R16 Analysis: GER-ENG - Larrionda (URU)

Any ball which strikes the crossbar and moves down and forward will have backspin. The question is how far forward it will move. You appear to believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that the ball would have to move forward far enough to cross the line, based on the fact that it struck the crossbar again when it came back up. As I mentioned in my last post, I was involved in a game where it did not cross the line and struck the crossbar a second time. All I can tell you that it is possible, what you claim we should assume cannot happen, I have seen happen.

I believe you mean "physics." Though odds are a psychic would have just as good a chance at determining if the ball crossed the line as the AR.

Curse you Alberto! Curse you and your quick message board responses!

That's oversimplifying it.

I'm saying that a ball struck with THAT much force, which hit the bar at THAT angle, (as shown when it moved down after the impact), which then hit the ground with THAT much backspin still visible on it and then hit the bar at THAT angle, (almost directly underneath), must have crossed the line when it hit the ground and probably by some considerable distance.

Of course, in case you think I'm saying I have some strange psychic, (or physic) powers to be able to judge these things... not at all

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1cbxpGGsdc"]YouTube- Penalty World Cup Germany 2006 Zidane vs Buffon[/ame]

I've seen that sort of stuff probably HUNDREDS of times over the years, including when I played myself.

... and will you be striking the ball yourself or will you get someone to do it for you?

BTW, don't forget to use a proper focal length lens as the shots vetshak gave looked like a typical electronic camera which has a SHORTER length lens and so makes things look more 'wide angle', (typically about 35-38mm in 35mm film terms), and thus things look further away. You'd have to have a focal length of about 55mm, (so slightly 'zoom' on most small cameras), to accurately reflect normal eyesight.

Of course. You have argued this point on this thread for several days, and I don't dispute that it is more likely that the ball did cross the line. But it's not 100%.

Zidane's penalty kick was hit softer than Lampard's shot and from a distance of 12 yards instead of 20. And even then, because it was a penalty kick, the AR was on the goal line and could make the proper judgment. They didn't award the goal because of the backspin... they awarded the goal because they could see it was over the line. I don't see how, because Zidane's penalty went in, this automatically means Lampard's shot went in.

I'm not saying that because Zidane's shot was in, this must be in. I'm saying that making a bald, simplistic statement that it's not possible to make judgements about where a ball will land based on trajectory, speed, spin and other factors, isn't logical.

I'm pretty sure I have never said that the AR can't make a goal call unless he is on the line. There are going to be times where the AR can be confident the ball has crossed the line, but it is going to be dependent on a number of factors.

Included are all of the things you have suggested (trajectory, spin, speed), but the confidence to be sure of your decision also depends on your position and the time available to make the decision. I think if circumstance had placed Fandino 4 yards off the goal line instead of 14, you probably would have seen him give the goal.

But just as it is not so simple to say that if he can't see it over the line, he can't award a goal, you can't also say, "Because of how the shot was hit and how it bounced, it must be."

While the ball didn't strike the crossbar, the infamous Roy Carroll incident from 2005 is another case of where most people appeared to know it was a goal, but the AR could not award it:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WevC_zuu2n4"]YouTube- Roy Carrol Blunder against Spurs[/ame]

Let's consider the physics. The AR probably can safely assume Carroll dropped the ball about a meter in front of the goal line. He has to dive backwards, extending his arm, to clear it. With his arm extended, he has to be over 2 meters, so if we apply physics, the AR "should" assume the ball crossed the line.

But this AR was even further up the line, his angle even more skewed. I recall seeing an interview with him after the season in which he plainly said, "I was getting there as fast as I could, I couldn't see it clean."

The laws of physics may increase the likelihood of a goal, but if there is doubt, then yes, the AR will not give the goal. To award a goal that wasn't based on the argument "It probably was in" will get you in much hotter water as a referee than not awarding a goal because your position made you less than certain the ball has actually crossed the line. Like it or not, that's how it is.

I think that you've got it now and understand the perspective from which the referee is approaching these situations.

The following isn't directly from FIFA, but it is from the United States Soccer Federation. It is a good example of the instruction which referees receive. Basically, it amounts to if you aren't 100% certain that something which would require a whistle or flag and stopping of the match, then don't make that call and let the game continue.
=======================
http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2009/08/2009-Referee-Week-in-Review-Week-23.aspx

"In the clip, there is NO offside infraction. Play should be allowed to continue.
The AR must be 100 percent positive the attacker is guilty of an offside infraction prior to raising the flag and signaling the offside infraction to the referee.
If the AR has doubt, U.S. Soccer guidance is for the AR to keep the flag down."

Well, that favors the offense, no call on a goal favors the defense. Apples and oranges, IMO.

So do you believe if it might be a goal, or if it probably is a goal, side with the offense and award the goal? Not judging, just curious.

But it's not about who it favors, it's about "if you're not sure, don't stop play."

By directive: they changed the offside law to favor the offense. First by ruling that "even is on" (for you youngsters that don't remember ).

Then by saying as above, if you are not sure on offside, keep your flag down.

I think the same rule should apply to favor the offense on goalline calls. If it is probably in, call it a goal.

OK, and if TV replays show it was not over the line but a goal has been given, then what?

Middlesbrough-West Ham Phantom Goal

The same thing as if replays show a player was a quarter step offside when he scores.

So you are OK with the goal that was credited in the clip that I linked to?

I'm never "OK" with a mistake, but I would prefer that being called a goal than Lampard's not being called a goal.

Well, thus the point about having goal-line refs for this and other incidents. I think we're all agreed about that, aren't we? I certainly haven't got a problem with it.

I never said it was a simple matter. TBH, you're the one that's trying to oversimplify it from my perspective.

Y'see, THIS is what I have a problem with. This idea that refs and AR's DON'T make judgement calls dozens of times a game.

First of all let's forget about this incident for a minute and get back to basics.

Imagine you're the linesman, (to use the term I still use, albeit incorrectly), and a ball is passed forward to an attacker running through from an onside position. Bear in mind we've all agreed you can't ACTUALLY look at two things at once so you can't assume the ball wasn't knocked back to the keeper by a player on his own team, i.e. it might not have been a forward pass by an attacker, it MIGHT have been a backpass by a defender, albeit a very poor one, obviously.

Now, how do you judge offside?

You have to make a judgement call, don't you. You glance back and forth between the play and the last defender and check where the attackers are and, if a ball is knocked forward you try and JUDGE where the man was when the ball was played.

I mean, we all KNOW that's what you so there's no point in denying it.

I worked for years with a fella called reg Foulkes who played about 400 games for Walsall and Norwich and one of his best friend was a referee and that's what he always said. You make a JUDGEMENT!!! What else are you gonna do!?!

Now, this is probably more difficult than that because we're interpreting the actions of a ball based on trajectory, impact, spin and the ball's reactions to those factors. I'm not saying it's necessarily EASY but to say you cannot, under ANY circumstances, make a judgement call is simply unrealistic.

Also, before you respond, let me stipulate a couple of things.

1. The statements of pundits are worthless. More than a few of them don't seem to even KNOW the laws of the game and, let's be honest, as ex-professional sportsmen, they're not, shall we say, exactly the sharpest tools in the box.
2. Players, unbelievable though it may seem, don't ALWAYS tell the truth. ;eek: Yes... shocking I know, but there we are. So the fact that Lampard KNEW it was over the line doesn't actually mean anything.

As I say, this isn't as easy as an offside in one sense, (you're not in line), but, in another sense it's easier because there's only the ball to consider.

Anyway, I think we've analysed the crap out of this one fellas... have fun

The Uruguain AR speaks -and it is not Fandino! (Mistakes are made - even on BS!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/05/frank-lampard-england-germany

Alas, I looked at Fandino's picture on the FIFA site and thought that he was the AR. Here I've been smearing his name all over the place... a thousand apologies...

These two are easily confused. Your mistake is understandable.

AR 1: FANDINO Pablo


AR 2: ESPINOSA Mauricio


Plus, AR 1 is always on the far side from the technical areas.

OK. Maybe I am being a bit facetious. Sorry, couldn't help it.

You did defend Fandino/Espinosa, when others wanted to skewer him, so it could be a lot worse.

Hey no prob for me.

When I read the article I linked I thought The Guardian had it wrong (!)

A simple check of FIFA's website confirmed the facts.