Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Matanovic hair 'touched' the ball according to the chip technology inside the ball, 'Snicko', meaning it left Pasalic in an offside position.
But Hair is only considered part of the body if the trajectory or movement of the ball is altered according to FIFA's own rules.... it did not change whatsoever as multiple angles show.
Not only was Snicko was only showing a single spike on it's graphic from the apparent hair touch (which did not alter the ball in any way), it also did not show the other spikes from the other touches in the 2-3 seconds from when the ball was crossed in, unless they show that in line or overlayed with footage then it just looks like a blatant commercial decision, i.e. Ronaldo in the next round makes us more money. The spike could have been from any of the other touches in that short burst of play.
Have you ever heard the like, an offside given in the 90+13 minute because the ball brushed a single strand of a players hair according to a microchip, which did not change the balls direction meaning the 'contact' means nothing anyway but offside is still given
WALOFS
Kind Regards.
But Hair is only considered part of the body if the trajectory or movement of the ball is altered according to FIFA's own rules.... it did not change whatsoever as multiple angles show.
Not only was Snicko was only showing a single spike on it's graphic from the apparent hair touch (which did not alter the ball in any way), it also did not show the other spikes from the other touches in the 2-3 seconds from when the ball was crossed in, unless they show that in line or overlayed with footage then it just looks like a blatant commercial decision, i.e. Ronaldo in the next round makes us more money. The spike could have been from any of the other touches in that short burst of play.
Have you ever heard the like, an offside given in the 90+13 minute because the ball brushed a single strand of a players hair according to a microchip, which did not change the balls direction meaning the 'contact' means nothing anyway but offside is still given
WALOFS
Kind Regards.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 32
|
By:
im a bit lost tbh, the scorer was in an clear offside position , whay was the problem? he could only be onside in that position from a deliberate pass back which it wasnt, so imo opinion definetly offside , please enlighten me
 |
|
By:
I can’t find a decent video of the incident. I presume the player was onside when the initial ball was played in, but offside when the ‘flick’ happened? No flick it’s a goal? That flick counts as a pass.
|
|
By:
Newton's Third Law of motion — Action and Reaction
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. |
|
By:
obviously bent VAR decision, same with senegal who were robbed too
|
|
By:
obviously bent VAR decision, same with senegal who were robbed too
|
|
By:
Goal should have stood.
If VAR cannot see a clear and obvious error within 60 seconds then there is no clear and obvious error, and there wasnt. |
|
By:
And where Ronaldo is concerned, lets not forget this:
Cristiano Ronaldo will likely avoid missing any Portugal games at the 2026 World Cup despite his red card in a qualifying game for elbowing a Republic of Ireland opponent. FIFA published a disciplinary verdict Tuesday that imposed a three-game ban, which judged Ronaldo's action as "violent conduct" or "serious foul play," but with two of those games deferred for a one-year probation period. - never happened ever before this!! Ronaldo served a mandatory one-game ban when Portugal played its final qualifying game last week -- a 9-1 win over Armenia that sealed their place at the World Cup in North America. The superstar had been expected to be banned for at least one more game and start what will be his record sixth World Cup on the sidelines. FIFA cited its disciplinary rules that allow for parts of a sanction to be probationary, though it is rare in cases of a three-game ban for two of them to be deferred. In two cases judged by FIFA this month, players from Armenia and Burundi were banned for three games after getting red cards for acts of aggression in World Cup qualifying games and neither got a reduction on probation. Cristiano Ronaldo can play in the first game of the 2026 World Cup. "If Cristiano Ronaldo commits another infringement of a similar nature and gravity during the probationary period," FIFA said in a statement, then the remaining two games will be activated. Ronaldo swung an arm and struck Ireland defender Dara O'Shea with an elbow during a 2-0 loss in Dublin two weeks ago. It was Ronaldo's first red card in what was his record-extending 226th international appearance. He has been sent off 13 times at club level. FIFA said its disciplinary verdict of "the three-match suspension is subject to appeal to the FIFA Appeal Committee." It was unclear who could have legal standing to challenge the verdict, and if that might be the soccer federation of Ireland or Portugal's opponents at the World Cup. The FIFA verdict comes six days after Ronaldo met U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House for a formal dinner with Saudi Arabia's crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. Ronaldo has played in the Saudi Pro League for three years for a club majority-owned by the Saudi sovereign wealth that the prince chairs. |
|
By:
Shambolic. Felt for Croatia. Deserved extra time.
|
|
By:
2pts I'm not sure about yet.
- Only one 'snicko' is on the graph, yet it hits two or three players. - It comes off the back of Veiga's (13) neck before going to the Croatia player. It is deemed accidental, yet bending down to try and head a ball is surely a 'football move'? |
|
By:
You are taking the Croatia player's word for it that it only touched his hair. FFS. The tech shows more than that and they went with it. How do they make more money if Ronaldo is in the next round?
|
|
By:
No I'm not...FFS
There's 2 points. The angles show no part of the ball touched no part of his head. More importantly, all angles show the balls movement and trajectory did not change once it passed Matanovic from the cross, the spin and direction of the ball continued as normal, therefore according to FIFA rules, the hair is not deemed to be part of the body, i.e. touching a strand of his hair as detected by a chip is irrelevant, (not to mention without showing us the spikes in the graph from the other touches overlayed with real time footage to show this spike was the correct one anyway) Pasalic would have been deemed to have been offside if it had been deemed that Matanovic 'hair' had not been apparently touched the ball as he was onside from the initial delivery of the ball. Putting the technicalities of this aside, is this what VAR has actually come to, using a microchip inside a ball to detect thee most almighty of faintest of touches of a players hair to rule out a goal in a World Cup match? |
|
By:
What is now needed to deal with VAR
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
They should definitely have shown a longer audio line to prove the sounds match up properly...
As Mes' says there wasn't any (and I mean ANY) discernible change in spin or trajectory of the ball which would have clearly indicated a touch.. regarding the players initial position, he was clearly onside at the time the cross being made for those querying that...will post the pic if BF allow  |
|
By:
Having put a chip in the ball they cannot choose not to use it
for a minor touch. These are the things they build into the game without thought to consequences Premier league would simply check club badge and get on with it. |
|
By:
The whole shebang Needs to Scrapped ,I hope our lads are getting hair cuts before Monday Morning
Igor has said he thought he felt a slight touch on his HAIR , it has made no difference what so ever to the play I would like to know where the Extra minutes came from |
|
By:
VAR only showed the ref the replay from side on where you can clearly see the onside/offside but that was never in question and from that angle it's impossible to see anything about whether the attacker touched the ball. They never showed the ref the replay from behind the goal line where you can see the contact/non-contact much more clearly including the spin of the ball. From that angle it would also show much more accurately whether or not snicko matched up exactly with the pictures. What they did would be the equivalent in cricket of showing snicko from the boundary camera behind the wicketkeeper and never from side on as the ball passed the bat.
|
|
By:
The chip tells him it's a touch.
Surprising ref went to monitor, it's offside even if it's an insignificant touch of his hair. Var decision, nowt to do with ref. |
|
By:
VAR = A load of old follicles
|
|
By:
That snicko spike proved nothing, I expected to see a flat line moving across the screen until it hit the centre line where I expected to see the spike happen, which I assued would be the point it hit the player's hair or head, but the spike was present the whole way across the graphic, so what the hell are they showing us.
They ran the snicko graphic in conjunction with the replay of the ball bushing the player but the spike was already present on the graphic before it brushed the player so it could have been from the player crossing the ball, total mess, total farce. |
|
By:
If the chip is that sensitive what about the ball colliding with insects?
|
|
By:
It it was deemed there was no touch from Matanovic's hair, that would have meant the goal was onside, because as the ball was played in, at that point, Pasolic was onside, that's why the hair 'touch' is the most critical moment, as when his hair 'touches' it, at that point Pasolic is offside.
More to the point, I haven't seen any movement from any angle, that shows the ball's spin, movement, trajectory, direction, whichever way you want to look at it, changing in any way whatsoever, that means according to FIFA's rule, the hair at the point is not deemed to be a part of his body, therefore the goal should stand. Even putting all of that aside, are we really all taking it as red, that this incredibly sensitive microchip is accurate? if it's detecting the faintest of faintest of touches/interactions with hair strands, then what's to say it's not detecting contact with anything else in the air such as moths, flies, etc? Either way VAR was surely not brought in for this nonsense and it's not somethings fans want to see, goals ruled out due to microspoic inspection of contact between a hair and a ball FFS. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
Exactly mes, but that's the route they have chosen.
The spike is the spike, and they run the film to match it. Not quite cricket snicko methodology, where they do it other way round. |
|
By:
Yet another incident when the interpretation of the evidence leaves a lot to be desired.
Grassy knoll etc etc. |
|
By:
Rules are Rules... Dunno what the fuss is all about. Dry your eyes mes..
|
|
By:
Should have shown the entire sound graph from freekick being struck to ball going in net,generally little confidence in this tech, should have been and there might well be an example of the techs capabilities, ie the ball being knocked around, picked up, bounced, tapped ect even shouted at to show the parameters of its capabilities.
Not introduced in the mannor it was. Comms failure imo. |
|
By:
friutfly....
mosquito dragon-fly... |
|
By:
The real issue is the people running the VAR. Thick as pig shiit.
|
|
By:
Norbert's right.
The inconsistencies are all in the people interpretating VAR. |
|
By:
VAR was supposedly brought in to sort out Clear & Obvious mistakes. If the ref hasn't got a Snickometer how can he possibly make a mistake? Who is actually reffing the game?
|
|
By:
you just know that some 12 year old kid who lives in his bedroom is at this very moment training up an AI agent on the basics of the handball rules and in a few months from now will have an AIVAR fully up and running.
It's coming. |
|
By:
Spot on, Chewy.
|