If that situation had occurred on the goal line, and a defender cleared it, does anyone think that a goal wouldn't have been given?
Goal line technology would instantly have told us it hadn't crossed the lineIf that situation had occurred on the goal line, and a defender cleared it, does anyone think that a goal wouldn't have been given?
A bit like the people who don't understand the concept that some people can happily accept the ball was in, but still think VAR is a ham fisted shitshow.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.
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 visible evidence presented to them) to suit their own argument.
Think we need a bird’s eye angle first before we can come to a conclusion on that.Meanwhile in the Germany game... ref decided this was still in play lol
Sniff Sniff! .........That was very a interesting decision. If that was a pen im the pope.
Didn’t need a thread to know that
Good enough for me!!
Wouldn't be subjective in that caseIf that situation had occurred on the goal line, and a defender cleared it, does anyone think that a goal wouldn't have been given?
Exactly, I'm reading this thread as if the law is new??? Even a baw hairs worth of baw on the line means it's in play.The full ball has to go out of play, I really don't know why people are finding this so hard to understand.
Spot on BBIf you watch Davis shot , the angle from Davis viewpoint as he strikes it, it’s going in. It takes not one but two very slight deflections off Frankfurt defenders, one last touch is enough to deflect it over the bar. If it doesn’t take the touches off either defender, that ball is going in. 100%. Davis struck it perfectly.
The fact the referee/linesman didn’t give a corner but gave a goal kick , adds fuel to the idea that they assumed the ball was out when Roofe got to it. Only other explanation is they missed two pretty obvious deflections on Davis shot and thought it went clean over.
It just wasn’t meant to be. Frankfurt got the millimetres at that moment and in the shootout which decided it.
The full ball has to go out of play, I really don't know why people are finding this so hard to understand.
So you could have a foot thick line?Doesn't matter, only part of the lines that matter are the extreme outer edges, lines could be any thickness.
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...
First thing I thought of last night
If that was the goal line would it be given as a goal?
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.
Except in this case it is black and white.
No, because goal line technology would say the whole ball wasn't over the line.If that was the goal line would it be given as a goal?
Of course it would
I kind of agree with you. In a tourney where we all have doubts about the veracity of why it is there, everything needed to be crystal clear, and with so many cameras around the stadium, why couldn't it be? That they have made a sketchy tournament seem even more uncertain it poor from FIFA. There is no excuse not to clear up decisions.There is a lack of communication between VAR decisions and the public, it seems deliberateas well. Which is a problem when youve got a tournament being watched by hundreds of millions of people round the world.
It's oot in auld money , and anything else is farcical
Referee selection must be in question towards the level of experience required or its a different game we are all watching, the world of woke, cancel and equality is the way forward, hunksMeanwhile in the Germany game... ref decided this was still in play lol
Exactly.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.
Yup, Been a few dodgy question marks this world cup when it comes to VARThe 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.
What sanctimonious garbage! Only a computer shot from above proves that right, and no one in any football match has that view of the game ever, and few stadiums in the world have enough cameras in position to give that pic. There was ample evidence to every fan around the world to "scream that the ball was out".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.
And what happens when the machines take over just like in Terminator ! Who's going to argue their case against them?I think there's a much 'wider' issue here (pun intended)
If I understand the Guardian article above correctly - the visible image as seen by the naked eye - & even the camera image as seen from head height- the ball appears to be wholly over the line
Only when overhead cameras at obviously quite considerable height- does it show something approaching the contrary
The decision (rightly or
wrongly) has been made in favour of the overhead camera -
As all players & officials use their eyes to play the game & are only able to react to what they actually see in front of them - whether their eyes deceive them or not- what happens now ? Are they going to be coached on how to play to an overhead camera view ? Will decisions taken on the basis of naked eye evidence become redundant or be subject to relentless checks from above
The absolute trust in technology we're
adopting has me thinking that I hope the
technology is up to it
Are we going to use satellite images soon - will that be high enough ?
This instance alone shows that separate camera angles gets you at least two separate conclusions
I couldn't care less about this instance - but we all know we're going to affected by something similar sooner or later
Oh & by the way - IMO - something smells like $hite in all of this
Thats not the best angle though.
Yip , it's definitely out
Whats confusing about it? The ball wasn't fully out, so it's a goal, and rightly so. If VAR wasn't there then a correct goal would have been ruled out and the Japanese would have incorrectly been papped out the world cup.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.
I’m not disputing that the ball was in play or that they came to the correct decision. My point still stands.Whats confusing about it? The ball wasn't fully out, so it's a goal, and rightly so. If VAR wasn't there then a correct goal would have been ruled out and the Japanese would have incorrectly been papped out the world cup.
It's done it's job fairly well if you ask me.
It's not FIFAs fault if there's zoomers out there that don't realise a sphere is a 3 dimensionsal object.
Football has never been fair in the sense that teams get what they deserve so arguinging that Japan got the goal they deserved doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. It’s either a legitimate goal or it isn’t. A lot of people are still unconvinced that the Japanese goal last night was legit and that’s despite the images FIFA produced today.Without VAR the goal is disallowed and the Germans go through and Japan are on the next flight home.
Real-time I don’t think anyone thought the ball was still in, however applying the Laws of the game, the ball was in and Japan got the goal they deserved.
Proves that overall VAR is good for the game as it helps support major decisions.
If your point still stands, what exactly was confusing about it?I’m not disputing that the ball was in play or that they came to the correct decision. My point still stands.
Christ imagine the mentally challenged rage if it had panned out that wayThat sadly probably means that kemar roofes cross was in play.
Technology has proven that it was a legit goal - don’t see how you can argue against that just because it “looked out”. Japan therefore got what they deserved.Football has never been fair in the sense that teams get what they deserve so arguinging that Japan got the goal they deserved doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. It’s either a legitimate goal or it isn’t. A lot of people are still unconvinced that the Japanese goal last night was legit and that’s despite the images FIFA produced today.
Incidentally, I am in favour of VAR but there are still simply too many questionable decisions. Last night’s is one of those.
As far as technology proving that it was a goal there is still reason for doubt as the technology is open to interpretation by those operating it. That’s why Argentina got their penalty the other night. No way did VAR show it to be a penalty but it nevertheless was given as one.Technology has proven that it was a legit goal - don’t see how you can argue against that just because it “looked out”. Japan therefore got what they deserved.
So you could have a foot thick line?
!What sanctimonious garbage! Only a computer shot from above proves that right, and no one in any football match has that view of the game ever, and few stadiums in the world have enough cameras in position to give that pic. There was ample evidence to every fan around the world to "scream that the ball was out".
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...
Nah it was definitely out. Definitely definitely definitely.That sadly probably means that kemar roofes cross was in play.
Exactly right. Something which frequently annoys me. I'm sure there a great number of times when the wrong decision is given because of this. One day there will be technology which monitors all the lines, similar to tennis, and it's an automatic in or out with no delays needed.Anything more than half the ball crosses the line in Scotland then the linesman flags every time without fail. - Hope someone updates them after this decision.
It's the view that makes it look more out than any other and I still look at it and say that looks in.Thats not the best angle though.
The relevant angle shows that the ball was in and the correct decision made