World Cup: Why did Jude Bellingham escape red card against Ghana?

England midfielder Jude Bellingham has become the centre of a fresh World Cup refereeing controversy after he escaped punishment for covering his mouth during a heated exchange with Ghana forward Jordan Ayew.

The incident happened during England’s 0-0 draw with Ghana in their Group L clash in Boston on Tuesday night.

Bellingham was seen covering his mouth while speaking to Ayew after a tense first-half moment involving Ghana defender Jerome Opoku.

The controversy has sparked questions because Paraguay midfielder Miguel Almiron was sent off days earlier for a similar act during his country’s match against Turkey.

Almiron became the first player at the tournament to be dismissed under the new mouth-covering rule after he covered his mouth while speaking to Turkey defender Mert Muldur during a confrontation.

The incident was not initially punished by the referee, but Muldur drew the official’s attention to it before VAR intervened. Almiron was then shown a red card and later handed a one-match suspension.

Bellingham’s case has now raised concerns over consistency in officiating, especially among Ghana supporters and foreign media, who have questioned why the England star was allowed to remain on the pitch.

Under the new rule, players are not automatically sent off for covering their mouths during matches. However, a referee may punish a player if the act happens during what is considered a confrontational situation.

The rule was introduced after concerns that players could hide abusive comments from cameras and lip-readers during heated exchanges on the pitch.

But the grey area around what qualifies as a confrontational situation has now become the major talking point.

In Bellingham’s case, the exchange appeared to come after the Real Madrid midfielder escaped a yellow card for barging into Ghana defender Opoku late in the first half.

Ayew then approached Bellingham, who responded while covering his mouth.

Unlike the Almiron incident, there was no VAR intervention, no red card and no on-field punishment.

The decision has triggered claims of double standards, with some foreign outlets accusing officials of applying the rule differently when England were involved.

French publication RMC Sport questioned why Bellingham was not sent off, arguing that Almiron had paid heavily for a similar action only days earlier.

The outlet also noted that Ghana had other complaints during the match, including a penalty appeal and a challenge involving England goalkeeper Jordan Pickford which went unpunished.

Ghana coach Carlos Queiroz also criticised Bellingham after the game, accusing the England midfielder of reacting badly during a heated exchange as both teams headed towards the tunnel at half-time.

Queiroz said he had tried to calm the situation after Bellingham’s challenge on Opoku, but claimed the England player’s reaction added more tension.

“He had a bad reaction with some bad names,” Queiroz said.

The former Manchester United assistant added that emotions often run high in football, but said one word was enough to create “a bit of fire” before the situation was eventually calmed.

The controversy has now put FIFA and match officials under pressure to explain how the new mouth-covering rule should be applied.

For Ghana, the frustration is not only that Bellingham avoided punishment, but that the same rule had already produced a red card elsewhere in the tournament.

England struggled throughout the match despite dominating possession, as Ghana produced a disciplined defensive performance to secure a valuable point.

The Black Stars frustrated Thomas Tuchel’s side, restricted Harry Kane’s service and kept Bellingham from controlling the game.

But after the final whistle, the major debate was not just about England’s failure to break down Ghana.

It was the question many are now asking: if Almiron was sent off for covering his mouth, why was Bellingham allowed to stay on the pitch?