Why Japans goal was allowed to stand.

[Hipster Dashie]

If you genuinely think the future of football is best served by VAR in its current guise, then fair enough.

It most occasions without VAR that goal last night for Japan is disallowed. No neutral watching that game could begrudge Japan that result they grafted very hard for it and won it fairly and squarely.

VAR is still developing but is way better than before VAR. that decision was spot on.

 

[Hipster Dashie]

Do you not understand that its not just about the decision being correct?

Really is about tge decision being correct and the goal standing. All about the result being decided on the pitch not in the TV studio.

 

[dh1963]

The explanation of how to determine the ball is over the line or not is undoubtedly right, and it does look like the decision was correct by the laws of the game.

The 3 things I'd say about it

1. Without Technology, that ball is given out of play 99% of the time, to the naked eye it's out the park. And as no official is ever standing directly above the touchlines or goal lines, this is a goal that only games with VAR will ever give. I always understood there only to be a camera looking down on the goal line from the crossbar, did FIFA actually have a camera looking directly down on this? Or is it inferred from the camera angles we have all seen?
2. We can all be pragmatic and objective in this instance. But if that was a goal against Rangers, would so many still be saying that's the rules?
3. I reckon this who debate proves once and for all that the Russian linesman got it wrong in 1966!

 

[Bristol_bnose3]

Really is about tge decision being correct and the goal standing. All about the result being decided on the pitch not in the TV studio.

ahem....

 

[der_hammer10]

Unreal that he is 69 years old. Magnificent indeed.

 

[Awaydays]

If you genuinely think the future of football is best served by VAR in its current guise, then fair enough.

Agreed mate. That penalty for Argentina stunk the place out and as I posted the other night, it reminded me of the penalty france got against croatia, not long after croatia equalised in the final.

The ref had to look at that incident 4 or 5 times, which kicks the clear and obvious out the window as was promised.

I still don't like var as we're now at the stage that whenever a goal is scored, the first thought is, will it stand. Not good for the game as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Awaydays]

Unreal that he is 69 years old. Magnificent indeed.

That still looks out to me.

 

[Dumfriesbear]

The one that gets me was that penalty Argentina got when they might have been in a bit of trouble - that to me is pure fixed.

That was very a interesting decision. If that was a pen im the pope.

 

[Big Joe]

The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?

That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?

Photoshopin takes time man!

 

[gersandproud]

............. because those in charge are fannies ?
Because those in charge are corrupt?
Because those in charge should have gone to specsavers?

Is it answers on a postcard?
What's the prize ? A Polaroid camera ?

 

[dublinbluenose]

This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...

Must admit I have been thinking about the Kent chance since last night and the second goal.i have been comforting myself by saying “even if Kent scored var would have chalked it off which would have been worse”now I am not so sure.

 

[WinkieWATP]

Agreed mate. That penalty for Argentina stunk the place out and as I posted the other night, it reminded me of the penalty france got against croatia, not long after croatia equalised in the final.

The ref had to look at that incident 4 or 5 times, which kicks the clear and obvious out the window as was promised.

I still don't like var as we're now at the stage that whenever a goal is scored, the first thought is, will it stand. Not good for the game as far as I'm concerned.

Poland got a penalty in their previous game that was never a penalty either. A slight touch on the back of the calf. Play it in slomo and it looks a certain penalty but at real time speed it was never a penalty imo.

 

[Big Joe]

Thanks for reminding me. Going to be ragin all day now

just a normal day for you then?

 

[FriendsDontLie]

The woman on BBC news this morning was going on about the offside rule being difficult to understand and now we have this.

From an early age you're taught the full ball must be over the line. I don't see how this is news worthy at all.

The issue here is fairly simple, the ball to the naked eye is out of play but the full ball isn’t, some people just need shit explained in simpler terms

 

[Nick Angel]

just a normal day for you then?

Pretty much

 

[Big Joe]

Do you not understand that its not just about the decision being correct?

nooo ... its about gettin the Gerries tae fu*k oot o there!

 

[Big Joe]

The issue here is fairly simple, the ball to the naked eye is out of play but the full ball isn’t, some people just need shit explained in simpler terms

aye ... but have you seen the width o that line??

 

[Big Joe]

That still looks out to me.

the Gerries look out to me!!!

 

[A1bertz]

I know pitch size can differ but what about line sizes. Is there a standard measure? I always just assumed same thickness as the goal posts.

 

[Barrymoped]

The issue here is fairly simple, the ball to the naked eye is out of play but the full ball isn’t, some people just need shit explained in simpler terms

Yep.

VAR correctly decided the goal was legal and that ultimately put the Germans out.

People can moan all they like but if it was ruled out then it would have been the wrong decision.

I’d prefer VAR to be quicker, we all would, and yes it still sometimes gets things wrong, but it gets far more things correct. And it’s here to stay, the genie is well and truly out the bottle.

 

[sheddensbear]

I genuinely find it staggering that FIFA have managed to make VAR more confusing, ill defined and random than simply having a ref on the pitch.

Watch when somebody takes a corner. 90% of corners are taken with the ball outside the arc, but over the area the arc covers.

 

[bob1873]

This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...

Thought exactly the same mate.

 

[calderbear]

The baw wis oot!!!!!!!!!

The baw's burst

 

[Cooper Forever]

The baw's burst

Can you imagine that happens in a game against them ...it would be a meltdown

 

[imager]

The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?

That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?

12 hours to doctor the photo!

 

[Barrymoped]

Can you imagine that happens in a game against them ...it would be a meltdown

Of course it would.

But imagine we score a goal like that and it gets ruled out, despite VAR later showing it’s actually in, by around 1-2mm?

This place would be shouting about all kinds of conspiracies.

If it’s in, it’s in, doesn’t matter by how much.

 

[Georgethegersfan]

Cheating bunch of arseholes

 

[buster60]

I guess that in games without VAR the ball will have to be at least 3" over the line before it's given out of play going by the decision last night.
Surely it should be decided on where the ball is sitting on the grass whether it's out or in. This overhang theory is going to cause a lot of problems as it's going to be impossible to judge that by the naked eye.

 

[Cavin]

I know pitch size can differ but what about line sizes. Is there a standard measure? I always just assumed same thickness as the goal posts.

Doesn't matter, only part of the lines that matter are the extreme outer edges, lines could be any thickness.

 

[Laudrup1]

Without wishing to repeat myself, do you not think a clearer and quicker method of understanding how they reach these decisions would be beneficial to the game?

Not to mention the other incidents which appear to be as arbitrary and non-scientific as the old ref on the pitch format. (Argentina's penalty against Poland for example)

Nah, I think people accepting that the computer can probably tell quicker and better than their naked eye would be more beneficial.

It was quite farcical last night listening to people scream that the ball was out with literally no basis for their claim.

There appears to be a real issue with people accepting things these days.

"but he's only a millimetre off-side"

So he's off-side then. It appears people cannot accept decisions these days. Before VAR, they could console themselves with the idea that (despite being wrong) no one was proving their incorrectness.

Now, when there's actual facts showing them up, they don't like it.

 

[Laudrup1]

I guess that in games without VAR the ball will have to be at least 3" over the line before it's given out of play going by the decision last night.
Surely it should be decided on where the ball is sitting on the grass whether it's out or in. This overhang theory is going to cause a lot of problems as it's going to be impossible to judge that by the naked eye.

It won't cause any more problems than it has for the last 100+ years when that's been the case.

It's been quite enlightening to see just how many people think the "overhang" issue is a theory that hasn't been part of the game since before TV cameras existed.

 

[Eddie Doc]

Unreal that he is 69 years old. Magnificent indeed.

That's with a triple bypass as well. The man's looked after himself.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

The players must know this rule anyway. They take advantage of it every time they take a corner.

 

[macjohn212]

It's oot in auld money , and anything else is farcical

 

[Calgacus]

The explanation of how to determine the ball is over the line or not is undoubtedly right, and it does look like the decision was correct by the laws of the game.

The 3 things I'd say about it

1. Without Technology, that ball is given out of play 99% of the time, to the naked eye it's out the park. And as no official is ever standing directly above the touchlines or goal lines, this is a goal that only games with VAR will ever give. I always understood there only to be a camera looking down on the goal line from the crossbar, did FIFA actually have a camera looking directly down on this? Or is it inferred from the camera angles we have all seen?
2. We can all be pragmatic and objective in this instance. But if that was a goal against Rangers, would so many still be saying that's the rules?
3. I reckon this who debate proves once and for all that the Russian linesman got it wrong in 1966!

Re. Point 3. He was Georgian

 

[mikeymols_10]

This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...

I’ve said since the game I didn’t think the ball was out when Roofe crossed it.

 

[Bristol_bnose3]

People see to be confi

Nah, I think people accepting that the computer can probably tell quicker and better than their naked eye would be more beneficial.

It was quite farcical last night listening to people scream that the ball was out with literally no basis for their claim.

There appears to be a real issue with people accepting things these days.

"but he's only a millimetre off-side"

So he's off-side then. It appears people cannot accept decisions these days. Before VAR, they could console themselves with the idea that (despite being wrong) no one was proving their incorrectness.

Now, when there's actual facts showing them up, they don't like it.

Just stick the proof on the screen, like they do on tennis or cricket so people in the stadium know what the hell is going on. I dont think that's too much to ask and would take 15 seconds.

I'm not covinced everyone on here will be so happy to accept the judgement of the technology when we're on the end of a decision like that without seeing the images for ourselves. Do you?

 

[RabSpackman]

That's the whole point.

He missed a complete sitter but everyone consoles themselves with the belief it wouldn't have stood anyway.

Now it looks like there is a fair chance the ball never went out and it would have stood. Therefore that sitter would have won us the cup

I remember seeing photos showing the ball being over the line and out of play before Roofe crossed it.
That decision last night makes no difference to what happened in May at all.

 

[PT98]

I remember seeing photos showing the ball being over the line and out of play before Roofe crossed it.
That decision last night makes no difference to what happened in May at all.

Most of the photos from last night look like it was over too. But it wasn't.

 

[Barrymoped]

It's oot in auld money , and anything else is farcical

Only it isn’t, and it wasn’t.

In auld money as you put it, it was still in, by the smallest of margins

 

[Handyman]

The only people to blame for this fiasco is diving, cheating players and managers allowing it. Reap what you sow.. Ruined the game imo..

 

[King Billy's Chosen Cat]

I hate to disagree with young Graeme but if you think about it, it is impossible to prove that the ball was in because you don't know if the ball moved forwards or backwards in the split-second after the picture was taken. So far, no one has produced a pic showing that the ball was definitely out, so on the balance of probabilities, VAR was correct on this occasion (and it certainly looks as if it stayed in on the basis of the still pics)....

 

[Mr Aqua]

Show you what I know, I had thought it was when the ball stopped touching the line it was out.

 

[android]

This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...

It wasn’t out...

 

[buster60]

It won't cause any more problems than it has for the last 100+ years when that's been the case.

It's been quite enlightening to see just how many people think the "overhang" issue is a theory that hasn't been part of the game since before TV cameras existed.

Approaching my 79th birthday in a few weeks I think it's fair to say that I have seen a lot of football over the years and have watched a great deal on tv. I've never heard them talk about the "overhang" issue either at games I've watched or played in which was quite a considerable number too. It has only become an issue since the introduction of VAR as far as I am aware.
I've never even seen an argument about an "overhang" issue here on Follow|Follow until this particular incident and my God, I have seen arguments on here on just about every subject under the sun. Therefore, I feel justified to claim that this is something completely new to the football world and has been brought to us as a means to explain decisions made by VAR.
I actually have two suggestions that would improve VAR. First of all I would change the offside rule so that a player is not offside unless his feet are offside. The position of the rest of his body is totally irrelevant to this suggestion. That would give the advantage to the attacking team and would lead to more goals and that's what people want to see.
Secondly, as in the main part of my post I would bin this "overhang" issue and the decision on whether the ball is in or out depends on where the ball sits on the grass.

 

[Schwab Vader]

This is now making me feel a bit sick about that Kent miss right at the end in Seville. Had written it off because the ball looked out before Roofe crossed it but not so sure now...

Same mate hahah

Spewing again

 

[Laudrup1]

Approaching my 79th birthday in a few weeks I think it's fair to say that I have seen a lot of football over the years and have watched a great deal on tv. I've never heard them talk about the "overhang" issue either at games I've watched or played in which was quite a considerable number too. It has only become an issue since the introduction of VAR as far as I am aware.
I've never even seen an argument about an "overhang" issue here on Follow|Follow until this particular incident and my God, I have seen arguments on here on just about every subject under the sun. Therefore, I feel justified to claim that this is something completely new to the football world and has been brought to us as a means to explain decisions made by VAR.
I actually have two suggestions that would improve VAR. First of all I would change the offside rule so that a player is not offside unless his feet are offside. The position of the rest of his body is totally irrelevant to this suggestion. That would give the advantage to the attacking team and would lead to more goals and that's what people want to see.
Secondly, as in the main part of my post I would bin this "overhang" issue and the decision on whether the ball is in or out depends on where the ball sits on the grass.

That's alot of words to explain / justify ignorance of the laws.

It doesn't matter how many games you've watched over the years. The law has been like that forever.

You won't change the arguments about tight decisions like this based on whether the bottom of the ball is touching the line as it sits on the grass.

The same millimetres issue will come up with people arguing whether the bottom of the curvature of the ball is touching the line or not

Just like with off-side when they're saying "it's only millimetres and his shoulder is playing him on" when they're wanting daylight between the players to be the law, the argument would just move on to whether there was a mm of daylight or not.

Like I said, people just seem incapable of accepting a decision and have to justify it (even with visible evidence presented to them) to suit their own argument.

 

[DavieGF2]

I’ve took a dislike to Japan since them signing players from there and one being a cheating diving bastard… so for that reason… it was out.

 

[22ndBB]

Ball is still in…..play on

 

[Tom Petty]

The decision might be, but the fact it took 12 hours to establish the facts when it could have been dealt with in about 60 seconds with a better communication process is the problem. You dont think that's an issue in a crucial World Cup incident - the pinnacle of the sport?

That's not what people want when they watch football and it is not what VAR promised. I mean if they are so f88king useless to organise this themselves, can they not just pinch ideas from Rugby Union?

The decision was made in the stadium, at the time it took place. People who don't understand the concept of the ball being spherical spent the rest of their night crying about grainy screenshots from TV, when the correct decision was made immediately in the stadium.