Garrett Moots, M.Sc.

Environmental Microbiologist. Laboratory for Environmental Pathogen Research. University of Toledo.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

😁👍🏻

[UToledo NSM @UToledo_NSM]

Dr. Von Sigler, a professor of environmental biology, and Garrett Moots, a doctoral student studying ecology and organismal biology, discuss their findings that toxins from harmful algal blooms are present in the sand nearest to the water. @UToledo
https://t.co/3i2ToaU4tq

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@MC_of_A No And ones in soccer. Though this is slowly changing

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@StarWarsDaily_ 6. Not as bad as everyone says, but nowhere near Andor

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@ERPJon But he didn’t make a play on the ball at all.

[Pav @pavisback]

People need to realize that fouls, inherently, are accidental. The intent argument is a strawman used to justify anything and everything

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

🤔

[boe @bigsquishyfrog]

for $1k a month a studio apartment in the grand castle in grandville michigan could be all yours

[John Pranjić @ThatCroatianGuy]

Referee perspective:

1. Point of contact: calf rake to ankle 
2. Mode of contact: studs
3. Force: high
4. Where is the ball: other side of opponent
5. Position of the body: behind opponent

[Yousef Munayyer @YousefMunayyer]

The one with the vicious contact where the ball isn't even in the picture?

[ale🇲🇽 @WosoAle]

seeing the people trying to argue that balogun shouldn’t have gotten a red card only proves that horan was right😭

[Gryffix 🇺🇦 🇵🇸 @Gryffix]

Oh, to have the confidence to watch your fourth ever football game and declare offside a silly rule and the most obvious red card of the tournament fraudulent.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@TaylorTwellman I see "in general" in the language, so its more of a guideline than a hard rule.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

Pro referee explains it here:

https://t.co/t7gFs3Gbun

[Referee Channel @RefereeC21621]

USA got a red card here 🟥. #usa #bosniaandherzegovina #var #redcard #worldcup2026

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.

The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?

When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:

-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted

Applying those considerations:

Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.

Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.

The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

If you don't want to take my word for it, a Pro referee explains it here:

[Referee Channel @RefereeC21621]

USA got a red card here 🟥. #usa #bosniaandherzegovina #var #redcard #worldcup2026

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@petIiker @JohnSmithb0dx @kirawontmiss No it wasn't, and no they don't. Cope harder.

[that one wasian whose lowkey snatched @osamabishounen]

the fact that the US is now good enough at soccer to compete against europeans has tricked some of you guys into thinking youre also ready to argue about red cards against europeans online

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@ReedRothchild12 @aakashgupta I honestly do not know much about it other than they claim it is one of the safest long term disposal sites in the world. You probably know more than me. What is your opinon of it?

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@dyingdidactic @ThePinkDalek @JohnSmithb0dx @kirawontmiss No need to use the R word, even though I have stated multiple times I think it is harsh and am simply reposting the laws of the game. Sports bring out emotions in people, and when people are emotional, good luck explaining logic and rules to them.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@StocktonJewkes By understanding the langauge of the laws of the game. Intent is not a primary consideration:

https://t.co/ZKa5svCffu

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.

The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?

When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:

-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted

Applying those considerations:

Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.

Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.

The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@ThePinkDalek @JohnSmithb0dx @kirawontmiss No, Im literally stating the opposite. Not every challenge is a red card, and these fouls are not even the same, which is what you seem to take issue with. I am simply repeating what the laws of the game state. They do not care about your feelings unfortunately.

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

@BetterCallAlba Idk why this is so hard for people to understand

https://t.co/ZKa5svCffu

[Garrett Moots, M.Sc. @GarrettMoots]

A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.

The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?

When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:

-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted

Applying those considerations:

Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.

Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.

The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.