Why Japans goal was allowed to stand.

TN8 said:
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...
Click to expand...
They would have ruled it out anyway
 
buster60 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What happens when the ball isn't on the grass?

It's not difficult, the ball is a sphere and every line on the park is a 3D line in Space

Any part of the sphere touches any part of that 3D line, and the ball is in play
 
Bristol_bnose3 said:
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?
Click to expand...
There were pictures floating about on twitter before the ITV programme had even ended
 
PT98 said:
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
Click to expand...
I still blame Goldson more. His customary brain fart cost us that game. Had we held that lead a little longer Frankfurt were spent

As for the Japanese goal I’ve only seen footage of it from one angle and the ball didn’t look fully over the line. However looking at some still shots (like the one posted with Souness) it looks a lot more questionable
 
Molly Sugden's Bridesmaid said:
See also dullards moaning about the ball being 'outside' the quadrant before a corner is taken when it never actually is.
Click to expand...
The quadrant at corners thing is purely a mark of disrespect for the laws of the game. Surely no professional footballer needs the extra inches it provides in order to hit a spot in the penalty box with a corner kick. It’s nothing but a disrespectful fashion.
 
Bluebeard said:
If 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.
Click to expand...
Agreed-but it’s far easier for some on here just to say somebody fucked it!
 
tottie beck said:
I still blame Goldson more. His customary brain fart cost us that game. Had we held that lead a little longer Frankfurt were spent

As for the Japanese goal I’ve only seen footage of it from one angle and the ball didn’t look fully over the line. However looking at some still shots (like the one posted with Souness) it looks a lot more questionable
Click to expand...
I blame Wright mate. Had he been over and tried to block the cross as he should have done, it doesn’t put Goldson in the position to try clear it.
 
What I did notice earlier in the WC, can't remember what game, but at a penalty, the player put the ball to the side of the spot and the 'overhang' was definitely over the paint of the spot but the ref made them move it and have it sitting actually on the spot...

Surely it should have been allowed as technically it was 'on' the spot due to the curvature...
 
A very interesting incident that explains much.

Als9 might explain why players get away with taking corners from what appears outside the marked quadrant :)
 
Bristol_bnose3 said:
People see to be confi

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?
Click to expand...
in rugby league the video assistant referee can be heard giving his decision and explaining why he made that decision. Why can't we do that? Why do they have to be miles away? why are there so many of them?
 
Arkansasgerstill said:
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".
Click to expand...

No there wasn't.

As has been proven by the actual decision and video evidence you, and they, were all wrong.

Laughable you still want to think you were somehow correct despite the facts.
 
TN8 said:
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...
Click to expand...
This has been rattling around my head ever since the Japan game. Like you I had consoled myself with the fact the ball was already out. Now…
 
TheBearNecessities said:
At that moment, in that photo, the ball is still in play by a baw hair.

But it is possible that the ball was still moving further out of play. what if this photo was taken a tiny fraction of a second too early?
Click to expand...

That picture angle is slightly to the left of straight above, the top of the bar is to the right of the line, whereas if it was directly above they would line up more, if the camera was directly above it would look even more in play.
 
Mr. T. said:
The quadrant at corners thing is purely a mark of disrespect for the laws of the game. Surely no professional footballer needs the extra inches it provides in order to hit a spot in the penalty box with a corner kick. It’s nothing but a disrespectful fashion.
Click to expand...

Disrespect by respecting the laws of the game, interesting!
 
Cavin said:
Disrespect by respecting the laws of the game, interesting!
Click to expand...
It’s pushing it to the absolute limit of what is ‘legal’. In any walk of life that’s the action of an arm chancer (of which there are many in the game). It may not break the rules, but it’s disrespectful. It was quite clear what I meant- unless someone wants to be wilfully ignorant.
 
Mr. T. said:
It’s pushing it to the absolute limit of what is ‘legal’. In any walk of life that’s the action of an arm chancer (of which there are many in the game). It may not break the rules, but it’s disrespectful. It was quite clear what I meant- unless someone wants to be wilfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

Wasn't clear to me, what or who are they disrespecting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top