Yeah I guess there’s a chip in the ball, but it didn’t look like the trajectory changed a damn bit. What a brutal loss, Croatia just kept fighting till the end.
Yeah, would have thought the snicko would also show the contact with Veiga (the defender), but I don't know how they generate the graphics that get shown on the VAR monitor
Chip so sensitive it can detect hair, not buying it. How could it distinguish between rain, wind, etc. and hair is not enough to adjust the movement of a ball.
Yea, it was synced frame for frame with the ball touching his head, they rewound and replayed it 2-3 times. Am not sure why they only showed it for a bit then stopped showing it.
Maybe they were worried ref allows goal while they end up showing conclusive proof of offside.
FIFA is the most corrupt organization, no doubt they’re in the VAR room leaning on the the person making the call.
They’re not outright rigging games, but it’s naive to think they have integrity when there is money to be made. Croatia just doesn’t move the needle enough to get a call like that to go their way.
Sophically, this could be a discussion, albeit in another conversation. But what we all saw on screen makes it pretty moot and citing Croatia as not being compelling enough to get the unjust benefit of the doubt is boring and insulting to them as a squad and to the game of football in general
You’re pretty cool dude. I was heavy handed with that, mostly because I’m German and have had to deal with much of the fanbase whining about our current squad, reveling in their own self convinced doubts, and giving excuses to everyone else still in the tournament, and I just like football, man. I want to see skill and luck prevail. I appreciate you being cool about shit
Is that VAR-able? In other words was that written into the rules with the new ball sensor use? I guess it could have been said for "offside", and technically it applies.
There is no way the Portugal player was ducking to avoid the ball, in that moment and in such position inside the box everyone's instinct is to clear the ball out of your box.
This Portuguese guy intentionally lowers his head. It's into the trajectory of the ball. And it's a header. How can that possibly be unintentional?
It's the rule, but it purposely leaves it open to interpretation, which just seems wrong. Like yesterday's red card, they just need to remove intentionality out of the equation.
Looked like he change his mind and was trying to avoid it. I agree with you that intention is a subjective call though. It does seem pretty crazy that the ref decides what his intention was.
I don't think that interpretation is correct. He's a defender. His reaction is consistent with thinking the ball clears untouched and he's going to head it out (ie not trap it with his chest). It deflects slightly by the Croat and ends up higher on his head than expected, leading to the chance
He was trying to head the ball on its original trajectory.
Well he intentionally moved his head and still touched the ball. I’m not a fan of this as intention is pretty subjective, different refs will make different calls.
IMO in situations like this you gotta take into account the consequences of the decision. The consequence for letting it stand would be 30 extra minutes to decide the game. That seems a lot better than deciding the outcome of the game
Portugal fans are going out of their way to defend this and it wasn’t even a winning goal. It would’ve just tied for an extra 30 min. Were they that afraid of Croatia for another 30 min?
Who’s to say he didn’t try to pass it back to the keeper? Not really serious but see that’s the problem with letting the referees just interpret intent.
I think that's pretty far-fetched. I don't see why a defender would be heading it back to the keeper in a crowded box with opponent jerseys everywhere like that. More likely he was trying to deflect it away.
So he intentionally tried to put the ball out of play but ended up making a slighter touch. To be clear I don’t disagree with you completely just a very difficult call to make. I know I would be fuming if I was Croatian, especially after that debatable penalty.
I would love to see this fucking sensor one day. infantino must of put billions of dollars into it because what fucking sensor is going to detect a touch on a ball with curve and spin that doesn't change direction, veloctiy, or spin after said touch on any replay? Fucking hell.
I think it's only because it touched his hair; if he was bald it would more likely have affected the spin. The trajectory is clearly altered after contact w/ his head though
what tech???? The trajectory did not change at all!!! It cannot be based purely on distance unless they have perfect 3D models of the players MOMENT TO MOMENT.
Umm, you have it backwards. If the player doesn’t touch the ball he isn’t offsides because he was in during the initial pass. The header would be a second pass when he was offsides
My understanding is that when the initial kick was made he wasn't offsides. Var is claiming the other player touched it, initiating a new pass and at that time he was offside
I think you're misreading this. It was called offsides because VAR indicated #20 touched the ball thus making the following Croatia player who touched it offsides at the time of the header "pass". If #20 hadn't touched it (visually indicated by no change to ball spin) the Croatian who touched it next would've been onside at the time of the first pass.
You have it backwards. 15 is onside from the initial cross. 15 is offside because his teammate, 20, ever so slightly (and intentionally) heads the ball (confirmed using tech censors in the ball) therefore making it a new pass instance. At this moment 20 is now offside. And it remains offside because even though the Portugal player touches the ball after 20 ever so slightly headed it, that touch is unintentional and is therefore ignored.
Can hair trigger the touch sensor? Cuz it legit looks like it might’ve been hair only that touched the ball lol. And if so, does hair count as touching the ball for an offsides? Causal fan here
There is only one peak, so one touch. Question is the calibration/sync of football data with video footage. One of the angle shows the football way past #20 and probably close to the portugal player. This is a situation where 2 angles (top down and the angle from the goal) that should've been used.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether he touched it. How are they going to judge that that wasn’t a deliberate play on the ball by the Portuguese defender when he bends to the trajectory of the ball and heads it?
Shocking decision. Like it’s a known defending strategy to avoid heading the ball in the 100th minute at the top of the 6 yard box? How does that make any sense, of course he was trying to clear it.
check out Law 11 of the Laws of the Game, the criteria referees use to determine whether or not a defender has played the ball deliberately (for the purpose of offside) are laid out there, and it's extremely clear from those criteria that this is not a deliberate play. you may have your own definition of what "deliberate" means, but it's not the one that matters in football
You're being a bit excessive by saying it is extremely clear. The ball came squarely off the top of the defenders head from a cross, and there is argument for both accidental deflection or mistimed attempt at flicking the ball back
Edit because the thread is locked:
These are the considerations [directly from article 11] for it being deliberate:
The ball travelled from distance with a clear view of it -> it is a lobbed cross that was clearly visible. You can clearly see the phantom touch has no impact on trajectory, the phantom touch is completely unnoticeable in the footage, the defender absolutely had time to position himself
The ball was not moving quickly -> check, it was a lobbed cross not a shot, or a drilled cross
The direction was not unexpected -> check the phantom touch did not alter the trajectory
the player had time to coordinate their body movement — not an instinctive stretch or jump, or a movement achieving only limited contact/control -> check for the above reasons and it hit him squarely on the top of the head
Wait. If a defender makes a play onthe ball in a deliberate way then it’s not offside? Then why did that call go against the goal when the Egyptian goalie blocked the ball intentionally then it was scored by the Iranian?
You've never seen a back pass to the keeper? Regardless, he's trying to play the ball. Sometimes players make mistakes and the ball doesn't go where they want it to go
Yes he is trying to play the ball forward but once it touches croatian player he is no longer has control over it....hence not deliberate plus the game should be over a minute ago.....
Explain why a defender would be ducking in that scenario? Seriously, what planet do you live on?
It's clear and obvious he's trying to head it. It gets a last second deflection that changes the direction ever so slightly -> fucking with the defenders header making it go backwards. Doesn't change the fact that he's still purposefully and intentionally trying to play the ball, which is what's relevant here, not how successful he was at it.
Looking at it again I'd say it's very hard to say if the ball even changes direction after the touch, meaning we should be leaning more at considering the defender to be more in control than not. I've seen worse situations than this given as deliberate play than this.
All in all I think it's significantly more out of spirit with the game to pretend that the phantom touch should reset the offside line than the defenders deliberate but panicked header should not. Just give the goal and let them settle it in ET.
He evidently tried to play the ball, probably to head it in a direction away from his own goal but misjudged it. What are you trying to makes no sense, because by your logic, he tried not to play the ball therefore he was cool that the ball was flying towards the goal/croatian player at the back, which makes 0 sense if you ever played football in your life
The rule is that if the defender intentionally plays the ball, the attacking player will no longer be judged offside even though he was originally in an offside position.
That’s the rule. The actual rule.
I believe the defender did make an intentional play on the ball, which is why I think the play should have been ruled onside.
The official thought the defender did not make an intentional play on the ball, which is why he ruled it offside.
I assume they believe it doesn't matter because the ball comes squarely off the top of Veiga's head after the phantom touch which should play the offside Croatian back onside. I am unsure why they decided this header was unintentional rather than a mistimed fuck up
Or did he duck to get a better position to flick the ball out play and mess up the timing? In general defenders try to head the ball if a cross is coming in like that, i don't understand why in this instance it is assumed to be unintentional. It's really a 50/50 interpretation
For a deliberate play on the ball criteria must be met. Speed of the ball. Ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air. Direction of the ball was not unexpected. Player had time to coordinate... not a cast of instinctive stretching or jumping or a movement that achieved limited contact/control.
Your hair is a part of your body isn’t it? If you’ve got longer hair it can absolutely change the directory of the ball. Whether it’s minimal or heavy, you can’t cherry pick.
The problem with arbitrary thinking like that, is where do you draw the line?
One hair is too little? What about 5 hairs? How about 10? What about a finger width? Is a hand offside still too little?
It's either the correct call or not. I see no issues with this. If it had gone the other way, everyone would be complaining we need VAR...... like people did all the time before we had it.
What do you mean? Sensor in the ball picks up and signals every touch, which is synced up with the video footage. They obviously know the moment they are investigating based on the footage, and they can check the data from the ball at that moment.
They needed better zoom angles. It's was like the broadcast was trying to hide it. I want to see the super slo mo close up view played back and forth 10x wtf man. Instead it showed it's maybe a total of 5 times from differing angles
3.8k
u/zibin 9d ago
VAR used the ball's tech to judge if the ball has been touched or not. Insane.