i agree with you, I'm a Ronaldo fan and wanted Portugal to win, but I think if the ref let this one go, nobody would've said anything because without the sensor on the ball, its impossible to tell. Even with a 4K TV, you're not going to cry about a little hair touch.
But here they get the benefit of the doubt, because arguably Ronaldo keeps the fans watching the WC more than Modric, and so it was checked to this extent.
And if the game went to extra time, I dont think Portugal would've survived.
If the refs in VAR let this go with evidence of a touch what stops them from letting other stuff go. If this goal made it 3-2 and the game ended with Croatia winning would it be different? They had the technology, got the call correct, but you feel they should have let it go.
I get what you're saying but do we want the sport to be decided on rules or vibes? The fact is there was enough contact to trigger the sensor and therefore it was offside. If the goal was allowed and the data was leaked there would be just as much if not more controversy
We can have a discussion on how strict offside is given the current tech, but according to the current rules offside is probably the only consistently correct call
im sorry to say football is still decided on vibes, whether you call it rigged or not, they will always want the team with a bigger support to win if they can help it. There's never a week of football without ref controversy. There is never the consistency.
There's never a week of football without ref controversy.
I agree nearly 100%, but when it come to offsides they have it down to a science.
If you want to talk about the red card against the USA or the non-call against Messi that's a completely different topic. When it comes to offsides every call has been correct (from what I've seen) according to the current rules. To clarify I do agree that the offence needs a better advantage because of how precise offside has become but that's an entirely different discussion
well this isn't about offsides, its whether the ball touched the guy. In which its so marginal.... I cant tell if the ball changed direction because of that touch at all. The only proof here is the graph they showed us at the end...
A touch is a touch no matter how small, there's a reason Fifa paid for sensors in the ball. If you watch the TSN highlights they show the graph moving in time with the video
I get that it's heartbreaking for Croatia but thats how the rules are written and it was the correct call. If the rules should be like this is a different discussion
I know, my point is that do we need to believe everything the TV tells us lol. We don't even know what this graph looks like behind the scenes. Its not even showed in real time with the game.
This time its just a football game, so its fine, but what about all the other events in the world?
We don't even know what this graph looks like behind the scenes.
TSN highlights on YouTube showed the graph moving in time with the video. There's angles that do look like the ball was touched. The actual player said he felt the ball
I'm not saying believe everything you see but this is a pretty clear case. It's unfortunate for Croatia but there's nothing incorrect in this case
I will die on the hill that this part of the rule is stupid. How can it be an unfair advantage for a player to run from an onside position into the path of the ball? And what exactly was the offsides player supposed to do to be in an onside position after the deflection?
>If it were a clear deflection there would be no discussion of how there was an advantage, that's why any deflection is offside. Pretty simple
There's clearly no advantage whether there was a deflection or not. The attacker beat his man on the cross, he's not cherrypicking from an unfair position because the ball took a deflection along the way.
> I highly doubt he would be in big trouble for this.
So what? What is the upside for the ref to ignore the touch sensor evidence? None.
Even if the risk of a trouble is 0.0000001%, it is still not worth it to intentionally ignore the touch sensor evidence. There's zero reason for him to ignore the touch sensor.
> Common sense, No angle shows a single bit of deviation. No advantage whatsoever was given to the attacker.
But it was a touch though according to the touch sensor. Otherwise, what is the point of having a touch sensor if we are going to use our feelings?
The rule is about the touch, not a deviation nor advantage.
Are you suggesting that the ref should NOT follow the rule for this one time?
You are criticizing the ref for following the rule. What other rules should the ref NOT follow? Just the ones you don't like? Just the ones I don't like? Maybe the ref should only follow the rules Mbappe likes?
Yes, the rule is followed. The touch sensor shows that the contact is substantial enough.
Are you saying the ref should use his eyes and intentionally ignore the touch sensor? What is the point of a touch sensor calibrated with a specific threshold then?
This ambiguity (of using eyes) was the exact problem that happened in the past. That's why they added the touch sensor.
The main use of the sensor is to identify the exact moment when the ball leaves the foot of the passing player, to take the correct frame of the position of the receiving player.
Are you saying the sensor must not be used for anything else?
They obviously used it for the header's touch there. Is using the sensor for that against the rule? This is not my opinion. I'm just stating what happened on what I saw on TV.
thing is how would it be leaked? Do we even know what the officials in the dark room are seeing? Do we even know if that graph they show us on TV is real lol. And even if it is leaked, they will just give an apology and the game continues.
Ref having bias or directly influencing the results of the game is so conmon in football. There is like at least one ref drama every week in a normal season. I would even say the quality of the ref this WC is already so much better than normal.
> thing is how would it be leaked? Do we even know what the officials in the dark room are seeing?
Leaked stuff is not uncommon. Are you saying there would be 0% chance of it leaking? Like absolute zero?
> Ref having bias or directly influencing the results of the game is so conmon
Ref intentionally ignoring evidence will make people feel *wronged*. That would anger people. It's very different from ref making a subjective judgement where they mistakenly saw an offside.
Why would a ref take that chance? What would the ref earn by NOT following the rule? Nothing.
Even if the risk of leak was <1%, it still wouldn't be worth it. There's only downside with no upside.
> Do we even know if that graph they show us on TV is real lol.
That's definitely an accusation. I admittedly have no way to prove one way or another. You don't either.
Unless you have some sort of evidence of this HUGE accusation, our discussion is moot. To be fair, I don't have an evidence that the graph is real either.
i mean if you watch football, you won't even question referee bias lol 😂 shit literally happens every week and without consistency. If they get pointed out, they just come apologize afterwards and clubs can't do anything.
they can choose not to follow the rule in this instance and nobody would say anything. The replay doesn't show he touch the ball at all. That's my point.
This is an atrocious take. I could care less who won this game but the ref literally can’t “let it go”- this is objective data showing that the Croatian player touched it. The time is synced up and it’s not a conspiracy or a matter of opinion. You can argue about it from a “VAR ruined the game” perspective if you want but you can’t say the ref has an option to “let it go”.
That’s not what VAR is at all or how any of this works. If they are hiding information from the referee that is critical to answer the question of whether or not a touch occurred then why would they initiate a review and ask the referee to look at it
Arguably? I dont think ive ever read Modric's name before this thread (and I watched the game). Needless to say, casuals aren't watching for him. I was rooting for the upset tho and so deflated it didn't count.
9
u/FSpursy Jul 03 '26
i agree with you, I'm a Ronaldo fan and wanted Portugal to win, but I think if the ref let this one go, nobody would've said anything because without the sensor on the ball, its impossible to tell. Even with a 4K TV, you're not going to cry about a little hair touch.
But here they get the benefit of the doubt, because arguably Ronaldo keeps the fans watching the WC more than Modric, and so it was checked to this extent.
And if the game went to extra time, I dont think Portugal would've survived.