| Portugal v Croatia 02:13 - Jul 3 with 1834 views | quirkie |
What an astonishing 2nd half, by far best of the WC.
Croatia equaliser 13th minute of added time only for VAR to controversially over rule it.
|  |
| |  |
| Portugal v Croatia on 02:34 - Jul 3 with 1570 views | Bugs |
That was worth staying up for...nighty night |  | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 03:01 - Jul 3 with 1525 views | GlasgowBlue |
Not very controversial as he was a yard offside. Absolutely devastating for the Croatia fans though. |  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:04 - Jul 3 with 1458 views | vapour_trail |
VAR must have seen something we didn’t because it doesn’t look like he’s touched the ball there.
Croatia must feel robbed. |  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:06 - Jul 3 with 1463 views | quirkie |
| Portugal v Croatia on 03:01 - Jul 3 by GlasgowBlue |
Not very controversial as he was a yard offside. Absolutely devastating for the Croatia fans though. |
This is where VAR fails yet again.
He was onside when the cross was made. The controversial bit is did the ball touch the players head (forget who it was) before he scored. Referees decision on the pitch was it was a valid goal, and there was nothing in VAR to show it was a clear error.
So goal should have stood. | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:28 - Jul 3 with 1419 views | Benters |
Just watched the highlights it looked a fantastic game. |  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 07:34 - Jul 3 with 1286 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:06 - Jul 3 by quirkie |
This is where VAR fails yet again.
He was onside when the cross was made. The controversial bit is did the ball touch the players head (forget who it was) before he scored. Referees decision on the pitch was it was a valid goal, and there was nothing in VAR to show it was a clear error.
So goal should have stood. |
Value Added Ronaldo. |  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 07:40 - Jul 3 with 1260 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:06 - Jul 3 by quirkie |
This is where VAR fails yet again.
He was onside when the cross was made. The controversial bit is did the ball touch the players head (forget who it was) before he scored. Referees decision on the pitch was it was a valid goal, and there was nothing in VAR to show it was a clear error.
So goal should have stood. |
Since when did var get a snicko? Suddenly out of the blue, a new thing added?! |  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:26 - Jul 3 with 1109 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 07:40 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
Since when did var get a snicko? Suddenly out of the blue, a new thing added?! |
Yes, and what's it for? If the touch had no material impact on the direction of the ball (as was the case here) who cares if it's glanced his hair?
The obsession with decisions being "correct" is ruining football. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:32 - Jul 3 with 1091 views | norfsufblue |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:06 - Jul 3 by quirkie |
This is where VAR fails yet again.
He was onside when the cross was made. The controversial bit is did the ball touch the players head (forget who it was) before he scored. Referees decision on the pitch was it was a valid goal, and there was nothing in VAR to show it was a clear error.
So goal should have stood. |
The thing is for me is there is a definite touch by a defender afterwards which is deemed a deflection BUT for me he is trying to stop that bsll going towards goal!... the fact he didnt make clean contact should not matter. He tried to play that ball deliberately and was a bigger touch than the attacker that probably put a couple of strands of hair on it.. to paraphrase Brian Clough... if hes not trying to play it(defender) what the hell is he doing there! |  | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:39 - Jul 3 with 1056 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:32 - Jul 3 by norfsufblue |
The thing is for me is there is a definite touch by a defender afterwards which is deemed a deflection BUT for me he is trying to stop that bsll going towards goal!... the fact he didnt make clean contact should not matter. He tried to play that ball deliberately and was a bigger touch than the attacker that probably put a couple of strands of hair on it.. to paraphrase Brian Clough... if hes not trying to play it(defender) what the hell is he doing there! |
Offside at the point of the forward pass. This nonsense about deflections is just more unnecessary bllx. The offence occurs beforehand. | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:47 - Jul 3 with 1022 views | BloomBlue |
The crazy point about that decision is it wasn't clear and obvious - which is definitely the VAR rule in this WC - so they should go with the on field decision. There have been loads like this, Kane non pen against DR Congo just one example, where its not deemed clear & obvious and they go with the on field decision. I'm fine with that approach, but be consistent. |  | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:04 - Jul 3 with 970 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:47 - Jul 3 by BloomBlue |
The crazy point about that decision is it wasn't clear and obvious - which is definitely the VAR rule in this WC - so they should go with the on field decision. There have been loads like this, Kane non pen against DR Congo just one example, where its not deemed clear & obvious and they go with the on field decision. I'm fine with that approach, but be consistent. |
But if clear and obvious is the rule for VAR (which it should be) why is there a chip in the ball to enable micro decisions such as this? | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:10 - Jul 3 with 929 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Portugal v Croatia on 07:40 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
Since when did var get a snicko? Suddenly out of the blue, a new thing added?! |
The graphic they used is surely nonsense, is there a sensor in the ball or the players head? | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:17 - Jul 3 with 897 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Portugal v Croatia on 05:06 - Jul 3 by quirkie |
This is where VAR fails yet again.
He was onside when the cross was made. The controversial bit is did the ball touch the players head (forget who it was) before he scored. Referees decision on the pitch was it was a valid goal, and there was nothing in VAR to show it was a clear error.
So goal should have stood. |
Failing to see how its controversial. He touched it and the guy was offside when he touched it. He's offside so shouldn't of stood.
People are only saying it's controversial because there was new technology used for it. [Post edited 3 Jul 9:17]
|  |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:19 - Jul 3 with 892 views | SaleAway |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:04 - Jul 3 by naa |
But if clear and obvious is the rule for VAR (which it should be) why is there a chip in the ball to enable micro decisions such as this? |
Came here to say this. Why on God's earth did we need a snicko? If the touch isn't enough to be detected by eye, then it doesn't affect play, and should absolutely not be overturning a goal. Its certainly not a clear and obvious error. Without the chip in the ball, this would have stood, and no-one would have questioned it. Ridiculous. | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:47 - Jul 3 with 841 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:17 - Jul 3 by JammyDodgerrr |
Failing to see how its controversial. He touched it and the guy was offside when he touched it. He's offside so shouldn't of stood.
People are only saying it's controversial because there was new technology used for it. [Post edited 3 Jul 9:17]
|
Because it's a pointless technology.
Who cares if it scraped his hair? The ball didn't change direction or speed, so no advantage was gained, it affected play in no way at all. So why isn't it a goal?
Is it offside by the letter of the law? Yes. But so what? Perfect decisions like this aren't what football should be about. | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:47 - Jul 3 with 838 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:10 - Jul 3 by BanksterDebtSlave |
The graphic they used is surely nonsense, is there a sensor in the ball or the players head? |
The ball has a chip in it.
No idea why. | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:52 - Jul 3 with 820 views | mellowblue |
| Portugal v Croatia on 08:39 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
Offside at the point of the forward pass. This nonsense about deflections is just more unnecessary bllx. The offence occurs beforehand. |
except for the fact that he is clearly onside ehen the pass is made. The point of contact for the pass. Deffo rides on whether the other geezer heads it on or not. | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 10:00 - Jul 3 with 793 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:52 - Jul 3 by mellowblue |
except for the fact that he is clearly onside ehen the pass is made. The point of contact for the pass. Deffo rides on whether the other geezer heads it on or not. |
The header is a pass too. | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:15 - Jul 3 with 692 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 10:00 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
The header is a pass too. |
Which header are you talking about?
There is a cross, the player is onside. Then the ball touches a hair on the attackers head which snicko picked up, the player is offside at that point. The defender then touches it, but that's irrelevant.
The issue is do we care about the hair glance? It is offside by the letter of the law but it's making the "clear and obvious error" a bit of a joke. | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:26 - Jul 3 with 681 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:15 - Jul 3 by naa |
Which header are you talking about?
There is a cross, the player is onside. Then the ball touches a hair on the attackers head which snicko picked up, the player is offside at that point. The defender then touches it, but that's irrelevant.
The issue is do we care about the hair glance? It is offside by the letter of the law but it's making the "clear and obvious error" a bit of a joke. |
The second para is spot on.
The rule doesn't make allowance for attempted header which has minimal impact. Decision was correct.
However it was not clear and obvious and if we are now using snicko to correct and on field decision, that is ridiculous. Are they going to use it for handballs? Or to see if the defender got a toe to the ball first?
Ruins it. And I don't trust var refs or FIFA to apply it evenly without fear or favour. | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:36 - Jul 3 with 665 views | naa |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:26 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
The second para is spot on.
The rule doesn't make allowance for attempted header which has minimal impact. Decision was correct.
However it was not clear and obvious and if we are now using snicko to correct and on field decision, that is ridiculous. Are they going to use it for handballs? Or to see if the defender got a toe to the ball first?
Ruins it. And I don't trust var refs or FIFA to apply it evenly without fear or favour. |
Agree completely.
The argument I heard is if FIFA have the technology (it comes as a by product of the automated offside tech) they have to use it. I fundamentally disagree with that view.
State what VARs role is and stick to it. Is it clear and obvious or is it to try and get every decision completely correct?
I'd rather it wasn't used at all frankly but if we have to have it should intervene as little as possible. | | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:38 - Jul 3 with 663 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:36 - Jul 3 by naa |
Agree completely.
The argument I heard is if FIFA have the technology (it comes as a by product of the automated offside tech) they have to use it. I fundamentally disagree with that view.
State what VARs role is and stick to it. Is it clear and obvious or is it to try and get every decision completely correct?
I'd rather it wasn't used at all frankly but if we have to have it should intervene as little as possible. |
Certainly the vast majority were not expecting this extra technology to be used in this way. Is it tested? Reliable? | |
| |
| Portugal v Croatia on 12:01 - Jul 3 with 615 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| Portugal v Croatia on 11:26 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
The second para is spot on.
The rule doesn't make allowance for attempted header which has minimal impact. Decision was correct.
However it was not clear and obvious and if we are now using snicko to correct and on field decision, that is ridiculous. Are they going to use it for handballs? Or to see if the defender got a toe to the ball first?
Ruins it. And I don't trust var refs or FIFA to apply it evenly without fear or favour. |
A further example of VAR creep.
I'm all for goal line tech and automated offside if it can be done quickly and accurately, but there needs to be a line. Having a snick-o-meter to test if the ball brushed someone's hair is ridiculous. Even if we assume the technology is accurate enough to conclude that, how does it meet the definition of an obvious error on the part of the on field officials? It can't possibly.
The other thing people seem to overlook is getting more decisions correct doesn't mean its the right thing for the game when there's such a trade off to the theatre of the sport. A 10 mile per hour speed limit on the M1 would save lives, but it doesn't mean its the right thing to do. |  | | |
| Portugal v Croatia on 12:46 - Jul 3 with 512 views | Garv |
| Portugal v Croatia on 09:47 - Jul 3 by naa |
Because it's a pointless technology.
Who cares if it scraped his hair? The ball didn't change direction or speed, so no advantage was gained, it affected play in no way at all. So why isn't it a goal?
Is it offside by the letter of the law? Yes. But so what? Perfect decisions like this aren't what football should be about. |
You could even argue whether a ball touching hair should even count as a 'touch'.
It's not really that controversial in the grand scheme. I mean it is, but it's just VAR being VAR. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
