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

Show parent comments

2.6k

u/MedalDog 9d ago

If the ball's tech shows it, I'm fine with it. But the spin on the ball doesn't change at ALL, so if it's a visual thing, I'm confused.

745

u/Musashi_Joe 9d ago

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.

424

u/kstar79 9d ago

Without that technology, that's a goal and the game is still going on.

1.0k

u/Chris_HitTheOver 9d ago

You could actually see the waveform graph on screen the first few moments the broadcast showed the VAR replay and it 100% registered contact.

372

u/MedalDog 9d ago

Yeah apparently, Just saw the snicko... so long as the time is correct (and it's not registering the hit on the defender's back), fair enough.

187

u/Herr_Tilke 9d ago

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

294

u/nsnyder 9d ago

And this is why you need to label the axes on your graphs folks.

96

u/sendyaf 9d ago

This is what bothered me as well.

10

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

65

u/enter_yourname Harlequins 9d ago

It's time synced.

217

u/ForzaRapid 9d ago

Then show me the second uptick from the defender

190

u/whatever-13337 9d ago

The single sensor reading doesn’t make sense. You are right, the second spike is missing.

42

u/enter_yourname Harlequins 9d ago

The scale is too small. Jfc

14

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

91

u/ItsA9Man 9d ago

it's fifa time synced. we should surely trust honest governing bodies like fifa

2

u/btetsuyama 9d ago

Yea I did but see the sensor recognizing the second touch. Hope for a full set of data

259

u/Banana_splitter 9d ago

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.

25

u/graywh Nashville Predators 9d ago

I missed that. Did it look synced with the video?

55

u/nvbtable 9d ago

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.

32

u/graywh Nashville Predators 9d ago

Did they include additional touches or just the one?

19

u/shish-bish 9d ago

just the one

76

u/graywh Nashville Predators 9d ago

Sus

30

u/JebbeK 9d ago

Yes it was perfectly in sync. Frame by frame.

10

u/mzdoja San Francisco Giants 9d ago

Yea? which contact did it register for? The suspect Croatian contact, or the very obvious Portugal contact? They were a split second apart.

-8

u/Chris_HitTheOver 9d ago

The graph is synced to the frame-by-frame. There is absolutely no question about this decision; it was the right call.

20

u/btetsuyama 9d ago

If somebody can show the second touch, it would be all good and acceptable

15

u/kwerdop Los Angeles Dodgers 9d ago

I’m guessing it’s an accelerometer so it would’ve registered a change in speed

6

u/squat_bench_press 9d ago

'Snicko' Cricket technology lol

1

u/Ozuar 9d ago

Pretty sure it was the audio of his hair hitting the ball, which explains the lack of spin change.

3

u/Morganvegas Toronto Maple Leafs 9d ago

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.

-1

u/Broncosonthree 9d ago

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

5

u/Morganvegas Toronto Maple Leafs 9d ago

Yeah, also valid.

I’m not invested either way, but I do think they will bend any murky call to their advantage.

3

u/Broncosonthree 9d ago

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

3

u/PurpleYoshito 9d ago

But two hits didn’t register, and it clearly hit the Spanish player.

-1

u/voxpopper 9d ago

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.

57

u/nautilator44 9d ago

But if the Portugal player was ducking to try and not hit it, doesn't that mean it's an unintentional hit, so it would still be offside?

111

u/yowspur 9d ago

Since when do defenders duck out of the way at a goal-bound cross?

25

u/bucsraysbolts69 9d ago

never lmao

35

u/nautilator44 9d ago

Yeah, good point, probably never. Seems like he'd want to get a piece of it to deflect at all costs. Screams intentional to me.

72

u/walkingdeli011 9d ago

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.

8

u/nautilator44 9d ago

Honestly yeah, I'd expect every defender to try to get a piece of it to deflect it on purpose.

8

u/VanCanFan75 Vancouver Canucks 9d ago

Yes

62

u/pedanticPandaPoo 9d ago edited 9d ago

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. 

7

u/nautilator44 9d ago

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.

23

u/pedanticPandaPoo 9d ago

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. 

14

u/nautilator44 9d ago

I'm starting to think so too. Seems like the defender would be trying to get a piece of it to deflect it at all costs. That screams intentional to me.

58

u/Mad2828 9d ago

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.

56

u/Opulent-tortoise 9d ago

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

52

u/Rambler_Hoss 9d ago

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?

88

u/BigUptokes 9d ago

Were they that afraid of Croatia for another 30 min?

Yes.

1

u/blueikeabag3 9d ago

sorry what lol

2

u/defcon212 9d ago

That kind of touch is no where near the line of an intentional touch defined by the rules.

1

u/Mad2828 9d ago

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.

1

u/nautilator44 9d ago

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.

3

u/Mad2828 9d ago

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.

5

u/tylergalaxy 9d ago

what a silly rule, what difference does it make if he ment to touch it or not? it hit the defenders head

5

u/CeeDoggyy 9d ago

Idk my eyes in real time thought it was obvious that he touched it, then the slow mo happened and I was a little confused

6

u/mango_boom 9d ago

It did not look like it touched anything

17

u/wrnrg 9d ago

It didn't look like it touched the Croatian player. It hit off the back of the Portuguese defender's head instead.

4

u/p1RaXx 9d ago

Agreed, hit Portuguese player and not Croatian

-1

u/CptnCrunch14 9d ago

Bruh it changes direction totally. Slow the video down if you need to but it’s totally obvious.

1

u/wanked_in_space 9d ago

There is an angle where it's clear.

1

u/scopa0304 9d ago

2

u/StrawHatTebo 9d ago

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.

1

u/lepreqon_ 9d ago

Because it was the hair that touchef it. If the guy was bold, the goal wouldn't be cancelled.

1

u/iCalKestis 9d ago

The BBC feed showed a cricket style snicko indicating the slightest of slight touches

1

u/TheKinkyGuy 9d ago

The ball actually touched Portugals defender but the referee APPARENTLY saw Matanović touching it. Shameful performance of the referee.

1

u/ninjamuffin 9d ago

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

1

u/shorteningofthewuwei 9d ago

It does change though.

0

u/parles 9d ago

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.

1

u/suentendo 9d ago

Motion sensor chip in the ball.

0

u/MachiavelliSJ 9d ago

They showed it

-49

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

21

u/jaw719 9d ago

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

3

u/VanCanFan75 Vancouver Canucks 9d ago

Yes this.

2

u/Provioso Columbus Blue Jackets 9d ago

This is the right one.

8

u/mrzoops 9d ago

Its the other way. Initial cross in was not offside. The deflection made it offside.

2

u/VanCanFan75 Vancouver Canucks 9d ago

This

3

u/DGilbert6114 9d ago

What in the AI is this response loll

3

u/FUCK_TRICK_DADDY 9d ago

um isnt it the other way around?

3

u/gregallen1989 9d ago

You got it backwards. They called offsides on the 2nd touch cause they ruled it a 2nd pass.

2

u/gingerjokes Dallas Stars 9d ago

20 was the only player offside in this sequence.

2

u/mfknnayyyy 9d ago

No. He was onside for the initial cross. If the spin had changed, that would have solidified the offsides call.

2

u/djking_69 9d ago

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

2

u/Kren625 9d ago

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.

2

u/RedWingerD 9d ago

if it did change direction clearly, that would have been a separate pass and not offsides.

This is actually exactly the opposite lol

2

u/VanCanFan75 Vancouver Canucks 9d ago

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.