Steven Verbruggen

Salesmanager

Master of Science in Business Economics

Bachelor in economy

Scare actor in my spare time.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

Again cause people dont seem to understand this.

The responsibility for paying tariffs depends on the International Commercial Term (Incoterm) agreed upon by the exporter and importer. Incoterms are standardized rules set by the International Chamber of Commerce that define who handles costs, risks, and responsibilities during shipping.

For person-to-person (P2P) transactions, such as individual online purchases, the most common Incoterms are:

Delivered at Place (DAP): The seller arranges and pays for transportation to a specified destination, such as the buyer’s address, but the buyer is responsible for import duties, taxes, and unloading costs.

Delivered Duty Paid (DDP): The seller covers all costs, including transportation, insurance, and import duties or taxes, delivering the goods ready for the buyer to receive. This is often used in P2P e-commerce (e.g., platforms like Temu) to simplify the process for buyers.

In contrast, for business-to-business (B2B) transactions, such as trade between companies, the most common Incoterms are:

Ex Works (EXW): The buyer assumes nearly all responsibilities, including transportation, insurance, and import duties, starting from the seller’s premises (e.g., factory or warehouse).

Free on Board (FOB): The seller pays for costs until the goods are loaded onto a ship at the departure port. The buyer then handles freight, insurance, and import duties or taxes.

Free Carrier (FCA): The seller delivers the goods to a carrier or location chosen by the buyer, who then takes over all costs and responsibilities, including import duties.

Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF): The seller covers the costs of transportation and insurance to the destination port, but the buyer is responsible for paying import duties and taxes upon arrival.

In B2B transactions, the importer typically pays tariffs when the goods enter the destination country. While Delivered at Place (DAP) or Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) can also be used in B2B, the seller includes these costs (e.g., tariffs, transport) in the invoice to ensure they do not sell at a loss. The choice of Incoterm significantly affects who bears the costs and responsibilities, so it’s critical to review the agreed terms in any transaction. The misconception that exporters always pay tariffs, leading to consistent losses, is flawed. Tariffs are a standard part of international trade, and exporters use Incoterms and pricing strategies to remain profitable, as no business could sustain operations by consistently absorbing such costs.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@PixelPusher4 @Tassili100 @DanielJans30569 @MarcoFoster_ That is what decades of capitalism good everything else is communism indoctrination will give you. Complete brainwashed drones.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@EmperorSwe35092 @butterflywteeth Who is telling this guy all these bitches have onlyfans? 🤷‍♂️🤣

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@HookShovel @butterflywteeth Yeah like no selfresecting goth would start a relationship with a rapper ....it only being about music ...

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

Nice try. Courts don’t routinely turn manslaughter into “don’t do it again or else” just because someone important called. Same principle applies to a straight red.
Under the modern automatic one-match ban rule, a World Cup red has never had its mandatory suspension converted to a suspended sentence before. This case set that precedent.
Ronaldo is the closest recent comparison people cite: he sat out the mandatory one-match ban from his red card (in a qualifier), and only the additional matches of his three-match ban were suspended under Article 27. Completely different from waiving the automatic next-match ban from a red card issued during the World Cup itself. The only other time a World Cup red card didn’t lead to a next-match ban was Garrincha in 1962, before the automatic suspension rule even existed.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@NEDUszn8 Pepe, coentrao, carvalho, figo

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@Powerxfcb @Lord_Not_Jesus Thats not what circular 34 says. And not the rules that were active during the world cup. You keep posting the original wording and keep ignoring the updated language its getting pathetic.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@furyzs @MetaThor4 @fifamedia That is extortion plain and simple.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@MotivacionesF Lol so she lost a little under 9000€ so basicly my monthly salary poor thing 🤣

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@kafka_arg2 @PolymarketSport We have a heatwave but i would not call it "burning" 🤷‍♂️🤣

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

FIFA said the decisions were correct.
IFAB then issued Circular 34 with clearer wording precisely because the protocol had been applied beyond its written limits during the World Cup (including the Embolo incident). That clarification applies to the referees and to FIFA’s interpretation.

Demanding a verbatim IFAB post that names Embolo and says “he should not have been sent off” is bad-faith debating. You’re asking me to prove a negative / produce a specific phrasing that official bodies rarely use. I can do the same and ask a post from IFAB that verbatum says that the second yellow was within the scope of the mistaken identity rule.

I have already shown multiple times what the circular actually states: a non-second yellow can only be reviewed to identify the player who committed the offence that was penalised, the offence itself cannot be reviewed or changed. The Embolo decision did the second thing. That is why the current narrative exists: it is the direct logical consequence of applying IFAB’s own wording.

You keep ignoring the official text while insisting on a form of evidence that isn’t required. That’s the opposite of good-faith discussion.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@someballfacts @Powerxfcb @Iam_Cheks_ @8bdrssss He himself by only referencing the original and disregarding every update since 🤣🤦‍♂️

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

It is not as "its either black or white" as you say it is...

A yellow card (caution) which is not a second yellow card can only be reviewed to identify the player who committed the offence that was penalised; the offence itself cannot be reviewed/changed.”
Under that wording (which was already in force during the World Cup), VAR could correct who received the card for an offence that had been penalised. It could not re-judge the nature of the incident itself and decide “actually this was simulation, so book the other guy instead.”
The Embolo case did exactly that second thing: they rescinded Paredes’ yellow and issued a new yellow to Embolo for diving. That step went beyond the written protocol. IFAB is now saying the broader use (to police simulation via the mistaken-identity clause) was “well received” and will be examined in the ongoing VAR protocol review (announced earlier in Circular 32), but it may not be used that way until the review is finished.
So the logical conclusion under the rules as they stood at the time is indeed that Embolo should not have been shown the second yellow. The circular simply removes the ambiguity that allowed the on-field application to happen.
IFAB never stated that Embolo shoudn't have been send off, however that is true the only logical response to the letters of said law is that he should not have been send off.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

Dude are you dense or what? I said that Paredes his card should have been dropped. How is that me being against Argentina???
Or is not agreeing that giving Argentina an advantage they should not have had me calling them cheaters? How does this logic work?

In my opinion an unfair advantage that should not have been one due to bad refereeing doe not equate in me calling the a "Cheater".

Maybe try taking bias and feelings out of the equation and look at this objectivly. If you cannot be objective dont talk cause a biased mounth cannot have a fair discussion.

That is why IFAB also put the simulation application on hold until the full review is finished. The “except” clause created the interpretive space; taking it out closes it.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@Powerxfcb @Iam_Cheks_ @8bdrssss @someballfacts The word "exept" was dropped in every update since just saying. You sharing a post that was made prior to the world cup but ignoring the official updates shows you are not having an honest discussion.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

Key points that match Circular 34:
Simulation is a cautionable offence on its own.
However, when the referee has already stopped play and shown a yellow for a different offence (the foul), VAR cannot use the mistaken-identity route to re-characterise the entire sequence and issue a new yellow for simulation instead.
Doing so turns the limited “identity check” into a full re-refereeing of the incident, which the clarified wording does not allow.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

Thats the rules you can bitch and moan all you like those are IFAB protocols.
And yes seperatly simulation is a foul and a yellow card. But in a sequence when that sequence gets reevaluated from 1 foul into another that is not what the VAR is for. If that is the case you can now stop the game every 10 min and do a 30 min VAR deep dive of those 10 min and just deal cards and award penalties after that.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@Powerxfcb @Iam_Cheks_ @8bdrssss @someballfacts You can blame the media and get in your conspiracy feelings but rules are rules and protocols are portocols and is this game and by this ref and VAR team they were not followed by the letter of those "laws".

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

So Paredes was show a yellow cause he simulated a foul?

That is what it means.
Paredes was penalised for a foul
= original sequence

Embolo gets yellow for simulation
= re-refereed a foul to simulation

If you follow the rules by the letter. It had to be rescinded the card of paredes and restart with a drop bal.

You cannot use mistaken identity to change the "original" foul which was a tackle to a simulation. This is outside of the scope of what VAR is allowed to do.

[Steven Verbruggen @StevenVerb94479]

@Powerxfcb @Iam_Cheks_ @8bdrssss @someballfacts I never said simulating is not an offence but re-refereeing a foul to a simulation is outside of the scope of what the VAR can do.