Match 99 [QF] : NOR : ENG - TURPIN (FRA)

There is one aspect to this debate that I would have expected to hear mentioned, but I haven't heard it:

I presume that the camera was on at the time, that it's on throughout the game. If the ball hit the wire, wouldn't the picture have been bumped at least a tiny bit? Wouldn't looking at that picture provide some indication of whether the ball did or did not hit the wire? Maybe this has been discussed and I've missed it.

 

I'm not very convinced that there is proof positive that the ball touched the cable. There are after all plenty of air currents in an open stadium.

 

Given the built in stabilization most cameras have these days I'm not sure a lack of any indication would tell us anything. Now if there's obvious movement that would mean something.

 

What value does spider cam have anyway? If it has potential to impact the match then get rid of them. We don't need them.

I don't think the ball hit it on this occasion. If it did then it makes Anderson an even better player than I realised to anticipate the flight of a deflected ball. Can you imagine the furore if that goal was disallowed? It was an excellent goal.

 

If you translate “steps in front of” in LOTG language, it’s called “trips or attempts to trip.”

 

Not strictly refereeing but a good piece (translate from Italian) on the supposed ‘Wire Cam’ incident. I can if understand people think it may have touched a wire, but let’s be honest if it’s inconclusive going on 48 hrs later then you really can’t have an issue with this in my opinion.

https://www.dday.it/redazione/58034...-quando-la-tecnologia-smentisce-la-tecnologia

 

Of course the ball also touched a wire in the build up to Norways goal........there Ive said it, its 'out there' now. I base my claim using the same proof that it happened as the Norwegians have used. You could argue that the 'snickometer' didn't register the 'touch' of the wire but its plain to see that this is just giving false readings anyway! Isn't it? Oh and also the ball didn't cross the goal line anyway because not once have I seen the goal line technology show that it did.

 

Is there any video that shows Norway stopped playing because the ball allegedly hit the wire?

 

No, because they didn't.

There is no video showing players stop. There is no video showing players react. There is no video showing players raise their hands right away to argue. All the videos show just the opposite.

And, for good measure, there's no video showing the ball hit the wire. No matter how many grainy, zoomed in, pixelated videos people have released, you can't see contact with a wire in any of them.

There's a really simple explanation: the ball didn't hit the wire.

 

There is literally video of the keeper pointing to the wire and exhorting to the referee. The still from it is in nearly every article.

Maybe it did hit it, maybe it didn't. But come on, man.

 

If you can link me to the video of any player reacting at the time the ball supposedly hits the wire, I'll happily eat crow.

I'll wait patiently.

 

That is irrelevant. Assuming the ball hit the wire, it changed the path of the ball, to England’s benefit when it landed in front of Anderson. Moreover the reaction of the players doesn’t matter. They often don’t immediately react when a ball hits the referee. Play is still dead. Same thing here.

 

And why are we assuming it hit the wire, when there is zero evidence of that?

(OK, I probably should have accepted by now that this discussion is futile.)

 

So if you step in front of someone 5 yards a way and he ultimately runs into your back have you tripped him?

Players have stepped in front of opponents to shield them from the ball in every match ever played. Have you ever watched Lukaku? He does it about a dozen time a game.

 

I was assuming arguendo that the ball hit the wire, in order to respond to your post.

 

Do we trust the keepers of the video?

From https://www.foxsports.com/stories/s...ersy-bellingham-goal-stands-bergs-called-back

Unfortunately, the first Fox video I found looks like it skips around between the immediate aftermath and halftime.

 

I'll say the same thing I say when coaches complain about one of my calls - that's not how I saw it. (Nor was it how VAR saw it.)

 

To me, there is a big difference between protesting after the goal, vs protesting right away.

People will protest and grasp at straws after every goal. And all at takes is one player who thinks it hits the wire (perhaps even genuinely) throwing his hands up to get the rest of the team to join in.

What I'm pointing out is that at the time the ball actually "hits the wire", nobody reacts at all. Even in the views that show the bench (which the Norwegian coach claimed erupted right away), you see zero movement. Not one person raises their hand, changes their run, or gives any sign at all that something is amiss. The players directly in the drop zone, tracking the ball, don't react in any way that indicates the ball made a surprising turn.

It's one datapoint -- among many -- to indicate that the ball did not in fact hit the wire.

 

i think the best evidence is the flight of the ball.
As Lowe points out, it seems to drop like a stone directly in front of Anderson (too bad it wasn’t John Stones, ha ha). Somebody also pointed out it was Nyland’s shortest goal kick of the match, landing barely beyond the halfway line. Not conclusive I agree, but the best evidence I’ve seen on whether the ball did hit the wire.

 

I think this is the best independent analysis that supports the ball was not deflected by a camera cable.

 

People in this thread and some of the journalist playing amateur Kineticists on Twitter need to read it, they might not change there opinion, but they wouldn’t be quite so confident in spouting there opinions as facts.

Unfortunately I think a number of TV networks jumped the gun, one being TSN in Canada who’s footage I’ve seen spread online, the graphics that appear to show a disrupted ball arc/flight are horrendous and I question how and who created them.

 

I like when these random guys come in here from elsewhere on the site for the WC and then quote other random guys that they make good points.

I wish Turpin had been a bit more descriptive in his explanation.

All he said was “after review the attacker put his leg in front of the defender without any foul. Final decision is no foul.” That is a pretty poor explanation.

What he should have said was something like “after review, the attacker stopped playing for the ball and instead changed his path, unnaturally stuck out his leg and deliberately stepped sideways/backwards into the path of the defender in order to draw contact. Final decision is no penalty” (and the preferred restart should have been a free kick for Norway for impeding with contact or tripping).

This might be a language barrier thing, or some refs just don’t want to give good explanations. Usually the refs who speak English very well give nice explanations. These are the types of descriptive announcements that would make them worthwhile

 

They would have needed to have taken another "hydration" break for all that…

 

Right, but that would at least make the announcement somewhat better explain WHY a decision is being overturned. Saying “he put his leg in front and it’s not a foul” doesn’t say crap, as evidenced by the few people I quoted equating this to other completely unrelated decisions because of how non descriptive he was