Well that ball isn't moving and thus hasn't got any backspin, has it, so that's totally unrepresentative. However, it does illustrate one thing... that we need extra officials next to the goal on the goal line to better judge this and other matters.
So how do you call it a non-goal if you aren't 100 percent certain. Not calling it a goal is just as much of a decision as calling it a goal. If your standard is 100 percent certainty before making a call, what do you do if you're not sure if its a goal or not? Either way, you're making a call you aren't 100 percent certain of.
I believe those photos show that from 14 yards out with a ball that close to the line, there is no way of knowing whether it is fully over or on the line.
Wow, I am amazed at the logic of some posters. If you are uncertain you should not call it a goal. There is more of a concern rightly or wrongly with calling a goal that might not actually be fully over the goal line.
Jasonma, The ball is in play until it is called out of play. That is the only decision being made here. The AR asks himself if he saw the ball cross completely over the line. If he isn't 100% certain that the ball went out, he doesn't make that call and allows play to continue. The bottom line is that you don't award a goal unless you are sure that it was a goal. You call what you see, not what you don't or can't see. It's not as if the AR is working the game and constantly deciding that the ball is in. He is only looking for when the ball goes out.
Why? You just said you were uncertain if it was a goal. That also means you were uncertain that it was not a goal. Why is it better to disallow a legit goal than to give a non-legit goal? And I'm not saying that logic is wrong, but I want to know why its better to risk disallowing legit goals instead of allowing non-legit goals. Either way is a huge affect on the game.
Oh I don't know sorry for the sarcasm, but honestly, goals are pretty hard to come by in soccer. Most referees would agree that giving a goal that did not fully cross the line is worse than denying a legitimate one. When you make a decision you want to be certain that you are one hundred percent certain with what you saw and what you are calling. You as the referee can ask for assistance from your AR's and 4th official if they also are not certain how can you award a goal?
I am not a ref, so maybe this is something that's part of the rules that I'm not aware of, but are there actual rules that say something to the effect that "Unless you are 100% certain, every ball is in play"? I guess this is the difference between a theoretical physics discussion (Schrodinger's Cat anyone?) and a soccer game. To me saying "Call what you see, not what you don't or can't see" and then saying "If you aren't 100% certain, don't call it a goal" are contradictory. If you aren't calling the ball out of play (over the line/in the goal) you're calling it in play. Either way, you're making a call. If you're certain it was in (or out) fine, you've followed the guidelines of "Don't make a call unless your 100% certain", but what if you see a ball that you're not sure went over the line or not. Regardless of what you decide, you won't be certain of the call. Now if the actual rule/guideline from FIFA for AR's is "Call it in play unless you're 100% certain its out" then its an easy call. If that rule/guideline form FIFA doesn't exist though you've put the AR into a lose-lose situation. Whatever he calls he won't be 100% certain of.
There is a fundamental difference between not making a call and saying the ball didnt cross the line. The end result is the same, yes, but they are different. There's a logical fallacy built around this concept that I can't remember the name of. But the point is just because they end the same way doesnt mean the situation is the same. edit: I think it's called affirming the consequent. But lets say A is deciding that a goal was not scored, so B is not awarding a goal. If A then B; B, therefore A. is the situation you're suggesting, and it's not what happened. In this case it was C: Not sure, making C, then B.
I think the youth field you took the photos from goes slightly downhill obscuring the view of the ball, so it's not a fair comparison. Overall, ESPN's analyst coverage has been "ok" but instead of the useless segments where Lalas is on a field with animated players around him, you would think someone would have thought of this same demonstration to show the average fan something similar to what the AR would have seen. Instead, they keep replaying the same "high angle" view over and over showing what we already know. Great illustration.
Watch from about 20 seconds in... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63uWDa3kfXA"]YouTube- Germany v England - Lampard Goal[/ame] You can still see the spin on the ball as it bounces back up again. Quite honestly if people genuinely CAN'T judge the speed and flight of a ball and the effects of back-spin to THAT extent they probably shouldn't be refereeing anyway and CERTAINLY not at this level.
And your point is? The AR is certainly not in a position to judge if the ball is over the goal line fully.The views in the youtube video linked show the view if you were located even with the next to last defender 60 feet above the field. Not at field level running towards the goal line. Similarly, the same is true of the camera shot along the goal line. No official was in either of those two positions. There is also no camera shot from Larrionda's position in the clip from behind him to show what he saw. Did you bother to look at the photos posted by vetshak? You should, I believe they illustrate the point that from the AR's position there is no way you can tell if the ball is fully over the goal line. This play is an endorsement for goal line assistants and technology, not any failing of the referee crew.
Jasonma, I figured from your post that you weren't a referee, but that doesn't mean that you are incorrect in what you wrote. I see your point that a decision is being made either way, but viewing the situation in that regard reduces it to one of semantics. That's not how officiating works. I tried to give you the approach that referees are trained to take. Referees do not make calls for non-fouls and the ball being in play. What we could call a negative or passive decision. Referees only make a call and stop play when a positive happens. Meaning that the official can say, "Yes, that action was a foul," or "Yes, that ball crossed the line," and warranting that the referee team take action to stop play. While you won't find this written in the FIFA books, the training of referees is to only call that which they are sure about, and not to guess, so if they aren't sure that something illegal happened (including the ball going out of play) then they let it go and don't stop the action. I hope that helps you understand the mindset of the referees better. Now try putting yourself into the role of the official. On a play such as this you would ask yourself, "Did I see the ball go out?" If you can't definitely answer "yes" to that question, then you don't have a call to make.
I believe you're going for post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"). But no, that's not what I was trying to say. My point wasn't that since the goal wasn't scored he wasn't sure and made a call. If he was sure the ball didn't cross the line then don't call the goal and move on. My question was "What if he's not sure if it crossed the line or not?". He has to make a decision in that case based on what he saw. We've already stated he's not sure if it crossed the line or not, which also means he's not sure if it didn't cross the line. What should he do then, and why? Either way he's making a decision he's not sure of, so why choose one way over the other? Is there a FIFA directive on this? If not, the general opinion seems to be he shouldn't call it over the line, but why? Why favor not a goal over a goal in a situation when you aren't 100% sure one way or the other?
Did you bother to read my post regarding them? Not by the looks of it because I've already said they're with a stationary ball so aren't the same thing. The back-spin on the ball could still be seen AFTER the ball hits the ground. I'm not arguing.
Do you realize your argument is self-defeating? You have the luxury of looking at at a ball, in a still shot, that is not moving. Fandino has less than a second to see and process what you have the luxury of staring at for as long as you want, and you can't even tell if it's over the line! How do you think he could?!?! This boils down to your belief that a ball with backspin cannot hit the ground, then come back up and hit the crossbar again unless it has moved forward far enough to be over the line. I'm afraid you're going to need a physicist or differential equations expert to prove that. I'm positive it can. In fact, I saw it happen in a high school sectional final I worked two years ago. Kid tagged a free kick, hit the crossbar, ball came down, bounced back up off the crossbar and the keep grabbed it. I was the opposite AR, but the other AR was at the corner flag thanks to the defense putting a guy on one of the posts and saw it clean. No goal. He told us at halftime the ball did not completely cross the line. To paraphrase you, if people assume that the speed and flight of a ball and the effects of back-spin automatically qualify a play like this to be a goal, they probably shouldn't be criticizing referees anyway, certainly not at the World Cup level. I love that YouTube clip by the way... English announcers arguing, "If Lampard knew it was in, how could the referee crew not know?" If there is one thing I have never failed to appreciate, it's the unwillingness of the media to forgo its own bias in search of an honest story. Alas, my part of the state doesn't have any World Cup-caliber stadia, so I have to make do with what I have. Jasonma, I'm curious about what you are arguing. I can't really dispute a goal that is not awarded is any more of a problem than a non-goal that is awarded. The only thing I am arguing is that the crew could not be certain of the position of the ball. You don't seem to dispute that, so if we we assume you agree, do you think they should have awarded the goal, and if so, on what basis?
So its not a FIFA directive, but its the focus of FIFA referee training to go with the "not out/not a foul/status quo/whatever" side of the decision over the other when there's uncertainty in the call. Interesting. Thank you, that was the part I was unaware of. I'm not sure I follow FIFA's logic on that, but at least I know what the referees are trained to do in these cases. Given that, and the fact that even though he was in the right place he couldn't see the ball then the AR made the best call he could. Unfortunately it was the wrong one. I wonder if its opening a can of worms for FIFA to change the focus of those calls from "status quo" to "Which way you feel more confident of". That way if a ref is 90% certain of a call they call it, instead of not calling it because they aren't 100% certain.
You can't tell the position of the ball in the air regardless of spin. Not at that distance. The only point you can judge the location of the ball at the AR's position 14 yards from the goal line is when the ball hits the ground. the only way you can be sure of the actual position of the ball is standing at the corner flag or anywhere along the goal line.
Where did I say that? I didn't say that at all. I said THAT ball had backspin on it that meant it MUST have crossed the line because of the arc of the flight of the ball, the way it hit the underside of the bar which imparted heavy backspin, then the ground and then, with backspin still CLEARLY visible on the ball as it bounces back up, hit the crossbar again. It's a simple matter of psychics and, no... you do NOT need to be able to calculate the variables as a mathematician as otherwise footballers, (the bulk of which can barely string 3 words together let alone understand mathematics), wouldn't be able to play the game, would they So that's a ludicrous argument.
I think you hit on something here. but seriously, the study would be optics which is a branch of physics. I still submit to you that because of distance and no reference points to the goal line it is impossible to be certain all of the ball fully crossed over the goal line. The only shot the AR or referee have is the split second the ball bounces behind the goal line. Once the ball bounces back up you can't tell.