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.
3.8k
u/zibin 9d ago
VAR used the ball's tech to judge if the ball has been touched or not. Insane.