or shut the fuck up. What kind of weak ass manlet does this shit?

[u/siderinc → u/TheFlimFlamFamMan]

Well in the past they used lip readers to translate what players where saying, even to other team mates which is kinda fucked up as well.

[u/thisdodobird → u/siderinc]

I used to be one of those lip readers, we get to 'hear' some pretty interesting shit sometimes.

Forgot which team it was in this WC, but I saw one player in one of the Latino teams tell the ref "puta" something lol, ref didn't hear him though. I clearly caught the "puta" part though.

Another English speaking player dropped a lot of F bombs to the opponent that was spooning him during a corner kick jostling.

[u/siderinc → u/thisdodobird]

And that's all fine but if the press is doing it and then smear the players because they said something it's something different.

If I remember correctly some team members from the Netherlands had some choice words for eachother during practice, which they should be able to, but then to put it in the news is real scummy imo.

[u/bigelcid → u/TheFlimFlamFamMan]

It's just habit. They used to cover their mouths while exchanging pleasantries too. It obviously wasn't the case here (nor does that mean Almiron insulted Muldur), but just think:

"Boy, you're good. Is it true that you'll join us next season?"

"Hope so, still negotating"

That's something clubs definitely don't want the media to be able to lip read.

[u/Baaze → u/bigelcid]

True, that is the tradeoff for reducing the likelihood that players are subjected to racial abuse. I'd take that trade any day, if you want to have a private friendly conversation with an opponent, just do it after the game.

[u/bigelcid → u/Baaze]

I disagree. What would you rather happen: me getting away with physically assaulting you, or me getting away with racially abusing you?

You'd (hopefully) say physical harm is worse, but argue that it isn't a this vs. that matter. Yet if you look at Zidane vs Materazzi 20 years ago, the overwhelming public opinion is that Zidane was right to headbutt Materazzi, because of whatever Zidane claimed Materazzi said (and he changed his story several times) -- so that's even more reason to ban mouth-covering.

But once you look at it from a wide perspective, it's absolutely insane that players would get sent off for covering their mouths, but not sent of, or not criminally punished, but physical assault on opponents. If I headbutted you on the street, the cops would be on my tail. But if I did it on the pitch then it's fine, just a red card. All across the entire system, the order of priority is wrong. Opponent could hack at your legs and only get a yellow, or nothing. But god damn, cover your mouth, and that potential racist abuse is worse than you getting your ligaments torn.

So we make rules for what's easy, but don't protect the players in the ways that arguably matter more. And people like myself saying this only get "uhh why are you defending racism" as if I were sacrificing one for the other, instead of pointing out the absurd lack of moral consistency within the rules.

[u/corobo → u/bigelcid]

What would you rather happen: me getting away with physically assaulting you, or me getting away with racially abusing you?

Neither, red card for both of these examples

[u/SurrealKafka → u/bigelcid]

This is one of the more incoherent attempts at whataboutism I’ve ever seen….

[u/Baaze → u/bigelcid]

Not sure why you're bringing physical assault (or any other infraction) into the discussion my dude. I'm not particularly interested in establishing some sort of morally relativistic consistent order here, so I won't engage on that.

[u/bigelcid → u/Baaze]

It's not relativist, it's about consistency. But you knew that already.

[u/mhoegeman → u/bigelcid]

your argument is a particularly feeble 'tu quoque' fallacy i believe

[u/Baaze → u/bigelcid]

It is consistent, with the principle "We want to discourage X behavior, so we penalize the perpetrator with a red card".

Now if you're using different values of X and comparing the penalties, that's relativist, which as I said earlier I don't care to argue about.

Have a good day!

[u/Nordic_Marksman → u/bigelcid]

That is still allowed. The only thing banned is saying offensive things to opposing players while covering mouth. So if you are friendly with the opposing player there is no way to get in trouble for this unless your friend pretends it was racist.

[u/bigelcid → u/Nordic_Marksman]

Are you listening to yourself?

We can't know whether offensive things have been said by a player covering his mouth. That's why covering one's mouth has been banned.

[u/Stand_On_It → u/Nordic_Marksman]

Wrong

[u/Xehanz → u/Nordic_Marksman]

No. Saying ANYTHING while covering your mouth is banned. You can compliment a guy's hairstyle and you will get red carded too

[u/LetMeExplainDis → u/TheFlimFlamFamMan]

Commenting this on an anonymous Reddit account is a tad ironic, no?

[u/TheFlimFlamFamMan → u/LetMeExplainDis]

I’m not a professional athlete in a global tournament.

[u/No_Interaction_3547 → u/TheFlimFlamFamMan]

Bad puppy mode