Refs and VAR at the World Cup

Lyricist

Full Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2012
Messages
4,166
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.
 


The new offside tech and visualisations should hopefully make some things quicker and clearer.
 
I still say the goalies arse was keeping him onside.
 
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?
 
DickDastardly said:
Still don't get it.

He wasn't off when the ball was struck from the free kick?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Have we seen conclusive footage that it's actually headed on and not just punched by the "keeper"?
 
Chief123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
DickDastardly said:
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....
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jev said:
Have we seen conclusive footage that it's actually headed on and not just punched by the "keeper"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chief123 said:
That header then goes to the player who is rightly offside.
Click to expand...
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.

keepers-arse.jpg


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.
 
68cob said:
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.

keepers-arse.jpg


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.
Click to expand...
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
 
Chief123 said:
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
68cob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
68cob said:
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.

keepers-arse.jpg


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.
Click to expand...
fetch
 
Chief123 said:
Even with the keepers arse in the equation, the players foot still looks offside. They showed the hawk eye visual to confirm it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jev said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:

harms said:
fetch
Click to expand...


For comparison the following image shows a goal that was ruled out for offside in the current CL season. Now that is some bullshit.
Collage-Maker-07-Sep-2022-10.47-PM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lyricist said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jev said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, pretty sure people complained about offsides all the time.
 
cyberman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Jev said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Jev said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
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.
 
Withnail said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
Withnail said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
68cob said:
If you take the keeper's arse out of the equation.

keepers-arse.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Berbasbullet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Withnail said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yep I don't disagree with this, and I thought there was going to be a 'margin of error' that allowed for these circumstances.
 
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.
 
Giggsyking said:
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.