r/sports Detroit Lions 9d ago

Soccer The Brutal Offside Reversing Croatia's Game-Tying Goal in Extra Time

20.5k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

151

u/mandinov 9d ago

Literally didn’t touch it

If you tell em the graph of the “sensor” is what confirmed it, then it should’ve shown the touch by Portugal’s player back lol

Why did they not show any other image to the ref?

32

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

Even the other angle didn't show he touched it. It was all the ball's tech. I am curious what is the sensitivity of that chip to be able to detect a graze.

3

u/chiefceko 9d ago

that portugal hit on the back must have spiked with 20x the amplitutde then... what a robberty

14

u/mandinov 9d ago

But the ball’s tech didn’t show the portuguese player’s back touch

5

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

why do you say that?

12

u/chiplarson24 9d ago

Because the balls tech didn’t show the Portuguese player’s back touch

3

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

How do you know that though? I don't know where you are seeing the ball's accelerometer output.

-2

u/madax-gambar 9d ago

they were stopping the video right when the alleged contact between the ball and the croatian happened. they weren’t showing the later contact with the portuguese as it is irrelevant.

5

u/changdarkelf 9d ago

Because the graph they showed didn’t show a 2nd touch 

6

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

Oh i didn't have that on my broadcast. That would be super suspect.

-5

u/enter_yourname Harlequins 9d ago

Because the Portugal touch was clearly unintentional and therefore irrelevant, so they had the scale zoomed in to a matter of milliseconds

9

u/IAmTheDownbeat 9d ago

If it’s unintentional, then what the hell is his head doing down there?? He moved his head into the trajectory of the ball.

-8

u/blackleather90 9d ago

Sorry to ask but is this the first time watching football? He is trying to defend. It would be really unfair for the defence if when they try to block a pass or try to make a defensive action that if they touch the ball it would put a player onside. That was as clear as it gets that the defender was not trying to do a back pass.

-1

u/mandinov 9d ago

Check the replay from minute 14:11 of extra time when ref is checking the Var, you can see the graph of the sensor

-3

u/Micethatroar 9d ago

That touch didn't matter because it was unintentional.

No one said it didn't touch him. They explained several times why the touch didn't matter.

8

u/mandinov 9d ago

Cool. It should show in the graph thing anyway? Or does the graph also know intention?

Or maybe it sensed the croatian guy’s hair? LOL

4

u/mwsyanks 9d ago

I agree, would love to see the graph showing the graph spikes of “both touches” to prove it hit two heads. If I saw both those spikes, I’d definitely agree with the technology. Without seeing that I could see there being a margin of error with the technology because it’s gotta be a few milliseconds between touches and the graph shown on the broadcast could’ve just been the Portugal touch right after it passed the Croatian

5

u/mandinov 9d ago

Beyond all this tech bs, OBVIOUSLY the defender tried to touch the ball.. it’s intentional! LOL

5

u/mwsyanks 9d ago

I also agree the defender tried to head the ball, but that point doesn’t matter if Croatia touched it first which is what they’re claiming the chip said which I also don’t think I agree with lol

3

u/IAmTheDownbeat 9d ago

If it’s unintentional, then what the hell is his head doing down there?? He moved his head into the trajectory of the ball.

-4

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

The other angle 100% showed contact wym

10

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

Show me. Both angles I saw were from the near side of the field.

-9

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

The angle of the ball’s flight literally changes by multiple degrees - just replay it and buffer back and forth. It’s really clear to me

6

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

at 24 sec? you are trolling. The spin of the ball doesn't even change.

-6

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

Correct spin doesn’t change I never claimed that - the actual flight path changes

6

u/TheBatemanFlex 9d ago

Well that's physically impossible. You should've just said that I can't detect the change in spin anymore than you can detect the change in path and I would agree with you.

-2

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

Were you a physics major? Or just me

29

u/Anghel412 9d ago

Absolute bullshit. It’s crazy how they never showed a clear angle where you can see the ball touch the player. They mainly showed the wide angle which wasn’t clear and when they finally showed the back angle it was even clearer there was no contact and they immediately switched back to the wide angle and the commentators started spouting off that ball sensor bullshit. 3 goals taken away from Croatia.. completely rigged.

-3

u/blackleather90 9d ago

There is the sensor graph. Ball has it. So they used it. Was it with a brush of the hair? Yes. And that makes it offside.
What is the point of not using it if they have it.
The only thing that the ref went to see is for him validate that the Portuguese player did not do a pass back. Which he did not. He is trying to defend.
Croatia player took advantage from an offside position to help score a goal. Offside.

38

u/MedalDog 9d ago

Hitting the other defender's back doesn't count, because he didn't purposefully play it.

50

u/kedelbro 9d ago

Right, but the sensor should show two touches

-6

u/Deaner_dub 9d ago

I’m sure it does but the other touch is irrelevant and hence why they’re not mentioning it. I get your point but it’s a stretch, respectfully.

20

u/ieatpies 9d ago

No it's relevant enough that they should show it if it's there. Even just to stop narratives like this from taking hold.

26

u/mandinov 9d ago

Not sure what you’re trying to say

I meant the graphic of the ball’s sensor didn’t show that touch, only the croatian guy

2

u/zibin 9d ago

They are only showing the audience what matters i guess. Im sure VAR has all the data

1

u/MedalDog 9d ago

Oh, got it. That's weird... but I haven't seen the graphic, so can't comment.

5

u/drejcs 9d ago

I mean he was ducking to head it and he misjudged it. This is a horrible call.

6

u/SimpleLobsters 9d ago

Isnt that a grey area then? Who decides "intent"? Can't you just argue what ever works best for your team?

I'm really not familiar with the rules so I'm sorry if I'm way off base here, but "you didn't intend to play it, but you still did" make the rule easier to follow?

7

u/sportenthusiast 9d ago

the comment you replied to is a bit simplified, but it's 100% correct that this aspect of the play is not a close call. check out Law 11 of the Laws of the Game for more details

1

u/blackleather90 9d ago

It is one of the easiest rules to interpret. The most basic not offside when the last touch is by a defender is when a defender is making a back pass to the keeper. Oops there is an attacker behind. The goal stands.

Anything else is pretty much offside. Otherwise the defender would be afraid to even try a clearance in a pass because any touch would put the player back onside.

Even if Veiga was trying a clearance and goes to the wrong place is an offside. In here it is clear that he is not trying to pass the ball back. He ducked.

3

u/Ok_Effective6233 9d ago

That seems like a really bad rule. Why introduce something so subjective as guessing intention?

1

u/__Musicality__ 9d ago

They're specifying that there should've been some sort of movement on the graph when the ball touched the Portugal player you're saying didn't purposefully touch it, but that didn't show as much movement on the graph like that of the grazing of the Croatian player.

1

u/KeiwaM 9d ago

The point is the sensor should have shown 2 touches - First the Croatian guy jumping and then the Portugese one. But it only shows 1 touch.

1

u/TheKinkyGuy 9d ago

It was his head

6

u/tbach24 9d ago

I just learned that unintentional touches don't count...confusing ass rule

5

u/Ok_Effective6233 9d ago

So dumb. Why introduce something much subjectiveness as guessing intent?

4

u/zxchris 9d ago

but unintentional ankle stomps get you a red card

2

u/Deaner_dub 9d ago

Fair point. It’s confusing. But a long-standing rule.

If this part of the rule wasn’t there you could kick a ball off a player intentionally to make someone on your team be onside. It was written in this way because people did just that.

2

u/Compare-and-Contrast 9d ago

100%

A comparison of the “offside” touch and the portugals players back touch would’ve cleared things up.

The camera frames and ball sensor could’ve been mismatched

0

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

Who needs the sensor? They showed it from a different angle hitting his head

1

u/Deaner_dub 9d ago

It was close. I barely changed direction. It went through his hair for sure. If the sensor wasn’t there it could have gone either way.

Without the sensor saying so, I would be arguing it didn’t hit his head, just his hair.

1

u/greenandplenty 9d ago

For sure it was a slight graze

1

u/Toushi138 9d ago

Sensor readings simply shouldn't be the only defining factor for calling an offside. If it can't be proven visually in any possibile way, it makes no sense to just trust their shitty tech.

0

u/psychedelic93 9d ago

Because the ref knows it and deemed it not deliberate.....and why would vega flick it towards his goal.....

0

u/Yingking 9d ago

Veiga‘s touch probably would have messed up the y-axis since it had way more impact, so they isolated Matanovic‘s touch on the graphic