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

I have a number of coaches I could provide as references regarding my generosity of spirit!

 

Back to the ball possibly hitting the cable.

Lots of “analyst” and wanna be refs quoting “outside agent” definition from the LOTG and the “outside interference” part of law 5, but in each of these examples, the interference “enters” the field of play. The cables are already fixed in place within the 3 dimensional space of the field.

Going back the old ATR which yes, we are technically not supposed to use but I still consider a valuable tool to logically thinking through the Laws and applying them, the ATR distinguishes between something entering and something that is fixed.

Under the ATR, a branch over hanging the field is fixed and impacts both teams equally. Therefore it’s not an outside agent or outside interference. It’s just there.

But if the tree falls or an advertising board tumbles into the field due to a gust of wind and interferes, we now have an outside agent under the laws.

 

I’m not sure they’re fixed because they move around as the camera moves

 

Whether the ball hit the wire to me is irrelevant. Norway screwing up the 2 v1 with the Big Guy being the 2 was the turning point. My advice to all aggrieved parties : Score more goals!

 

If this were golf it would be a temporary immovable obstruction. Free drop at the nearest point of complete relief.

 

Pending some clarification on the camera cable, I thought the ref crew did a respectable job.

 

but it IS totally relevant. Instead of going deep into englands half it dropped right to an england player with Norway positioned higher up the pitch for that deep kick, left vulnerable.

 

So where do you drop the ball and to who?

 

Am I the only one who absolutely has not seen a single replay that at all convinces me that the ball hit a cable? Is my eyesight just that bad?

All I see is a shot from a moving camera showing a ball with a lot of spin maybe moving a bit strangely through the air. But I also see the ball fall right to the foot of a player who was clearly not having any trouble tracking it -- and also, zero reaction from any of the players in the area that indicates something was amiss.

Combined with the graphic from the ball sensor showing no contact -- isn't the very obvious explanation that it didn't hit the wire, and there is just a bit of an illusion with the camera angle?

 

They are affixed to where they are mounted in the stadium. The cables exist and are known to all who are playing.

Anyway. It all generally depends on what guidance was provided to referees and presumably the teams.

 

I fully understand your sentiment. But having a 2v1, and blowing that and then having the poor GK (who I felt terrible for) spill the winner trumps ANY refereeing controversy. (And I wrote controversy with the English pronunciation).

 

I did like Turpin's explanation for reversing the PK decision: "stepped across" = simple and clear.

 

I just went back and watched the tv feed (which was a centerline view) in real speed, 1/2 speed and 1/4 speed, numerous times. I could not see a distinct change of direction in the ball. It maintained an arc the whole time, it didn't come close to going straight down. It maybe lost some momentum, but it's really hard to discern.

Regardless, of what the cable guidance is, I just don't see enough to take away England's goal.

 

I didn't realize they had First Year law school Tort final examinations on the referee certification test…

 

Well, Stu Holden was a player then and didn't need to know the Laws…

 

Mandatory starting next summer, isn’t it?

 

This reminds me of all the times I was coaching and it would start to drizzle. Kids would say, “Coach, it’s raining.” I said, “No it’s not — see, the Weather Channel app says it’s not.”

 

Wow, and then they post the heartbeat graph, that shows no touch. That's not good.

 

You guys must be just seeing things I'm not, because there's absolutely no way I can tell from this video if the ball changes trajectory or not.

 

Can redo the goal kick, perhaps.

 

those are different isolated events during the game. I’m not talking about those, I’m specifically mentioning the cable being struck by the ball. As a result, ball comes short and benefits England.

 

drop ball underneath where it hits the cable.

it was important enough that fifa put out a bogus statement that the sensor did not pick it up yet everyone can clearly see the ball dip once it strikes it

 

A goal being scored and everything that comes with it is essentially the lifeblood of the sport and they are determined to kill it.

I know we are so far removed from clear and obvious, but it's just wild how different this is from we were initially sold. Everyone on here obviously saw this coming, but it is still jarring.

 

Is this a new rule for the World Cup? That is a penalty every time in the Premier League and Champions League last season.