Help me out and remind me of geometry here... the crossbar and goal line are not parallel in this image. That means.... _________? In know the discrepancy in height matters. But does that mean that this camera is actually not directly over the goal line? It seems like it's slightly to the left of the goal line, which would mean that ball is actually more in play than it looks here. But this is where all the stuff I've forgotten with math would be helpful to know.
Something is wrong here. The back edge of the goalpost/crossbar does not line up with the outside edge of the goal line. Assuming the field is aligned correctly, the camera is a little to the left of exactly vertical, meaning that the ball is not as close to the edge of the line as it appears here. Judging by the position of the goal frame, the ball is in by almost half its diameter. And the AR would see the ball position relative to the goalpost, although his wiew may be obstructed by the sprawling legs of Japan #25. PH
I believe these cameras are deliberately placed on the inside of the goal line so that in cases like this the ball would appear more out of play than in reality. Meaning if you have any evidence that it is touching the line than it is really touching the line.
That is kinda stupid. Why not have the camera exactly aligned with the outside edges of the lines and posts? Then there is no guessing or extrapolating or worrying about paint splash or blade of grass variation. PH
I mean, FIFA could afford a couple extra cameras, but maybe this will be an excuse to add them. The NFL pylon cameras could be put in the posts on both sides of each post. Or SAOT in sure could be adapted to model the location of the ball because why not?
Someone posted this on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/za0zr4/sensors_in_the_official_world_cup_ball_confirm/ I'd like an official source though because does the FIFA SAOT system track the ball when apparently UEFAs didn't, and why does it look like a CL ball?
Exactly. And that’s why from our earliest days as referees we are taught that a) it’s the whole of the ball and b) unless you are 100% certain it’s out, you don’t call it. And as players we are taught to play until the whistle. In this day and age with the technology that we have there is no way AR2 should even be making a call here unless it’s so obviously out that he can see it even with the players and goal and net in his line of sight.
Looks like this camera angle is from the camera that is on wires above the field and moves with play. That would explain the odd angles with the goal and the line.
So this this mean that your call on the field is "inbounds"? I get what you're saying, but at the end of the day the AR has to make some sort of call to set the stakes for what VAR will review. I'm good here if you're saying that you would call "in" and have that be your call on the field. I'd probably say in as well, as I also want to be 100% sure the ball is out before raising my flag. But the AR has to make a call, one way or the other. VAR can't make the onfield call for him.
Yes. Absolutely my call on the field is that the ball is still in bounds / in touch. If I cannot clearly see that it has obviously and completely crossed the line, then there is no way for me to call it out of bounds. To do so would be to make a wild @SS guess. And the pressure to make a WAG now should be even lower for the WC because there is now the possibility that it can be reviewed.
I watched the replay and I believe the AR called the goal good. He ran all the way to the corner flag, watched the scramble, the ball scored and he ran just a couple yards up field. He clearly did not stay on the goal line and raise his flag to call the ball out( Some TV commentators said this but it's not true) If the AR had called the ball out you would have seen him raise his flag straight up and then point to the goal for the goal kick while staying on the goal line. This did not happen. The AR ran a couple yards up field and stopped. He did not run 8, 10 yards upfield either and I think because he wasn't 100% sure. I don't blame him, the distance he had to the ball with several players in between, noone could have told with 100% certainty one way or the other.
I wasn't watching this game--did the R make the VAR signal to signal the goal? That should only have been made if it was a reversal.
This was touched on in the pre-tournament press conference when an ex- professional referee from Spain asked Collina if SAOT could be used when the ball is the offside line. They kind of stumbled their way through the answer and seemed to indicate that the system (I think through the ball’s chip) provides the ball’s exact location, but the way they fumbled that answer didn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence in me. Also, if the ball’s chip provided its exact location, why did this review take so long? Does the system not provide the exact location of the outside of the goal line? That feels like something it would very much be capable of doing.
I hope more football fans can see that and understand. Way too many people on social media think the ball was out and mainly because they said they can see the green between the ball and the line!!
If you feel like inflicting undue mental anguish on yourself, take to Twitter and observe all the "people" complaining that these examples "make the ball look like it's in" because the camera is set directly above the line.
This is an outstanding point. I think your analysis is spot on. If the camera were directly over the goal line, the ball would appear "more in" the field of play. I'm convinced now the goal call is correct. Friggin' amazing......
As I understand it, that graphic is not official nor from FIFA or even Qatar--I saw it first on BeINSports Spanish broadcast postgame--which I think is the Peacock Spanish broadcast as well. Also I think the AR indicated goal, and Gomes went with that. A lot of refs in southern Africa don't "run up the line" for a goal but do this weird spin/pivot thing and face up field. I think this was that. I do think Guerrero needs to be recognized for sticking with that call (and even more so if Gomes had communicated goal/kick--again, I don't think that is what happened, but if it did, Guerrero looks even better). Villareal was the AVAR too. So well done all around, even if he just stayed quiet. This play reminds me of a VAR reversal in MLS this year. I'm pretty sure Chapman was the ref, the call on the field was the ball was in (either goal line or GK), and iirc the VAR/Chapman reversed. Anyway, the camera angel on that was about what this was, and the argument was if you could see that much grass between the line, it should be out. I don't think I was persuaded then, nor do I think many of the PRO refs were persuaded either. Obviously way fewer cameras in MLS.
If so, the R muddled things by making the VAR signal at the end, as it should have simply been a check complete and the restart taken.
I'm not 100% that Gomes/Pathsoane gave the goal...that's just what it looked like to me. Also, I don't think you are right on this. The VAR protocol for this WC says clearly that if a review is initiated (either a "VAR only" objective review, or the ref goes to the monitor), then the referee must make the VAR signal and then signal the final call, even if it matches the call on the field. The only time he would not make the VAR signal is if the VAR asks for a delay, and then says "check complete" wihtout a review. So iow, a check complete does not get a signal, but a "review" does get the VAR signal even if it ultimately ends up with the on field call. With the case of a boundary line decision like this, the VAR is well w/in principle to say first "checking" then, STOP THE GAME, DELAY THE RESTART, REVIEWING the goal line decision" because he/they need more time. Then after all of that, since it is an objective decision, say, "GOAL" in which case the R would signal VAR/goal. My point is that once the VAR initiates the review, the VAR signal is going to come out of this, not the "check complete." The reason to initiaite a review rather than prolong the check is to help the referee manage players. As long as they are checking, he needs both hands (one on ear, one holding players away). If it's taking longer than 30 seconds on an objective call, probably a good idea to move to "review." And if you go too far down the road of "Gomes muddled the call by making the VAR signal" I have this question: if the call on the field was a GK, is there even a VAR check? I mean obviously there is, but under what protocol? Protocol A. allows goal/no goal decisions to go VAR, but delayed flags leading to a goal are only allowable for "an offense" (such as offside or an attacking foul), not for a boundary line decision. If the call on the field is GK, then are you saying that the VAR protocol to allow a delayed flag for offside and then review the goal is also to be used for a boundary decision? Obviously in the dynamics of this play, VAR was going to be used. I'm just saying it is 100% neater according to the rules if the VAR is reviewing a goal, rather than a delayed GK signal. To be fair to both sides of this question though obviously given the game dynamic VAR was going to be involved and some decision was going to have to be sold after the VAR check (either way), so signaling the VAR square is super helpful.