World Cup 2022 FIFA World Cup - Group A - (Qatar, Ecuador, Senegal, Netherlands)

[Zidane98]

Red card for mine. He was nowhere near the ball. The refs in a World Cup have to assume the players have a decent level of proficiency. The guy has 80 caps and won the Golden Glove at 2019 AFC Asian Cup.

For the pen? Only if it's a denial of clear goalscoring opportunity. Not in that case, there were covering defenders and he was going away from goal.

 

[Brackets]

I'm still confused. The guy heading the ball wasn't offside at the time the free kick was taken. The other player wasn't offside when it came off his teammate's head.

It's taken me a while but the below article explains it well:

World Cup VAR Review: Why Ecuador's goal against Qatar was disallowed for offside

The highlighted is incorrect, teammate was judged as offside.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It's taken me a while but the below article explains it well:

World Cup VAR Review: Why Ecuador's goal against Qatar was disallowed for offside

The highlighted is incorrect, teammate was judged as offside.

View attachment 1557717

Great detective work!

But it still looks like the yellow sock and foot belongs the player who challenged the keeper. He's onside at the time the free kick was taken. When it comes off his head his teammate behind him is onside.

That's why I commented that the semi-automated VAR might be contributing to bad decisions. It might show you a yellow sock is offside but it doesn't tell you whose leg it is or how they were involved.

 

[Visions]

In the frame I showed, the last two 'defenders' are the goalie and there's a defender just behind him. They are both behind the two Ecuador players. The other defenders don't come into it. If I've got the timing of my still frame slightly wrong then fair enough but I've yet to see the shot that shows how an Ecuador player was offside at the time the ball was played.

Depends on when they are taking the ball as being played. Did the Ecuador player get the first touch from the free kick or did the goalie punch/parry the ball onto the Ecuadorian players head which gives that extra split second of the other Ecuadorian player moving forward?

Also to muddy the waters further when they showed the offside CGI image they showed the foot of the Ecuador player offside with the reference point being his defender, which suggests that defender was the second last defender and not the goalie.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Depends on when they are taking the ball as being played. Did the Ecuador player get the first touch from the free kick or did the goalie punch/parry the ball onto the Ecuadorian players head which gives that extra split second of the other Ecuadorian player moving forward?

Also to muddy the waters further when they showed the offside CGI image they showed the foot of the Ecuador player offside with the reference point being his defender, which suggests that defender was the second last defender and not the goalie.

VAR is supposed to only intervene when there has been a 'clear and obvious error' or due to a 'serious missed incident' relating to a goal. I think there's enough ambiguity about this incident that the goal should have been allowed to stand.

 

[Visions]

VAR is supposed to only intervene when there has been a 'clear and obvious error' or due to a 'serious missed incident' relating to a goal. I think there's enough ambiguity about this incident that the goal should have been allowed to stand.

Offsides are deemed obvious errors as it either is or isn’t offside if the technology is working. Its not something open to interpretation of the referee’s decision like a foul.

At the stadium it didnt take long for them to come up with the decision either. Just because they didn’t show the TV audience doesn’t mean it was controversial, that is on the broadcasters.

Heres a question for someone with an in depth knowledge of the rules if they can answer. If a defender runs or slides off the pitch over the goal line or into the goal itself out of play, do they count as a defender in the offside ruling if the ball is played considering they are no longer between an attacker and the goal line?

 

[Zidane98]

VAR is supposed to only intervene when there has been a 'clear and obvious error' or due to a 'serious missed incident' relating to a goal. I think there's enough ambiguity about this incident that the goal should have been allowed to stand.

The only ambiguity here was whether the Qatari attacker played the ball. The replay determined that he did and since the keeper was ahead of the 2nd last defender offside is the correct call here. Offside is either offside or not offside.

 

[Zidane98]

Offsides are deemed obvious errors as it either is or isn’t offside if the technology is working. Its not something open to interpretation of the referee’s decision like a foul.

At the stadium it didnt take long for them to come up with the decision either. Just because they didn’t show the TV audience doesn’t mean it was controversial, that is on the broadcasters.

Heres a question for someone with an in depth knowledge of the rules if they can answer. If a defender runs or slides off the pitch out of play over the goal line or into the goal itself, do they count as a defender in the offside ruling considering they are no longer between an attacker and the goal line?

Yes they count (their postiion is deemed to be on the touchline). The only time they don't count is if the referee has given them permission to leave the field of play.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The only ambiguity here was whether the Qatari attacker played the ball. The replay determined that he did and since the keeper was ahead of the 2nd last defender offside is the correct call here.

I think you mean Ecuador attacker. I'm still to see evidence that the keeper didn't also touch the ball at this moment. And that the Ecuador attacker who was ruled offside attempted to play the ball.

Offside is either offside or not offside.

Not true. The technology might show you a yellow sock is offside but it doesn't tell you whose leg it is or how they were involved.

 

[Zidane98]

I think you mean Ecuador attacker. I'm still to see evidence that the keeper didn't also touch the ball at this moment. And that the Ecuador attacker who was ruled offside attempted to play the ball.



Not true. The technology might show you a yellow sock is offside but it doesn't tell you whose leg it is or how they were involved.

It doesnt matter if the keeper touched the ball or not. Or whether the Ecuadorian attacker attempted to play the ball. The facts are he did play the ball and the atracker who was marginally ahead of the ball then headed it in the next phase of play.

 

[Visions]

I think you mean Ecuador attacker. I'm still to see evidence that the keeper didn't also touch the ball at this moment. And that the Ecuador attacker who was ruled offside attempted to play the ball.

After the initial goalie/attacker challenge, this Ecuadorian player actually headed the ball so was definitely in play, nothing passive about it.

 

[ams4crows]

After the initial goalie/attacker challenge, this Ecuadorian player actually headed the ball so was definitely in play, nothing passive about it.

So there were two Ecuador players one Qatar defender and their goalie all in a pack the first Ecuador guy who headed the ball was onside from the initial free kick, but at the time of his header the 2nd Ecuador player was offside because of his foot/leg and came from an offside position for the 2nd header which lead to the bicycle kick and headed goal??

 

[Zidane98]

So there were two Ecuador players one Qatar defender and their goalie all in a pack the first Ecuador guy who headed the ball was onside from the initial free kick, but at the time of his header the 2nd Ecuador player was offside because of his foot/leg and came from an offside position for the 2nd header which lead to the bicycle kick and headed goal??

Pretty much. Easier to look at it in terms of phases of play.


Phase 1 - Free kick taken. No offside offence.
Phase 2 - Attacker a challenges keeper for ball. Ball rebounds off him. Attacker b who is slightly ahead of the second last opponent and he point where attacker a plays the ball (in this case the keeper who is ahead of the last defender) heads the ball. He is in an offside position at the moment attacker a plays the ball. Offside offence here.
Phase 3 - Ball played by attacker on attempted overhead kick. This goes to another attacker who scores. No offside in this phase of play.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Only seen the highlights.

What the actual * was the keeper doing for the first disallowed goal?

Martin Tyler sounds like he's about 10 minutes from his own grave.

The header from Valencia was excellent.

Tyler should've retired at least five years ago.

 

[Cruyff14]

Tyler should've retired at least five years ago.

Yeah his "commentary" now is so dour and laborious.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Australia would be going for our third WC this year if it was our number 1 sport.

If it was the USA's number one sport,the rest of us would be lining up for the second placed medal.

France have won it twice, Argentina have won it twice, England have won it once, Spain have won it once, the Netherlands have never won it. The notion that we'd multiple WC winners if soccer was our number 1 sport is so misinformed.

 

[Fabab]

Senegal v Netherlands should be a decent game to watch.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Pretty much. Easier to look at it in terms of phases of play.


Phase 1 - Free kick taken. No offside offence.
Phase 2 - Attacker a challenges keeper for ball. Ball rebounds off him. Attacker b who is slightly ahead of the second last opponent and he point where attacker a plays the ball (in this case the keeper who is ahead of the last defender) heads the ball. He is in an offside position at the moment attacker a plays the ball. Offside offence here.
Phase 3 - Ball played by attacker on attempted overhead kick. This goes to another attacker who scores. No offside in this phase of play.

That's a good breakdown of the situation. But there's some play between your phases 2 and 3. After his header, attacker A (Torres) goes back for the ball but misses. He can't be offside by passing to himself. Then attacker B (Estrada) heads it to Torres who scuffs the overhead kick that leads to the goal. Qatar have four men behind the ball at this stage. So it has to be about whether Estrada was offside from the Torres header - your phase 2. I still don't reckon it was offside.

This is the moment just before the Torres header.



This is a fraction of a second after the header. Estrada is clearly onside in both frames.



I wonder if what VAR has done is looked at Torres leg at the time of his header and mixed it up with Estrada. The semi-automated VAR might have contributed to that wrong decision. It can't tell you whose leg it is, whether the player was involved in the relevant phase, whether the ball came off the goalkeeper etc.

 

[And_ROOS]

That's a good breakdown of the situation. But there's some play between your phases 2 and 3. After his header, attacker A (Torres) goes back for the ball but misses. He can't be offside by passing to himself. Then attacker B (Estrada) heads it to Torres who scuffs the overhead kick that leads to the goal. Qatar have four men behind the ball at this stage. So it has to be about whether Estrada was offside from the Torres header - your phase 2. I still don't reckon it was offside.

This is the moment just before the Torres header.

View attachment 1558008

This is a fraction of a second after the header. Estrada is clearly onside in both frames.

View attachment 1558012

I wonder if what VAR has done is looked at Torres leg at the time of his header and mixed it up with Estrada. The semi-automated VAR might have contributed to that wrong decision. It can't tell you whose leg it is, whether the player was involved in the relevant phase, whether the ball came off the goalkeeper etc.

Those angles make him look onside, but the angle they showed for VAR shows Estrada's leg offside...

So I understand how VAR got to that decision, I am not 100% sure it didn't come off the keeper and not the Ecuador player.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Those angles make him look onside, but the angle they showed for VAR shows Estrada's leg offside...

So I understand how VAR got to that decision, I am not 100% sure it didn't come off the keeper and not the Ecuador player.

Comparing the two frames it looks like it could be Torres foot. Estrada is behind the two players in the challenge.

 

[ep2018]

 

[hawkman]

Stadium looks half full at best

 

[Bradesmaen]

Stadium looks half full at best

The problem is a lot of the locals wear the white robe/garb so they look like seats.

AFAIK every game is sold out.

 

[giggler99]

De Jong lol what a dong!

 

[giggler99]

The problem is a lot of the locals wear the white robe/garb so they look like seats.

AFAIK every game is sold out.

plenty of green empty seats