[Football] World Cup - Day Twelve

[Poojah]

Yes, I know the rule (all of the ball must be over all of the line and all that) and I've seen the pictures that clearly show that according to that rule the ball was in (OK then, not actually out if you prefer it that way!) - but to me, just looking at it logically - and according to the way it was when I played football back in the day - and for a fair few years after that too!) that would be well out!

Ah well, c'est la vie. The world's gone bat-shit mental - but I guess we all know that anyway!

Yep, would agree with all that. Technically the correct decision, and yet somehow the most controversial one at the same time. Had the goal remained disallowed, albeit wrongly, no one would have argued and no one would been talking about it now.

This is the age of microscopic officiating.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

 

[kojak]

Where's John McEnroe when you need him

 

[dazzer6666]

I don't know what it says, and I don't care either.

The fact they are drawing parallels with Wembley 66 is just delicious.

View attachment 154286

WM 2022: Millimeter-Drama um DFB-Aus! Diese Szene erinnert an Wembley

Dramatische Augenblicke beim deutschen DFB-Aus in Katar! Eine Situation im Parallel-Spiel erinnert an Wembley.

www.bild.de

Are they also comparing it with Lampard non-goal by any chance ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Simply because it would be a damn sight easier to adjudicate without the need for VAR. You don't need to have a bird's eye view to see if the ball is touching the line. You absolutely do if you have to determine if a part the ball is inside the line if you draw a horizontal line down from that point.

The VAR team also monitor the goal line technology so it wasn’t VAR that awarded the goal.

Unfortunately for Sheffield United, GLT failed them 18 months ago.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I thought that ITV's pundits had a poor game. Souness was outraged that the decision was given in Japan's favour whether it was right or wrong, and Eni Aluko said 'I shouted that it was out as soon as I saw it!' as if her opinion (which was proved wrong in any case) should affect the outcome in any way at all. Revealingly (and not for the first time) former players were shown to be ignorant of the laws of the game.

 

[Driver8]

Simply because it would be a damn sight easier to adjudicate without the need for VAR. You don't need to have a bird's eye view to see if the ball is touching the line. You absolutely do if you have to determine if a part the ball is inside the line if you draw a horizontal line down from that point.

What if the ball is in the air? Would it never be out unless it touched the ground?

I can’t see anything wrong with the current rule.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

So this just confirms for me that the rules need adjusting. The ball should be considered out if the midline crosses fully over the boundary ie the ball can no longer physically touch the line unless it is brought back into play. As it stands the ruling is correct as it complies with the rules

You are of course completely wrong.

You assume every time there's a close call the ball is on the ground, well it isn't. It's much harder to see and assess with the naked eye if the ball has half crossed the line, as you suggest, if it is in the air.

Too many people who fail completely to understand or indeed are ignorant of the laws of the game try to change something or make it up when it suits.

The ball was checked by the same cameras that monitor the line for a goal check. They say the ball was in, get over it. Having fixed cameras monitoring one thing is about the most certain decision we can have in the game.

 

[SK1NT]

Looking like a pretty dull evening

Famous last words

 

[Braggfan]

From the angles I’ve seen that ball was 100% out and I’d be in meltdown if it was given against the Albion. However as it knocked Germany out of the WC I am ecstatic, of course it was the right decision.

It's a weird one and I think I've changed my mind on it. When I first saw it, I thought it was 100% out. But on reflection, if that shot had been about waist high, the same process would have been applied and we'd all say, "fair enough, it was close but not all of the ball crossed the line." The big problem is looked out because the ball was on the ground and we could see the gap between the ball and the line. It's weird, but i think its an optical illusion. Having said that I can still see why people would grumble if it went against you.

 

[GT49er]

Problem is I suspect that when you played the lino was a sub and as often shown on here hardly anyone who plays or watch the game bother to understand the laws of the game. I feel sorry for grassroots refs for they are dealing with thicko's

I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?

 

[pb21]

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?

Same principle for corners isn't it? The whole ball over the whole line to be outside the quadrant, otherwise inside.

Penalty might be defined as a spot, rather than a line/area.

 

[GT49er]

Same principle for corners isn't it? The whole ball over the whole line to be outside the quadrant, otherwise inside.

Penalty might be defined as a spot, rather than a line/area.

It is now, but it wasn't!

 

[Austrian Gull]

I'm still trying to work out how Mitoma not only reached that ball but hooked it back in to the middle - incredible stuff!

 

[Bodian]

I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?

Law 9 hasn't changed since c1888 when it said that a ball on the line is in play, it's out of play when it crosses the touch line. Law 10 adds that a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line. That doesn't seem to have changed either.

So I guess what you're really talking about is the interpretation of 'touch line' and 'crosses' rather than the law/rule itself.

The current interpretation was being used in 1966, as the German press have reminded us today!

 

[herecomesaregular]

It's just the same as in tennis, can't see the controversy myself other than FIFA/VAR didn't immediately show a clear picture (as they do for goal or no goal). Souness was an absolute embarassment last night. We really need to get rid of so many ex players from years ago as pundits. All this "you have to have played the game to understand" nonsense.

 

[pb21]

Look at this angle, surprising to think that that it (probably) was in!

 

[raymondo]

Look at this angle, surprising to think that that it (probably) was in!

Definitely in...(not probably)

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?

Ball out of play law has never changed. There isn't any rule book and never has there been.

All the goal line technology has done is show where so many have been wrong over the years. As I posted previously the lack of knowing the laws of the game is shocking.

Another example of ignorance was when in an earlier game in the WC a player given offside and the game restarted in their own half. Players raising arms in disbelief. These professional players not understanding the offence happens when the player becomes active. If he has retreated into his own half from an offside position when the ball is kicked the offence is in his own half.

My other issue is throw-ins, there's numerous foul throws in a single game at the top level. Ones that you'll never get away with on a park on a Sunday morning. Never gets a mention by the commentators. One yesterday the player's back foot was nearly touching his backside it was that bad.

 

[GT49er]

Law 9 hasn't changed since c1888 when it said that a ball on the line is in play, it's out of play when it crosses the touch line. Law 10 adds that a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line. That doesn't seem to have changed either.

So I guess what you're really talking about is the interpretation of 'touch line' and 'crosses' rather than the law/rule itself.

The current interpretation was being used in 1966, as the German press have reminded us today!

Yes, but only Law 10 specified the whole of the ball; Law 9 merely specified 'crossing the line' - and it's only comparatively recently that the 'whole of the ball' has become the interpretation of Law 9. Certainly corner kicks had to be taken inside the quadrant, or at least touching the line.