Heinzesight
Full Member
Struggling to see any double hit.
I can’t see one from the replay. Not sure how they’ve made that call from seeing that.
That may be so but it couldn’t be see from the replay.The commentators I'm watching said they could hear it.
The commentators I'm watching said they could hear it.
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 moneyI can’t see one from the replay. Not sure how they’ve made that call from seeing that.
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
![]()
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
![]()
Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
Is that reason to disallow the goal? Doubt it.Probably difficult for it not to have touched his left foot given it ended up in that position.
This, it all seemed so quick and conclusive yet I’ve watched various angles about 10 times and still can’t see it!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.
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.
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.
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 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.