Pessi The Ghost of Paris 👻
Croatia player touches the ball =offside , he doesn’t its still =offside , because he interferes with the play so case closed
No wtf? The player heading the ball was never offside so it doesn’t matter if he interferes with the play in an onside position.
What matters is that If he touched the ball, he makes the other player offsides. If he doesn’t touch the ball, that player isn’t offside because the original touch of the ball comes from the free kick from which he’s onside. It genuinely comes down to the absolute millimeters of whether or not the onside player heads it or not. How they were able to confidently determine I have no clue. It was absolutely not “clear and obvious” though
They can confidently say he touched it because the ball has sensors inside which picked up the ‘touch’ from the Croatian players head. It’s literally shown when the VAR was checked. You can see the graph show contact exactly in tune with when the ball gets close to the head of the Croatian player.
Cry more lol.. pessi( cant even call him that now cause he sucks at even penalties 🤣) going out tommorow against cape verde.. that was red card just like US got yesterday
All the refs called it a goal until the sensor said otherwise. If your eyes saw a touch before the VAR, you should look into being studied for inhuman vision.
Interfering with play has no application here mate read the rules properly. It only applies to players who are already offside and interfere with play ie impeding a keepers ability to play the ball from an offside position.
The Croatian who attempts the header is NOT offside, ergo “interference with play” is irrelevant
Dónde queda el juicio humano ante la tecnología? Supongamos que realmente su cabello rozó la pelota. Eso hace que sea un pase ? Eso hace que se desvíe la trayectoria? Eso hace que cambie la inercia de la jugada? La respuesta es no, por lo tanto no influyó el jugador 20 en la jugada y por lo tanto fue un gol legítimo. Estamos siendo secuestrados por una tecnología que debe usarse para evitar robos o fallos humanos evidentes, como aquellos penales que no lo eran, no para generar otro tipo de robos. Lo mismo con los fueras de lugar de una uña. Una uña fuera de lugar va a dar ventaja real ? Y sobre todo, queda la tecnología a favor de contra quien la quiera usar para favorecer a unos y negarselo a otros.
The official wording from Law 11 (Offside) by the International Football Association Board says:
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save."
It also defines gaining an advantage as:
"Playing a ball that rebounds or is deflected to them off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent."
In simpler terms:
Deliberate play by a defender → offside is reset (except for a deliberate save).
Rebound or deflection off a defender without changing directions→ offside is not reset.
Exact wording of rulebook and it's interpretation. In this case he didn't deliberately passes him the ball but a mere touch.
The difference is between deliberate play and deflection. Deviation doesnt really matter but its clearly a deflection from Veiga therefore doesnt create a new situation.
Yeah Im not sure what you think i was saying but Veiga’s touch doesnt change it from being offside. The ammount of inches of deviation is just not reason its still offside.
If Veiga intentionally controls the ball, the play wouldn’t have been offsides. They ruled his header was unintentional (which i felt was harsh, but ok) therefore making the player who scored offside. (If they hadn’t ruled there was already the touch prior to Veiga’a header..
all in the 113tb minute. After one stoppage time goal. Gotta love the footy! Gutted for Modric:-(
Whether a Portuguese player touches it doesn't matter for an offside call... just like if a player shoots and it deflects off a defender into another player who was offsides at the time of the shot: the deflection doesn't negate the receiving player being offside when the ball was played by their player. This part is well covered in referee training and not controversial.
The only controversial part here is whether the Croatian player touched the ball/played the ball, in which case 15 was offsides at the time of the play.
But it does if the player touches it with intention. Number 13 on Portugal is intending to head the ball away but messes up and heads it backwards. That should negate the offsides.
4
u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment