Struggling to see any double hit.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
The commentators I'm watching said they could hear it.
It looked clear to me. After his right foot hits it, it hits against his standing foot which had slipped.
That may be so but it couldn’t be see from the replay.
Do European balls have touch detectors for the automated offsides? Would be obvious from that.
It is the rules but that seems such a harsh consequence for something so clearly unintentional.
Daredevil on co comms?
VAR have access to a lot more images than we do. As for why tv don't get to show whatever VAR is watching to decide, the answer is money
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
Yeah but you need definitive proof to overturn a call with VAR. Else the original decision stays, as per rules. There's no proof of a double touch, not in any of the replays that have leaked so far.
Boohoo. If he slipped and skied it nobody would talk about it. Atletico have been cheating for a decade and had ball boys throwing on extra ball for every Real restart tonight. Presumably in this case it was all about small margins - so tough shit if you don't like this small margin.
Their performance at Old Trafford years ago sickened me and they don't deserve a CL playing as they do.
Their performance at Old Trafford years ago sickened me and they don't deserve a CL playing as they do.
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
That's a fair thing to say, but unless they have better proof than that, it absolutely should not have been disallowed.
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
Only because we're looking at a still image, after initial contact has been made and during the slip. I can put one foot in front of a ball and then lift it over with my other foot without it touching. Still images prove nothing.
At this stage of the European Cup, there would need to be conclusive evidence of a double touch - not merely a likelihood. That would need to be unequivocal video evidence or else sensor data that could not have been caused by turf under the slipping foot interacting with the ball.
I find it very difficult to believe that they saw and analysed such irrefutable evidence in the 10 seconds it took to make the call, and that they haven't immediately made it available to TV networks.
Is that reason to disallow the goal? Doubt it.
This, it all seemed so quick and conclusive yet I’ve watched various angles about 10 times and still can’t see it!
Scratching my head over that, it was glossed over during the game with a couple of replays that didn't show anything conclusive. Not like he gained any advantage by slipping anyway.
Absolute joke of a decision to disallow that goal without an extensive VAR review. But, after witnessing Atletico's shithousery at Old Trafford two years ago, I have zero sympathy for them.
You get a better idea in the video below, but if you were able to put your feet in those positions and completely clear your left foot with a shot from that close it would be a bit of a miracle strike. The odds that it didn't make any contact with his left foot are extremely low.
But despite that, I agree. I think they should need definitive proof, and "extremely likely" isn't quite that.
considering that VAR has taken 5 minutes to make a decision on other (more obvious) things, that VAR check for the penalty was quite quick and conclusive
Because he slipped and his action is wrong, you can't rule out him sort of scooping it over his foot.
Unless they have some magic technology it seemingly impossible to be 100% certain he double kicked it. Hell I'd say even 50% certain!
This is the best angle and resolution I've seen (mute it first):
This is the closest I've seen to evidence for a double touch but even at that, I don't think you can definitively say it's his standing/slipping foot that hits it and not the turf between that foot and the ball.
This is the closest I've seen to evidence for a double touch but even at that, I don't think you can definitively say it's his standing/slipping foot that hits it and not the turf between that foot and the ball.
Irony is when a keeper does a mistake and jumps the line…its a retake because he gains an unfair advantage. If they deemed this gaining an unfair advantage too, surely the logical thing to do then is a retake?
Yeah hits with his left first, way this thread reads is as if he hit it with his right then it hits his left.
This is just now coming to my attention. Effin hell there is a demon god out there watching over Real. There is nothing wrong with that pk whatsoever.
Imagine it was Real going out for a decision like this? They'd boycott the Balon D'Or and Champions League draw ceremonies for the next 50 years.
I couldn’t for the life of me see any double hit in any of the replays…but after seeing that replay you can see it. Thanks for posting.
Are you allowed to kick the ball with both feet if you hit it at the same time?
VAR has honestly made football unwatchable for me, ruined it
Bonkers stuff. The ball didn’t move. But too bad for an ex citeh player!!
You can do this for a free kick.
“A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously.”
It doesn’t specify it either way for a penalty but it would be reasonable to assume the same is allowed.
On that basis VAR need to be able to evidence that the ball was hit at separate times. The replay from Reddit above only shows the contact by both feet at the same time. I’d hope that VAR haven’t simply looked for the double contact. Obviously would expect VAR to have better frame rates to determine this.
I was exactly the same!
It was a call that was heavily scrutinized—it may seem a bit harsh, and Alvarez might appear extremely unlucky, but it is undeniable that he slipped and that his left foot did make contact with the ball. In the VAR room, they have numerous cameras and can see the angles and footage far more clearly than we can.
However, VAR should provide better evidence or a clearer angle for viewers at home, especially regarding the moment of contact with the ball.
However, VAR should provide better evidence or a clearer angle for viewers at home, especially regarding the moment of contact with the ball.
Agreed - it's not decipherable frame-by-frame to the point it's 'clear and obvious' for me which is what VAR is supposed to be for.
Does the clear an obvious apply to VAR checks for pens?
Presumably they check them all for infringements like double contact, the goalie leaving his line etc as a matter of course which would fall outside of the clear and obvious process.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought VAR was there to inform the referee to change their mind if it can definitively prove that the on-field decision is the wrong one?
I'm still struggling to see how any replay of the Alvarez penalty definitively proves the on-field decision was wrong - unless there's a sensor in the ball which can detect touch? It would be a similar case had the referee decided to disallow the goal there and then - one of those which the camera angle and quality can't really prove either way.
I'm still struggling to see how any replay of the Alvarez penalty definitively proves the on-field decision was wrong - unless there's a sensor in the ball which can detect touch? It would be a similar case had the referee decided to disallow the goal there and then - one of those which the camera angle and quality can't really prove either way.
No chip in the ball in UEFA competitions.
Then I don't see how the videos can definitely prove that the referee's on-field decision to allow the penalty to stand was incorrect.
I can only think that VAR has access to a much cleaner image and at a higher frame rate than the ones we've been given. I *think* I can see movement a frame or two before he strikes the ball (there is a sort of sideways blur), but I would never be able to swear to it. In the first angle from behind I also thought I could see a slight rotation prior to the main kick. It's just so fleeting that, for me at least, it's difficult to be sure.