Refs and VAR at the World Cup

Lyricist

Full Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
3,865
Location
the booth
You have to say, not an easy first half of the opening game for the refs in terms of fouls and especially with that early Ecuadorian goal that didn't stand as well as a penalty.
But they've performed brilliantly so far. Got all the big calls spot on. Maybe 1 yellow less for Ecuador would've been good but overall that offside goal was not an easy call to make and they pulled it off.

Lets see if they can keep it up or if it all goes to shite now.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
30,553

The new offside tech and visualisations should hopefully make some things quicker and clearer.
 

68cob

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
277
I still say the goalies arse was keeping him onside.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
22,431
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
I'm not sure that should be an offside anyway. He's in line with the defender and his leg is closer to the end line but the ball is behind him. It hardly constitutes an advantage to the attacker, now does it?
 

Chief123

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
8,989
Still don't get it.

He wasn't off when the ball was struck from the free kick?
It’s not from there. It’s from the moment it hits the guys head when he jumps with the keeper for the ball. That header then goes to the player who is rightly offside.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,568
Location
Denmark
Have we seen conclusive footage that it's actually headed on and not just punched by the "keeper"?
 

DickDastardly

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
4,233
Location
Mean machine 00
It’s not from there. It’s from the moment it hits the guys head when he jumps with the keeper for the ball. That header then goes to the player who is rightly offside.
Ah.

He's not even jumping right? He's off when the other guy is jumping? Then the ball falls down and up again and then he jumps and heads it to the scissors guy?

Complicated shit.

Kinda looks like they were really searching for something and then finally found it....
 

Chief123

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
8,989
Ah.

He's not even jumping right? He's off when the other guy is jumping? Then the ball falls down and up again and then he jumps and heads it to the scissors guy?

Complicated shit.

Kinda looks like they were really searching for something and then finally found it....
To be honest by the letter of the law it’s probably offside.

It looked like the keeper punched the ball onto the opponents head. At that point of contact, the next person to receive the ball was the other Ecuador striker who’s leg was offside at the point of contact. So I can see why they gave the offside.
 

redom

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
1,543
Have we seen conclusive footage that it's actually headed on and not just punched by the "keeper"?
From the footage I've seen so far it looks like the keeper may have punched it onto the attackers head which I think would still be offside but my main gripe is that I think the keeper is the relevant player in the offside discussion and not the Qatar defender because looking at the point of the freeze frame for converting to the 3d graphic it looks like the keeper is further back and also seems to have his leg extended behind him but without further angles or his inclusion in the 3d model it's hard to definitively say.
 

68cob

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
277
That header then goes to the player who is rightly offside.
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.



His toe may have been beyond the keeper, but it's strange that GK isn't shown in their image as the defender's position makes it an easier decision.
 

Chief123

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
8,989
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.



His toe may have been beyond the keeper, but it's strange that GK isn't shown in their image as the defender's position makes it an easier decision.
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
 

68cob

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
277
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
I understand that, but why use the defender as the point of reference. This frame is the reference frame they show and as it converts to the hawkeye image, the goalie is taken out, even though he is further back than the defender. It's like saying a ball has hit a defender's hand as he goes to ground and ignores that he has dribbled it with his other hand.

End result makes up for it in the end.
 

Chief123

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
8,989
I understand that, but why use the defender as the point of reference. This frame is the reference frame they show and as it converts to the hawkeye image, the goalie is taken out, even though he is further back than the defender. It's like saying a ball has hit a defender's hand as he goes to ground and ignores that he has dribbled it with his other hand.
Ok I see what you mean.

Yeah it seems strange they used the defender as the reference point on the hawk eye image and removed the GK. It makes me wonder whether hawk eye hasn’t been designed to factor in situations where the goal keeper is the last point of reference which if it is the case, is a major flaw. I wonder if it would have still been flagged as offside if GK did keep him onside.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
26,615
Location
Moscow
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.



His toe may have been beyond the keeper, but it's strange that GK isn't shown in their image as the defender's position makes it an easier decision.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,568
Location
Denmark
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
The fact we're even discussing it is ridiculous. Nobody, not a soul, would have been complaining if that goal had stood before VAR was introduced. It was meant to rectify mistakes, not to split hairs. The toe-nail offside was invented by VAR. Does anyone think that has improved the game.
 

Lyricist

Full Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
3,865
Location
the booth
The fact we're even discussing it is ridiculous. Nobody, not a soul, would have been complaining if that goal had stood before VAR was introduced. It was meant to rectify mistakes, not to split hairs. The toe-nail offside was invented by VAR. Does anyone think that has improved the game.
It would've been a mistake by the refs had that goal stood, although it was difficult to spot. It is offside.

There are toe nail offsides and then there's this:


For comparison the following image shows a goal that was ruled out for offside in the current CL season. Now that is some bullshit.
 
Last edited:

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,568
Location
Denmark
It would've been a mistake by the refs had that goal stood, although it was difficult to spot. It is offside.

There are toe nail offsides and then there's this:
What I'm saying is, five years ago, if some sore loser had posted that screengrab in order to prove his team was cheated, people would have been laughing at him. It would have been considered desperate. Nobody would do that because we all knew it would be silly and not in the spirit of the game.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
29,947
What I'm saying is, five years ago, if some sore loser had posted that screengrab in order to prove his team was cheated, people would have been laughing at him. It would have been considered desperate. Nobody would do that because we all knew it would be silly and not in the spirit of the game.
No, pretty sure people complained about offsides all the time.
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
6,568
Location
Denmark
Plenty of offsides. To the point people who were inside were flagged off and we were told it evens out (it doesn’t) over a season.
I'm not saying offside mistakes didn't happen and that people weren't complaining about them. But you simply didn't have people scientifically studying and complaining about these toe-nail offsides that VAR regularly overrule. Did not happen.
 

redom

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
1,543
Having seen various angles and stills it's pretty clear now that it was offside, the keeper jumping like that and the angles they chose to transition to the 3d graphic made it unclear if they had mistakenly left the keeper out of the equation but it seems like it was just an optical illusion that he was further back than the defender so no qualms from me for disallowing it.
 

Chief123

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
8,989
The fact we're even discussing it is ridiculous. Nobody, not a soul, would have been complaining if that goal had stood before VAR was introduced. It was meant to rectify mistakes, not to split hairs. The toe-nail offside was invented by VAR. Does anyone think that has improved the game.
It would have been discussed even more if it was a goal. Not immediately but soon enough it would have been clarified that it should have been offside and then VAR and the new Hawkeye would have been brought into scrutiny for being flawed on its very first outing.

The correct decision was made. What else do we want?
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
22,431
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
The fact we're even discussing it is ridiculous. Nobody, not a soul, would have been complaining if that goal had stood before VAR was introduced. It was meant to rectify mistakes, not to split hairs. The toe-nail offside was invented by VAR. Does anyone think that has improved the game.
The toe nail off-side is particularly silly in this situation when he had to move back in opposite direction to head the ball. There was no advantage gained from being offside.
 

68cob

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
277
I really can't see how they can say with enough certainty that this decision was offside for the ref's decision to be overturned. The defender they used in the original graphic they broadcast would have been almost stationary, along with the attacker. Where as the goalie would have been travelling and I can't see how they decided his arse had passed the attacker's knee at the time of contact. The image @harms (and cheers for that) posted gives an idea, but it doesn't look right to me. But, at least no team has been knocked out of a competition for it ... on this occasion.
 

Andersonson

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
2,703
Location
Trondheim
The ref and VAR was spot on. A lot of people claimed bruke the minute the offside was called but it was correct. And the ref didnt hesitate with the penalty either.
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
16,671
The toe nail off-side is particularly silly in this situation when he had to move back in opposite direction to head the ball. There was no advantage gained from being offside.
I take your point, but refs cant pick and choose which offsides to call based on if they're a little silly or not. Otherwise they're deliberately influencing games and being biased.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
20,932
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
I dont understand moaning about these types of offsides. It's offside, plain and simple. One of the only rules in football that isnt insanely open to interpretation. I hate that it delays celebrating a goal or doing it in vain, but offside is offside.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
120,897
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The toe nail off-side is particularly silly in this situation when he had to move back in opposite direction to head the ball. There was no advantage gained from being offside.
You see that all the time though. A striker coming back to play a ball from an offside position. When he touches the ball he’s miles onside but gets given offside because of his position when the pass was played. It feels silly then too but is never controversial.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
120,897
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.



His toe may have been beyond the keeper, but it's strange that GK isn't shown in their image as the defender's position makes it an easier decision.
I wonder if it’s a glitch in the tech that doesn’t track the keeper because he’s not usually relevant to an offside call? Bit embarrassing, if so.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
22,431
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
I take your point, but refs cant pick and choose which offsides to call based on if they're a little silly or not. Otherwise they're deliberately influencing games and being biased.
I'm not saying they should and I'll take a couple of silly situations rather than introducing more subjectivity into it.

However, while Hawkeye is welcome I'm not sure going back to toenail offsides is a good idea. If, for example, the majority of your torso is in line but you leaning sightly forward and he's leaning sightly back is that really offside in the spirit of the law?
 

Berbasbullet

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
16,671
I'm not saying they should and I'll take a couple of silly situations rather than introducing more subjectivity into it.

However, while Hawkeye is welcome I'm not sure going back to toenail offsides is a good idea. If, for example, the majority of your torso is in line but you leaning sightly forward and he's leaning sightly back is that really offside in the spirit of the law?
Yep I don't disagree with this, and I thought there was going to be a 'margin of error' that allowed for these circumstances.
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
4,984
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
I have to retract, I was certain at first it was onside because I overlooked that there were two different players heading the ball, so I accused the VAR officials unrightfully. Appologies to them, and good refereeing as the rules are.

On another note, I agree with those that think that it is a completely silly offside not really in keeping with the intention of the rule.
 

68cob

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 24, 2022
Messages
277
Yes, we know what was shown on TV and that is what we have to accept.
Looking at Harms image again, the line marking the defenders toe actually cuts through the goalie in my view, but you'll be glad to hear, I'm not wasting anymore of my 5(?) posts on this :D
 
X