If we want to reevaluate whether this should be offside or not, I'm all for it, but whatever we land on will still have similar borderline calls. The notion that this call shouldn't be made, when everyone knows the rule and the tech works as intended is silly.
Yes. This isn't a refereeing mistake*, it's not a mistake in the VAR room. They're following established protocols. It's the process itself that leads to those protocols that I have problems with.
*At least, it's not an officiating mistake beyond that the linesman "missed" it, but give me a fucking break, no linesman on the planet can see the offside there, which, again, goes against the whole "spirit of the rule" if you ask me.
so where do you draw the line? if hes an inch off two inches? a foot?, atleast me personally if you do not want to change the rule I would rather not have refs subjectively choose whats correct and whats not
Well to me it feels like they’re presenting the graphic as if it has perfect accuracy which it can’t have. There should be a uncertainty in the system, and to give offside the margin must be greater than the uncertainty.
Do you know if there isn’t uncertainty programmed into the system? It was discussed when Sweden beat the US on penalties in women’s World Cup and it was decided with goal line technology. From what I recall there is a margin of error they take into account. Kind of like traffic speed cameras they also have a margin of error programmed into them.
Do you think the same way about goal line technology which is also a computer generated picture?
If you get caught by a camera driving 85km/h on 80 limit road you were most likely doing 90. The margin of error is set so you make sure that someone actually was speeding. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to do the same in football? You seem to just want the picture to be as close to reality as possible with no regard to what it’s used for.
You seem to misunderstand me, maybe I haven’t made myself clear. The argument you’re using with the speed camera is exactly what I’m arguing in favor for. Right now it seems to me they don’t use a margin of error, so if they measure it at 80.01 km/h they’d still give you a ticket. In my original comment I argued in favor of a margin of error. I only brought up the picture because it seems to suggest that they have perfect accuracy, which they can’t have
I think we agree in some way. I wish they were more open with how things work and why things work a certain way so there won’t be so much speculation, like we are doing right now. There must be some margin of error in this system. I think that’s fine because it’s binary (offside or not offside), it’s the same margin for everyone, and everyone could agree on it.
I don’t have a problem with the offside call as long as the technology works as intended. But I think for example the handball rule should be changed or specified more with the technology we have now. It’s not binary, it’s judged. But it has kind of become binary in this tournament. In premier league the call against Denmark would probably have happened 5 out of 10 times. This consistency has been ridiculous. But it might be how the rule is specified and most likely because we didn’t have the technology back then.
Yes I agree, we need more transparency, but I’m still not convinced they currently use a margin of error when making offside calls, which would be a problem. If they do use a margin of error, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t communicate that more clearly. Right now it seems to me that when their system finds it offside by 0.1cm, they just call it offside, even though I don’t think they can’t be that confident in the accuracy of the system
From my other post in this thread:
> I'm not talking about "buffer zones" or whatever, that's murky territory, I'd just rather not have technology beyond seeing replays be available at all on offside review.
I would rather give the VAR officials the best angle available to see offside, tell them to see if there's anything they see that looks "clear and obvious"* for it to be offside - when you see CR7 clearly beyond the last Bayern player in the 2017 CL quarters, that's obviously offside - but that if nothing stands out, let it go. In this case today, or with Lukaku from that game a week or so ago, if those goals had been given, just about nobody would've given serious concern about whether they were offside or not, that if they were it was such a negligible difference as to not be meaningful to the final outcome of the play. I wouldn't have given a moment of thought about offside or not had it been given to Denmark. When Inter got away with one of these against Monza in January (my flair is usually Inter), I lamented the semi-automated process involved then too.
To me, I feel like offside being analyzed down to these micrometers was one of those unintended consequences that nobody realized was what would happen with VAR brought into the sport. I think VAR in general does more good than bad - or at least it has the potential to - but I don't think this was a good change for one minute, the drawing of lines or the semi-automated tech now. I've always felt this way.
**I know "clear and obvious" never applied to offside itself, this is my own personal application of that edict.*
that's what you don't get. if one pair or referees will see from an angle where the offside appears marginal but it's 8cm (doesn't get called), while a different pair of referees in a different match see from a different angle an offside that is let's say 3cm offside (and gets called), how is that fair?
if you run into a speed camera and you are 3km/h but you get accidentally fined, and someone is 8km/h above and gets fined (let's say the margin of error is 5km/h), how is that fair?
It's fair because a human being referee calls everything else for the whole game so it's only applying the same levels of discretion they get normally to all aspects of the game.
right. so if we are shit at making some decisions, we should be shit at others as well.
if we cannot properly treat all forms of cancers, we should not properly treat HIV either.
with your level of thinking, i don't think we would've ever left the stone age.
right. so if it's a game of football, we should allow honest mistakes.
then why the fuck do they even have refs in the game? let the teams settles this themselves.
funny how no one complains about borderline calls when it comes to goal line technology
it isnt the close calls that people are complaining about, they are complaining about how the current rules of offside make the game worse and less entertaining.
Very few people are complaining, they're just a loud minority. Most people are fine with the rule being handled with tech and eliminating human error from the process. Referees fucking calls up caused way, way more damage to the game historically than this tech ever will.
i mean plenty of people are complaining from normie redditors to the pundints. lukakus offside goal caused controversy, this danish one too. don't know what to tell you.
The thing about that is, you can't instantly fix the standard that has been applied. I think applying technology is good, and revisiting the approach can't just be done willy-nilly, it requires examples of what happens now that we have this tech and where do we go from here.
(Questions like, do we want 1mm to be enough? do we want to move toward a whole body standard in the future? can and should be addressed by IFAB and other bodies, it can't be just changed overnight.)
Then again as you stated in your initial post , we will have the same exact discussion if we have the whole body standard and a guy is 1cm further then this. We will draw again a line and people will complain again.
Additionally stuff like that is not applicable at all in Amateur play.
Ultimately it makes no sense and the current rule setting has is justification.
I rather have teams like denmark actually participating in the game and going for a win in their own instead of parking the Bus, hoping for luck and complaining about a rule definition and application that has been there for decades
No we won't have the same discussion. I find it really annoying how this is such a common argument against reevaluating the rule when it simply isn't true.
What is true is that as long as you have a binary line somewhere, there can be close calls. Ofc that is true.
But depending on where you set the line, the perception changes drastically, AND the frequentness of close calls varies.
Just think about this. Imagine a world where the attacker is only offside if he is 50cm closer to the goal than the 2nd to last opponent. Ofc defenders wouldn't just allow the attacker to stand 49cm closer and try ro play for offside there, the practicality of that approach is gone. What is also largely gone is people being outraged over the idea that an offside in this scenario is a meaningful advantage.
That is the real issue right now, many people question if these extremely close decisions make sense in regards to the spirit of the rule. The rules might not have changed, but in the past many of these calls wouldn't have been called against the attacker as one could not be this precise, leading to situations of offside being called where people could actually understand the advantage. Now one often cannot anymore, even if the rule allows for the call. But the rule was made not to define that 1mm closer to the goal is an advantage, it was just a practical way to phrase the rule, the spirit of it always was to make sure attackers cannot just stand behind the lines and wait for the ball. It was not made for 1mm margin calls. The rule has to change, this is a farce.
(Imagine you get a speeding ticket because you drove 80.001 km/h in a 80 zone, it would feel ridiculous. If there is some margin, say 85 and you are over that, it suddenly doesn't feel nearly as stupid anymore, even if you are at 85.001)
In any case, i am german, but i agree with the danish coach, it's fucking stupid
I agree, and I think the different reactions have to do with notions of fairness. A ball being over the line by the smallest amount possible is a goal, so the scoring team absolutely deserves a goal. A player being offside by the smallest margin is absolutely offside, but the offside doesn’t always contribute to the goal. A marginal offside might give the scoring team an advantage, but it’s also likely that the scoring team would have scored without the marginal offside. Fans want fairness. But of course the rules demand consistency, so you get calls like the one against Denmark that are objectively correct but that feel unfair to an extent.
I disagree it is fair how it is applied since it's a clear definition with no room for subjectiveness.
Judging by was it an advantage a player gained or not will be impossible to measure and we will have a million of different views on it.
Somewhere the cut has to be made. Rule is perfectly fine.
Rules are meant to be objective, but officials still have subjectivity in off sides with a player who doesn't play the ball. A goal was called off against France this Euros (I think for the Netherlands but don't remember) because the player who had nothing to do with the goal was standing right next to Maignan and could have obstructed him from diving for the ball. A completely objective rule would call off a goal if a player on the attacking team was standing by the corner flag waiving to his wife in the stands. Would that be a better rule? Of course not. We trust officials to judge whether the off sides affected the goal. Generally, far fewer people complain about those calls than these off sides calls that are literally invisible without the aid of a computer.
Well, the rule is absolutely fair in terms of its completely objective application. But it is unfair or unjust in terms of the admittedly much more vague "spirit of fairness," where the rules are meant to award fair play and discourage seeking an advantage by breaking the rules. Now, as I said in my original comment, this leads to a subjective element so I understand (and I think the Danish coach understands) why they have adopted the rule they have. But if the current rule were completely fair in terms of the spirit of the law, no one would be complaining. I was responding to someone who pointed out that no one complains about goal line technology no matter how narrow, because a goal should always be a goal. But the off sides rule was written into the game decades ago to prevent goal hanging. I don't think anyone envisioned it being used to call off goals for a centimeter infraction. Since that rule applies to everyone equally, it is "fair" in that sense. But it doesn't necessarily serve the spirit of the rule and leads to debate because it looks absurd in instances like the call against Denmark.
That's because it's a completely different situation that's not transferable. No one is really complaining about the tech, it's the rule really.
It's a goal when the entire ball passes the line, it's a clear 1/0 scenario. It's also always clear where the ball is and where the line is, there's no ambiguity.
But where does an attacker begin and where does the defender end? When is the ball struck? The current iteration feels wrong because the law is about stopping people hanging high or the striker having a too big advantage. A toe sticking out is hardly an advantage and just feels like nitpicking.
If the line were moved, so that the striker was allowed to be say 30cm "offside", then a 31cm offside call would be far more palatable. Because then the attacker obviously has an advantage and the offside stops that.
Yeah and then the attacker is 29cm offside and it's allowed? Is that fair?
Where does the attacker begin then? Where does the defender end? Non of those 'issues' are fixed then, are they?
They literally have automatic systems for when the ball is struck and for where the players are standing. It's clear as day. Rules are fine.
Yes that's fair. The point is not solving the issues of determining player position, because thats pointless and again missing the point. It's to give the attacker more leeway so that when an offside is called, there's no doubt that he's in an advantageous position. The problem with the current state is not that the tech can detect 1mm offsides. It's that attackers are called offside when they don't have any real advantage of being offside.
Being 31 cm past the defender is different from being 1 cm past, as you have an actual advantage and even human eyes can tell, not just robo one's. The offside call then *feels* appropriate and just, which is the whole discussion here. The current calls don't feel proportional, they're way too harsh (no goal) for the infraction (1 toe past defense). Proportionality is very important in how laws are perceived.
Yeah but is being 29 cm offside not an advantage but 31 cm is?
I'm also not sure why you'd want an attacker to have a certain amount of leeway in being offside. For me it's fine the way it is.
The exact number isn't important, it's that you find something that feels reasonable. My point is that both 29 and 31 is an advantage. And you're allowing a certain amount because you remove a reason to protest when an offside is called. It's like "dude don't be greedy you're already at an advantage." As the implementation is today, you get calls for offside when there's no obvious advantage, and so why would you then have the rule in the first place? It feels a too harsh punishment for an insignificant infraction
Yup.. it's a harsh decision but the right one nonetheless. I'd 100% rather see a goal like this one get disallowed instead of those ridiculous offsides that referees sometimes don't seem to see.
honestly though, do we even know it's the right one? where did they get the data points to make that line? they didn't show an angle that could've been used to actually catch the defender's full leg?
The semi-automated offside system is pretty interesting.
The ball has a chip in it that transmits its position more than 300 hundred times a second (I don't remember the exact number, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's way more than 300). There are also cameras that track the ball and the players' positions on many points on their bodies. With all this information and data points, AI is used to create the 3D image that we see on TV when they show the offside.
To this, we can also add the "heartbeat" graphic that we started to see in this Euro tournament. This allows to pinpoint the exact moment the ball is played to ensure that they can accurately determine if a player is offside or not.
This is "semi-automated" because the referees in charge of VAR still have to make the call whether a player is offside or not. With all this technology, I think it's safe to assume that it is in fact the right decision.
The Euros ball doesnt have a position chip. Only the chip that meassures the exact moment of contact (the graph you see with hands), and that combined with roof mounted cameras determines the offside.
It’s different that what we had before, its something its new for this euros
no but that's exactly my point; the sensor in the ball is good, it makes syncing up the positions easier, but why didn't they show any frame or angle that could possibly tell us the actual position of the last defender?
because what I remember before they cut to the computer generated image did not show anything like it at all, and this was a very covered situation where it's far from certain there were cameras with a good view to get necessary data points for the players.
Part of it being semi-automated is so that it functions much quicker. If they take the time to show all the angles to the broadcast viewers you’d be missing play.
are you literally not reading what im saying? it doesn't matter how often and how many data points it collects if they don't show the details that's actually needed.
and the fact yall trust "AI" so much is actually astounding. "AI" will never admit to mistakes because it doesn't understand if they happen. it will invent information that does not exist if necessary, and I understand that's where the "semi" in semi-automatic comes from.
but do you seriously trust the AI to make one graphic and for the refs to check that and say "yea that seems right" with whatever sources the AI decided to use? I genuinely don't get how this is controversial.
The only thing AI is doing is recreating a 3D image based on the massive data points it was given. These data points don't come from random positions, they're given by the numerous cameras (Semi-automated offside cameras and not broadcasting cameras) following the players and the location points given by the ball.
Let's say you're watching a game where the VAR officials determine an offside by choosing a frame when a player plays the ball so they can draw the lines. At best, they will have 2 camera angles that can be used and most of the time the angles are not even that good to make the actual right decision. Just there, we could already have at least 3 flaws:
1. The closest frame we have is when the ball has already left the player's foot and not at the exact moment when contact was made.
2. The angles provided by the 2 cameras are not the best to determine the exact positions of the last defender and the player who is potentially offside.
3. Human error. I think any fan has complained at least once about the position of the lines when they're drawn.
By using the semi-automated offside cameras that will follow a player's movements from numerous different angles, they're able to determine a very precise location of the player, even better than the ones from the broadcasting cameras. Having multiple cameras doing this, can considerably increase their precision.
I think you have some preconceived idea about AI because we hear about it everywhere now and I agree that some of them can be dangerous or at least scary. Like I said, in this case the AI is used to create the 3D image of the offside. This is not about blindly trusting the AI. I don't know the company who created the semi-automated offside technology but numerous tests are always done to ensure that the results are as accurate and reliable as possible (by both the company and FIFA/UEFA). These results might not completely eliminate the 3 previous possible errors I mentioned early, but they will at least considerably reduce them, hence being a better alternative to what has been used before.
thank you.
I'm not denying that it is a very helpful piece of technology, I just don't trust technology blindly (nor the users of it) in every case.
seeing the presentation videos and info from fifa doesn't necessarily give me the best impression either, as they seem very "corporate", ie. present it positively and brush over and ignore any potential technical issues. as a computer person, I've seen how end-users often miss out on those exact challenges when using technology, no matter how much training they've gotten :')
It does, we have rules and define a cutoff point and the system fairly delivers it.
If we decide that we don't want to punish those small margin advantages for attacking teams we can change the rules and define 50 cm operating freedom.
As long as this isn't the case and not defined people aren't playing to it, it should be called as it is per rules today at this tournament
You have an issue with that, I don't. I want the game fair, I don't really care about what the spirit of the law was, imo giving attackers 0.1mm is still unfair.
The idea that giving attackers 2cm leeway would increase the amount of goals scored is weird. What happens if that is implemented and the following season we see fewer goals scored across big 5 leagues since teams stopped playing offside and are even more pragmatic?
Do we give attackers 4cm leeway to hope for more goals?
Not sure how 'old' you are but I'm few months shy of 40.
Personally, I hate semi-automated offside so much. We had two directions to go in from our current state of drawing lines on TV, and as far as I'm concerned we went in the wrong one. Micro-millimeter offside was never the spirit of the offside rule, nobody would've complained about that goal in the pre-VAR era.
When it's CR7 being a foot offside against Bayern, go ahead and call that, we can see it, clearly the linesman missed it. Shit like this? If you can't look at the replay and see it with your eyes, let it go. I know, "you're either offside or you aren't". Again, spirit of the rule. I'm not talking about "buffer zones" or whatever, that's murky territory, I'd just rather not have technology beyond seeing replays be available at all on offside review. And if you can't tell from a replay? Well, American football has it where a ball that's 50/50 caught by an offensive player and defensive player goes to the offensive team. In baseball, an unofficial rule on calls at the bases is "tie goes to the runner". Benefit goes to the attacking team. It's hard enough to score goals in this sport, there's no reason to be making it even more difficult.
And, if my flair doesn't make it beyond obvious, I was rooting for Germany today. If that goal had been given, I literally wouldn't have given a moment's thought about offside or not.
> nobody would've complained about that goal in the pre-VAR era.
without var the ref might have still called it offside.
point being: if accurate decisions make the game worse then its not the accuracy of decision we need to change - its the rule that needs changed.
Linesmen are instructed now to let it play out if it's marginal because they have recourse. Obviously the linesman today let it play out. Now that this is the standard, I don't think that would change.
You might be right, maybe the linesman does flag it today especially in the pre-VAR era. I don't think that would happen now.
I don't think it's the offside rule itself that needs changing. At one time I subscribed to the Wenger offside idea, but I don't anymore. I think that would just send the game into more low block defending than ever before because it would become so much riskier playing high lines. And nobody really enjoys watching low blocks. I think the offside rule as is now is fine, the methods we use to legislate it seem like drastic overkill to me is what I think the problem is.
the offside rule is the problem imo. we have this great tech that is far more accurate than humans, and it's made the game worse. hence my statement if accurate calls make the game worse then the rules are the problem.
wengers rule is one proposal to change the rule. basing it on feet is another. making the line bigger is another. there are a variety of paths you can go
adding more subjectivity to factual decisions is just not the right direction to imo. it will lead to... well, what we've seen historically - blatently offside goal being given as goals and blatant legitimate goals being given as offside.
i dont see how adding more rng and error to decisions is supposed to improve the game, aside from timeliness issues and such - which have now basically been solved. with that logic we may aswell remove goalline technology too and base on it human sight instead
I think most people agree that the rule should have a tolerance.
2 cm is a bit ridiculous.
but it is correct according to the rules today, which were written with human interpretation in mind. not tech.
Exactly this. Offside is black and white, no matter where you draw the line. If you add some sort of tolerance it will either be as you say or there will be grey areas.
Rather have people complaining about "tolerance" between, let's say, 5 cm and 7, than between 0 and 2, that's 5 full cms that from now on goals would be valid
No, no one with a brain would agree with your nonsense that opens a can of worms and subjectivity.
Ffs, everyone needs to stop with harsh idiocy. Everyone wants attacking football until they don’t.
This is how the game always been, and the rule is correct, and the call was correct. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean the rules a wrong, it just means you have a biased irrelevant opinion. No matter what, the fans will find a way to complain. If it was 3 cm, you would have said, it should have been 4 cm.
VAR is supposed to eliminate bias and poor calls. Just because he didn't get a good result, it doesn't mean that the call was bad. The player was a toe over but it still counts!
> bc an offside by that margin in a situation like that objectively has zero benefit
If he got zero benefit from having the toe offside, he should have just positioned himself better and he wouldn’t have been offside and the goal would have stood. His own fault, really.
And when he's only onside by the toes of the defender can the defending team complain the same way? It's supposed to be unbiased, that's the whole point.
That your complaint is pathetic. Part of your body is offside, you're offside. If they moved the offside rule so that the whole of your body has to be offside you would still complain if a player was called offside because of a 1cm difference.
I'm not complaining lol. I'm not even from Denmark. I just said it's laughable, meaning it's funny that he's offside by the toes. You completely read over when I said it wasn't rigged or incorrect. Please read my full comment before exploding at me.
I don't get the argument that it's laughable. He was offside. A goal doesn't count if the ball doesn't go over the line, should the ball being near the line count as a goal now cause else it's laughable? Should the thought count, since it could have easily been a goal if only for a few cm, so sure, give the goal? It's a yes/no situation, it's that easy.
I am really not sure what causes this reaction in people.
Do you actually not understand why people think it is silly, or laughable, that being in front with your toe gets called as an advantage?
Let the rule as it stands right now not be considered, consider why the rule exists, what it is there for, and if our current ability to call it as precisely as we can is congruent with these ideas.
Many people just go "the rule is the rule", but that's such a close minded approach, rules can be bad, they can make the game worse. That is what is being signalled by people who speak against these calls, that the rule as it stands doesn't make sense, resulting in "laughable" calls.
> He was offside. A goal doesn't count if the ball doesn't go over the line, should the ball being near the line count as a goal now cause else it's laughable?
no, but it would likewise be laughable if we moved the line between the posts forward 6 yards.
the placement of the lines is the issue here, not whether a thing is 1cm over or under said line
I can understand the argument, because it was by such a miniscule amount, there likely wasn't an unfair advantage gained by the attacking player's position, but off is off.
In the rules. He was off side.
But these micro calls really really make the game less fun to watch.
I’d really wanna see a margin of error, for the attacking side.
yes, and when that margin of error is defined, I'll complain and say that it needs to be 5mm bigger.
the rule is fine as it is, no margin of error. plus think of non-var games, how would the assistant referee "implement" such a margin of error?
So was the first goal.
I have seen a dozen of times were bodyblocking was used against us and was never called.
Getting bit tired of his crying. They weren't the better team by a mile. It was a deserved loss and not cause of the ref
Fr the danes are crying like crazy when they clearly weren‘t the better team and have had their share of lucky calls as well. I expected better from them.
Nah the first one was clear intent and had nothing to do with football, he turned his back to goal and went out of his way to run into Skov Olsen.
Losing to Germany is fair, it could have gone either way with Germany playing slightly better than Denmark. Its the way in which we lost that sucks, not the fact that we lost.
You gotta draw the line somewhere, otherwise we go back to subjective ruling and chaos.
Speaking of which, you could make the case for that corner foul and the penalty decision. I’ve seen so many duels like that and I remember so many handballs even more clear cut than that which haven’t been given (Belgium vs Romania for instance).
I am of course not neutral but that is my point.
What i felt after the match was more than anything fatigue. You invest feelings and compassion in the team you support. Losing this way because of things decided in a video room take away a lot of my desire to watch football. The decisions were not about big things but small things. Decided the match though. When it happens with a referee decision in the same second it is a different feeling.
It felt more like watching a video game.
I understand the result is that matters. I also understand Germany of course has a better team overall.
But watching a game with energy and passion? It is difficult this way. In the match threads the up-down votes remind you of the difference between countries with 6 million and 80 million people. So only a small minority is left with that feeling about football.
This post deserves more attention. Perfectly describes how I felt.
Taking this to a commercial discussion. No good for football if this is the feeling that you leave some teams fans with. In the end that will cause fan attrition and through that lost revenue
Thank you.
So far it has only cost downvotes (again, 6 million feelings versus 80 million).
I am not disputing the result. I am debating my own investment in the game. I don’t blame Joachim Andersen if he is too. He has by the way never scored for Denmark before. Still hasn’t.
Because rational speaking watching football and caring is weird. But it is the passion of the moment. The feeling. If you take that away it is just robots and a soulless computer.
For the Germans, the result is what matters. I get that too. But maybe one day they will feel the same.
It is ridiculous, so was the "handball", but those are the rules at the moment. Its ruining the sport to a degree imo, but at least it is the same for everyone.
It'll change again at some point, we'll just have to wait until then.
Yeaaah no.
It is ridiculous because we are not used to it. Offside is offside even if it's only a centimeter. If this is what it takes to have a better football, then i'll take it. I just hope the ref will be consistant with it.
For the handball, sadly his hand can be ruled as reaching out. I mean sure it's natural position but people can easily do it to prevent crosses deliberately and say it's natural position. So the handball call is correct as andersen didn't have any movement to retract his hand to the side or to his back, it might be deliberate
Both are correct with the current rules, i know that. It just seems ridiculous that we're talking about one toe over the line in one and one unlucky finger in the other.
This isn't how we make sure the best team wins. The rules are supposed to make sure the best team wins without cheating. As long as the rules look like this, much more luck is involved than necessary.
The rule are there to be fair to both team based on the rules. not to make the best team win. Even the best team can lose under the rule. Unlucky? Yes. But rule is rule. Get used to it, with VAR getting better, the rule will be tighter. There won't be any controversial things like "hand of god" goal if the VAR is used correctly.
Let's take "hand of god" goal as example. Controversial, but it's the spirit of the game and people like it, yet it's unfair for the england and it makes them lose the game. Does that mean england was the worse team?
Get used to it, VAR will be strict and sometimes it will be against spirit of the game, but rule is rule, as long as the ref consistantly call it, it'll be better in the long run.
Maybe the best team shouldn't win, but the team who plays the best on the day should. Rules like these make it more luck based, which is objectively worse for the sport.
The hand of god was never, and should never be allowed, so i dont get that point?
Like in court the spirit of the law should be more important than the wording.
Before VAR, a decision that tight would never have been made. Players were out there half an inch offside and no one cared.
Now with VAR... The PGMOL officials can't handle making any decision without VAR's hand holding the entire way. It's a shame to watch how much the PGMOL officials are wrecking things both at home and on the international stage
Coach Hjulmand is a wise man who is brave to speak up. We need more free voices to get rid of this nightmare.
Unfortunately most people are watching the games as background noise for Instagram browsing and have never played any sports so they are more interested in fake controversy produced by VAR than real football, which this technology is killing
If you understand football you know that taking away a goal like this is unjust
If we want to reevaluate whether this should be offside or not, I'm all for it, but whatever we land on will still have similar borderline calls. The notion that this call shouldn't be made, when everyone knows the rule and the tech works as intended is silly.
Yes. This isn't a refereeing mistake*, it's not a mistake in the VAR room. They're following established protocols. It's the process itself that leads to those protocols that I have problems with. *At least, it's not an officiating mistake beyond that the linesman "missed" it, but give me a fucking break, no linesman on the planet can see the offside there, which, again, goes against the whole "spirit of the rule" if you ask me.
so where do you draw the line? if hes an inch off two inches? a foot?, atleast me personally if you do not want to change the rule I would rather not have refs subjectively choose whats correct and whats not
Well to me it feels like they’re presenting the graphic as if it has perfect accuracy which it can’t have. There should be a uncertainty in the system, and to give offside the margin must be greater than the uncertainty.
Do you know if there isn’t uncertainty programmed into the system? It was discussed when Sweden beat the US on penalties in women’s World Cup and it was decided with goal line technology. From what I recall there is a margin of error they take into account. Kind of like traffic speed cameras they also have a margin of error programmed into them.
If they do program the uncertainty I have no idea why they would show a graphic that seems to suggest perfect accuracy.
Do you think the same way about goal line technology which is also a computer generated picture? If you get caught by a camera driving 85km/h on 80 limit road you were most likely doing 90. The margin of error is set so you make sure that someone actually was speeding. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to do the same in football? You seem to just want the picture to be as close to reality as possible with no regard to what it’s used for.
You seem to misunderstand me, maybe I haven’t made myself clear. The argument you’re using with the speed camera is exactly what I’m arguing in favor for. Right now it seems to me they don’t use a margin of error, so if they measure it at 80.01 km/h they’d still give you a ticket. In my original comment I argued in favor of a margin of error. I only brought up the picture because it seems to suggest that they have perfect accuracy, which they can’t have
I think we agree in some way. I wish they were more open with how things work and why things work a certain way so there won’t be so much speculation, like we are doing right now. There must be some margin of error in this system. I think that’s fine because it’s binary (offside or not offside), it’s the same margin for everyone, and everyone could agree on it. I don’t have a problem with the offside call as long as the technology works as intended. But I think for example the handball rule should be changed or specified more with the technology we have now. It’s not binary, it’s judged. But it has kind of become binary in this tournament. In premier league the call against Denmark would probably have happened 5 out of 10 times. This consistency has been ridiculous. But it might be how the rule is specified and most likely because we didn’t have the technology back then.
Yes I agree, we need more transparency, but I’m still not convinced they currently use a margin of error when making offside calls, which would be a problem. If they do use a margin of error, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t communicate that more clearly. Right now it seems to me that when their system finds it offside by 0.1cm, they just call it offside, even though I don’t think they can’t be that confident in the accuracy of the system
From my other post in this thread: > I'm not talking about "buffer zones" or whatever, that's murky territory, I'd just rather not have technology beyond seeing replays be available at all on offside review. I would rather give the VAR officials the best angle available to see offside, tell them to see if there's anything they see that looks "clear and obvious"* for it to be offside - when you see CR7 clearly beyond the last Bayern player in the 2017 CL quarters, that's obviously offside - but that if nothing stands out, let it go. In this case today, or with Lukaku from that game a week or so ago, if those goals had been given, just about nobody would've given serious concern about whether they were offside or not, that if they were it was such a negligible difference as to not be meaningful to the final outcome of the play. I wouldn't have given a moment of thought about offside or not had it been given to Denmark. When Inter got away with one of these against Monza in January (my flair is usually Inter), I lamented the semi-automated process involved then too. To me, I feel like offside being analyzed down to these micrometers was one of those unintended consequences that nobody realized was what would happen with VAR brought into the sport. I think VAR in general does more good than bad - or at least it has the potential to - but I don't think this was a good change for one minute, the drawing of lines or the semi-automated tech now. I've always felt this way. **I know "clear and obvious" never applied to offside itself, this is my own personal application of that edict.*
that's what you don't get. if one pair or referees will see from an angle where the offside appears marginal but it's 8cm (doesn't get called), while a different pair of referees in a different match see from a different angle an offside that is let's say 3cm offside (and gets called), how is that fair? if you run into a speed camera and you are 3km/h but you get accidentally fined, and someone is 8km/h above and gets fined (let's say the margin of error is 5km/h), how is that fair?
It's fair because a human being referee calls everything else for the whole game so it's only applying the same levels of discretion they get normally to all aspects of the game.
right. so if we are shit at making some decisions, we should be shit at others as well. if we cannot properly treat all forms of cancers, we should not properly treat HIV either. with your level of thinking, i don't think we would've ever left the stone age.
Very reductive, thank you. It's a game of football not cancer you twat.
right. so if it's a game of football, we should allow honest mistakes. then why the fuck do they even have refs in the game? let the teams settles this themselves.
Linesman can see offsides where there are none and you tell me they can't possibly see this one?
funny how no one complains about borderline calls when it comes to goal line technology it isnt the close calls that people are complaining about, they are complaining about how the current rules of offside make the game worse and less entertaining.
Very few people are complaining, they're just a loud minority. Most people are fine with the rule being handled with tech and eliminating human error from the process. Referees fucking calls up caused way, way more damage to the game historically than this tech ever will.
I even argue people are generally more happy that it exists now.
i mean plenty of people are complaining from normie redditors to the pundints. lukakus offside goal caused controversy, this danish one too. don't know what to tell you.
The thing about that is, you can't instantly fix the standard that has been applied. I think applying technology is good, and revisiting the approach can't just be done willy-nilly, it requires examples of what happens now that we have this tech and where do we go from here. (Questions like, do we want 1mm to be enough? do we want to move toward a whole body standard in the future? can and should be addressed by IFAB and other bodies, it can't be just changed overnight.)
Then again as you stated in your initial post , we will have the same exact discussion if we have the whole body standard and a guy is 1cm further then this. We will draw again a line and people will complain again. Additionally stuff like that is not applicable at all in Amateur play. Ultimately it makes no sense and the current rule setting has is justification. I rather have teams like denmark actually participating in the game and going for a win in their own instead of parking the Bus, hoping for luck and complaining about a rule definition and application that has been there for decades
No we won't have the same discussion. I find it really annoying how this is such a common argument against reevaluating the rule when it simply isn't true. What is true is that as long as you have a binary line somewhere, there can be close calls. Ofc that is true. But depending on where you set the line, the perception changes drastically, AND the frequentness of close calls varies. Just think about this. Imagine a world where the attacker is only offside if he is 50cm closer to the goal than the 2nd to last opponent. Ofc defenders wouldn't just allow the attacker to stand 49cm closer and try ro play for offside there, the practicality of that approach is gone. What is also largely gone is people being outraged over the idea that an offside in this scenario is a meaningful advantage. That is the real issue right now, many people question if these extremely close decisions make sense in regards to the spirit of the rule. The rules might not have changed, but in the past many of these calls wouldn't have been called against the attacker as one could not be this precise, leading to situations of offside being called where people could actually understand the advantage. Now one often cannot anymore, even if the rule allows for the call. But the rule was made not to define that 1mm closer to the goal is an advantage, it was just a practical way to phrase the rule, the spirit of it always was to make sure attackers cannot just stand behind the lines and wait for the ball. It was not made for 1mm margin calls. The rule has to change, this is a farce. (Imagine you get a speeding ticket because you drove 80.001 km/h in a 80 zone, it would feel ridiculous. If there is some margin, say 85 and you are over that, it suddenly doesn't feel nearly as stupid anymore, even if you are at 85.001) In any case, i am german, but i agree with the danish coach, it's fucking stupid
i agree with that. though i dont think anyone wants such an important possible rule change to be done overnight or willy nilly
I agree, and I think the different reactions have to do with notions of fairness. A ball being over the line by the smallest amount possible is a goal, so the scoring team absolutely deserves a goal. A player being offside by the smallest margin is absolutely offside, but the offside doesn’t always contribute to the goal. A marginal offside might give the scoring team an advantage, but it’s also likely that the scoring team would have scored without the marginal offside. Fans want fairness. But of course the rules demand consistency, so you get calls like the one against Denmark that are objectively correct but that feel unfair to an extent.
I disagree it is fair how it is applied since it's a clear definition with no room for subjectiveness. Judging by was it an advantage a player gained or not will be impossible to measure and we will have a million of different views on it. Somewhere the cut has to be made. Rule is perfectly fine.
Exactly. "Advantage in attack" is subjective in a sport with as many factors as football. Rules are meant to be objective, not subjective.
Rules are meant to be objective, but officials still have subjectivity in off sides with a player who doesn't play the ball. A goal was called off against France this Euros (I think for the Netherlands but don't remember) because the player who had nothing to do with the goal was standing right next to Maignan and could have obstructed him from diving for the ball. A completely objective rule would call off a goal if a player on the attacking team was standing by the corner flag waiving to his wife in the stands. Would that be a better rule? Of course not. We trust officials to judge whether the off sides affected the goal. Generally, far fewer people complain about those calls than these off sides calls that are literally invisible without the aid of a computer.
Well, the rule is absolutely fair in terms of its completely objective application. But it is unfair or unjust in terms of the admittedly much more vague "spirit of fairness," where the rules are meant to award fair play and discourage seeking an advantage by breaking the rules. Now, as I said in my original comment, this leads to a subjective element so I understand (and I think the Danish coach understands) why they have adopted the rule they have. But if the current rule were completely fair in terms of the spirit of the law, no one would be complaining. I was responding to someone who pointed out that no one complains about goal line technology no matter how narrow, because a goal should always be a goal. But the off sides rule was written into the game decades ago to prevent goal hanging. I don't think anyone envisioned it being used to call off goals for a centimeter infraction. Since that rule applies to everyone equally, it is "fair" in that sense. But it doesn't necessarily serve the spirit of the rule and leads to debate because it looks absurd in instances like the call against Denmark.
That's because it's a completely different situation that's not transferable. No one is really complaining about the tech, it's the rule really. It's a goal when the entire ball passes the line, it's a clear 1/0 scenario. It's also always clear where the ball is and where the line is, there's no ambiguity. But where does an attacker begin and where does the defender end? When is the ball struck? The current iteration feels wrong because the law is about stopping people hanging high or the striker having a too big advantage. A toe sticking out is hardly an advantage and just feels like nitpicking. If the line were moved, so that the striker was allowed to be say 30cm "offside", then a 31cm offside call would be far more palatable. Because then the attacker obviously has an advantage and the offside stops that.
Yeah and then the attacker is 29cm offside and it's allowed? Is that fair? Where does the attacker begin then? Where does the defender end? Non of those 'issues' are fixed then, are they? They literally have automatic systems for when the ball is struck and for where the players are standing. It's clear as day. Rules are fine.
Yes that's fair. The point is not solving the issues of determining player position, because thats pointless and again missing the point. It's to give the attacker more leeway so that when an offside is called, there's no doubt that he's in an advantageous position. The problem with the current state is not that the tech can detect 1mm offsides. It's that attackers are called offside when they don't have any real advantage of being offside. Being 31 cm past the defender is different from being 1 cm past, as you have an actual advantage and even human eyes can tell, not just robo one's. The offside call then *feels* appropriate and just, which is the whole discussion here. The current calls don't feel proportional, they're way too harsh (no goal) for the infraction (1 toe past defense). Proportionality is very important in how laws are perceived.
Yeah but is being 29 cm offside not an advantage but 31 cm is? I'm also not sure why you'd want an attacker to have a certain amount of leeway in being offside. For me it's fine the way it is.
The exact number isn't important, it's that you find something that feels reasonable. My point is that both 29 and 31 is an advantage. And you're allowing a certain amount because you remove a reason to protest when an offside is called. It's like "dude don't be greedy you're already at an advantage." As the implementation is today, you get calls for offside when there's no obvious advantage, and so why would you then have the rule in the first place? It feels a too harsh punishment for an insignificant infraction
Imo 1 cm is reasonable. There's no need to gain an advantage. People can keep their 'reason to complain' all they want. Just stay behind the defender.
Everyone loves the tech...until it goes against you.
Yup.. it's a harsh decision but the right one nonetheless. I'd 100% rather see a goal like this one get disallowed instead of those ridiculous offsides that referees sometimes don't seem to see.
honestly though, do we even know it's the right one? where did they get the data points to make that line? they didn't show an angle that could've been used to actually catch the defender's full leg?
The semi-automated offside system is pretty interesting. The ball has a chip in it that transmits its position more than 300 hundred times a second (I don't remember the exact number, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's way more than 300). There are also cameras that track the ball and the players' positions on many points on their bodies. With all this information and data points, AI is used to create the 3D image that we see on TV when they show the offside. To this, we can also add the "heartbeat" graphic that we started to see in this Euro tournament. This allows to pinpoint the exact moment the ball is played to ensure that they can accurately determine if a player is offside or not. This is "semi-automated" because the referees in charge of VAR still have to make the call whether a player is offside or not. With all this technology, I think it's safe to assume that it is in fact the right decision.
The Euros ball doesnt have a position chip. Only the chip that meassures the exact moment of contact (the graph you see with hands), and that combined with roof mounted cameras determines the offside. It’s different that what we had before, its something its new for this euros
no but that's exactly my point; the sensor in the ball is good, it makes syncing up the positions easier, but why didn't they show any frame or angle that could possibly tell us the actual position of the last defender? because what I remember before they cut to the computer generated image did not show anything like it at all, and this was a very covered situation where it's far from certain there were cameras with a good view to get necessary data points for the players.
Part of it being semi-automated is so that it functions much quicker. If they take the time to show all the angles to the broadcast viewers you’d be missing play.
So we have the tech now and multiple data inputs per second and still we run around and start conspiracy theories?
are you literally not reading what im saying? it doesn't matter how often and how many data points it collects if they don't show the details that's actually needed. and the fact yall trust "AI" so much is actually astounding. "AI" will never admit to mistakes because it doesn't understand if they happen. it will invent information that does not exist if necessary, and I understand that's where the "semi" in semi-automatic comes from. but do you seriously trust the AI to make one graphic and for the refs to check that and say "yea that seems right" with whatever sources the AI decided to use? I genuinely don't get how this is controversial.
The only thing AI is doing is recreating a 3D image based on the massive data points it was given. These data points don't come from random positions, they're given by the numerous cameras (Semi-automated offside cameras and not broadcasting cameras) following the players and the location points given by the ball. Let's say you're watching a game where the VAR officials determine an offside by choosing a frame when a player plays the ball so they can draw the lines. At best, they will have 2 camera angles that can be used and most of the time the angles are not even that good to make the actual right decision. Just there, we could already have at least 3 flaws: 1. The closest frame we have is when the ball has already left the player's foot and not at the exact moment when contact was made. 2. The angles provided by the 2 cameras are not the best to determine the exact positions of the last defender and the player who is potentially offside. 3. Human error. I think any fan has complained at least once about the position of the lines when they're drawn. By using the semi-automated offside cameras that will follow a player's movements from numerous different angles, they're able to determine a very precise location of the player, even better than the ones from the broadcasting cameras. Having multiple cameras doing this, can considerably increase their precision. I think you have some preconceived idea about AI because we hear about it everywhere now and I agree that some of them can be dangerous or at least scary. Like I said, in this case the AI is used to create the 3D image of the offside. This is not about blindly trusting the AI. I don't know the company who created the semi-automated offside technology but numerous tests are always done to ensure that the results are as accurate and reliable as possible (by both the company and FIFA/UEFA). These results might not completely eliminate the 3 previous possible errors I mentioned early, but they will at least considerably reduce them, hence being a better alternative to what has been used before.
thank you. I'm not denying that it is a very helpful piece of technology, I just don't trust technology blindly (nor the users of it) in every case. seeing the presentation videos and info from fifa doesn't necessarily give me the best impression either, as they seem very "corporate", ie. present it positively and brush over and ignore any potential technical issues. as a computer person, I've seen how end-users often miss out on those exact challenges when using technology, no matter how much training they've gotten :')
Maybe do some research on the tech yourself?
Everyone? So far i have only seen quite a.lot of disliked for it because its not used correctly
[удалено]
You want a semi-automated system to make bias decisions for the attacking side?
It does, we have rules and define a cutoff point and the system fairly delivers it. If we decide that we don't want to punish those small margin advantages for attacking teams we can change the rules and define 50 cm operating freedom. As long as this isn't the case and not defined people aren't playing to it, it should be called as it is per rules today at this tournament
[удалено]
You have an issue with that, I don't. I want the game fair, I don't really care about what the spirit of the law was, imo giving attackers 0.1mm is still unfair. The idea that giving attackers 2cm leeway would increase the amount of goals scored is weird. What happens if that is implemented and the following season we see fewer goals scored across big 5 leagues since teams stopped playing offside and are even more pragmatic? Do we give attackers 4cm leeway to hope for more goals? Not sure how 'old' you are but I'm few months shy of 40.
[удалено]
Personally, I hate semi-automated offside so much. We had two directions to go in from our current state of drawing lines on TV, and as far as I'm concerned we went in the wrong one. Micro-millimeter offside was never the spirit of the offside rule, nobody would've complained about that goal in the pre-VAR era. When it's CR7 being a foot offside against Bayern, go ahead and call that, we can see it, clearly the linesman missed it. Shit like this? If you can't look at the replay and see it with your eyes, let it go. I know, "you're either offside or you aren't". Again, spirit of the rule. I'm not talking about "buffer zones" or whatever, that's murky territory, I'd just rather not have technology beyond seeing replays be available at all on offside review. And if you can't tell from a replay? Well, American football has it where a ball that's 50/50 caught by an offensive player and defensive player goes to the offensive team. In baseball, an unofficial rule on calls at the bases is "tie goes to the runner". Benefit goes to the attacking team. It's hard enough to score goals in this sport, there's no reason to be making it even more difficult. And, if my flair doesn't make it beyond obvious, I was rooting for Germany today. If that goal had been given, I literally wouldn't have given a moment's thought about offside or not.
> nobody would've complained about that goal in the pre-VAR era. without var the ref might have still called it offside. point being: if accurate decisions make the game worse then its not the accuracy of decision we need to change - its the rule that needs changed.
Thank you. But enforcing the correct application of the current rules is 100% fair and a good thing
Linesmen are instructed now to let it play out if it's marginal because they have recourse. Obviously the linesman today let it play out. Now that this is the standard, I don't think that would change. You might be right, maybe the linesman does flag it today especially in the pre-VAR era. I don't think that would happen now. I don't think it's the offside rule itself that needs changing. At one time I subscribed to the Wenger offside idea, but I don't anymore. I think that would just send the game into more low block defending than ever before because it would become so much riskier playing high lines. And nobody really enjoys watching low blocks. I think the offside rule as is now is fine, the methods we use to legislate it seem like drastic overkill to me is what I think the problem is.
the offside rule is the problem imo. we have this great tech that is far more accurate than humans, and it's made the game worse. hence my statement if accurate calls make the game worse then the rules are the problem. wengers rule is one proposal to change the rule. basing it on feet is another. making the line bigger is another. there are a variety of paths you can go adding more subjectivity to factual decisions is just not the right direction to imo. it will lead to... well, what we've seen historically - blatently offside goal being given as goals and blatant legitimate goals being given as offside. i dont see how adding more rng and error to decisions is supposed to improve the game, aside from timeliness issues and such - which have now basically been solved. with that logic we may aswell remove goalline technology too and base on it human sight instead
Two Euros in a row Denmark are blaming the refs for them going out. Funny little coincidence.
Ah in fairness that Sterling peno was a very obvious dive
Nah they just can't cope
I think most people agree that the rule should have a tolerance. 2 cm is a bit ridiculous. but it is correct according to the rules today, which were written with human interpretation in mind. not tech.
So what happens if it’s then .1cm over that 2cm? Shouldn’t the rule have a bit of tolerance?
Ok, but if we have a tolerance we'll have calls 2cm from the tolerance and people will complain just the same.
Exactly this. Offside is black and white, no matter where you draw the line. If you add some sort of tolerance it will either be as you say or there will be grey areas.
Yeah I don’t get the argument “he was only 2cm offside” it’s either offside or onside
Rather have people complaining about "tolerance" between, let's say, 5 cm and 7, than between 0 and 2, that's 5 full cms that from now on goals would be valid
No, no one with a brain would agree with your nonsense that opens a can of worms and subjectivity. Ffs, everyone needs to stop with harsh idiocy. Everyone wants attacking football until they don’t. This is how the game always been, and the rule is correct, and the call was correct. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean the rules a wrong, it just means you have a biased irrelevant opinion. No matter what, the fans will find a way to complain. If it was 3 cm, you would have said, it should have been 4 cm.
Offside is offside. We'd want it disallowed if it was flipped around.
VAR is supposed to eliminate bias and poor calls. Just because he didn't get a good result, it doesn't mean that the call was bad. The player was a toe over but it still counts!
[удалено]
Why is it ridiculous?
bc an offside by that margin in a situation like that objectively has zero benefit
The toe could make the very difference when blocking a shot in Goal or Not.
> bc an offside by that margin in a situation like that objectively has zero benefit If he got zero benefit from having the toe offside, he should have just positioned himself better and he wouldn’t have been offside and the goal would have stood. His own fault, really.
[удалено]
And when he's only onside by the toes of the defender can the defending team complain the same way? It's supposed to be unbiased, that's the whole point.
[удалено]
You can score with your toes, that's the rule. If you said fingers, sure.
[удалено]
That your complaint is pathetic. Part of your body is offside, you're offside. If they moved the offside rule so that the whole of your body has to be offside you would still complain if a player was called offside because of a 1cm difference.
I'm not complaining lol. I'm not even from Denmark. I just said it's laughable, meaning it's funny that he's offside by the toes. You completely read over when I said it wasn't rigged or incorrect. Please read my full comment before exploding at me.
So he was offside. The end.
[удалено]
I don't get the argument that it's laughable. He was offside. A goal doesn't count if the ball doesn't go over the line, should the ball being near the line count as a goal now cause else it's laughable? Should the thought count, since it could have easily been a goal if only for a few cm, so sure, give the goal? It's a yes/no situation, it's that easy.
I am really not sure what causes this reaction in people. Do you actually not understand why people think it is silly, or laughable, that being in front with your toe gets called as an advantage? Let the rule as it stands right now not be considered, consider why the rule exists, what it is there for, and if our current ability to call it as precisely as we can is congruent with these ideas. Many people just go "the rule is the rule", but that's such a close minded approach, rules can be bad, they can make the game worse. That is what is being signalled by people who speak against these calls, that the rule as it stands doesn't make sense, resulting in "laughable" calls.
[удалено]
The Danish coach was definitely using it in the (only correct) sense of the word: the decision was so stupid that it's funny.
[удалено]
> He was offside. A goal doesn't count if the ball doesn't go over the line, should the ball being near the line count as a goal now cause else it's laughable? no, but it would likewise be laughable if we moved the line between the posts forward 6 yards. the placement of the lines is the issue here, not whether a thing is 1cm over or under said line
I can understand the argument, because it was by such a miniscule amount, there likely wasn't an unfair advantage gained by the attacking player's position, but off is off.
In the rules. He was off side. But these micro calls really really make the game less fun to watch. I’d really wanna see a margin of error, for the attacking side.
Try to define that margin. Either we change radically the outside rule or we get used to what we have now.
yes, and when that margin of error is defined, I'll complain and say that it needs to be 5mm bigger. the rule is fine as it is, no margin of error. plus think of non-var games, how would the assistant referee "implement" such a margin of error?
I dunno like what 5cm. Should be plenty to fix these kind of calls.
So was the first goal. I have seen a dozen of times were bodyblocking was used against us and was never called. Getting bit tired of his crying. They weren't the better team by a mile. It was a deserved loss and not cause of the ref
Fr the danes are crying like crazy when they clearly weren‘t the better team and have had their share of lucky calls as well. I expected better from them.
Nah the first one was clear intent and had nothing to do with football, he turned his back to goal and went out of his way to run into Skov Olsen. Losing to Germany is fair, it could have gone either way with Germany playing slightly better than Denmark. Its the way in which we lost that sucks, not the fact that we lost.
I'm sure he would say the same if it would've been the other way around.
A laughable decision was not taking Matt O’Riley
Which one, Wirtz's? I agree
Anybody else notice Andersen holding onto the defenders arm the entire time the ball was in the box? Should’ve been a foul and Germanys ball anyways.
You gotta draw the line somewhere, otherwise we go back to subjective ruling and chaos. Speaking of which, you could make the case for that corner foul and the penalty decision. I’ve seen so many duels like that and I remember so many handballs even more clear cut than that which haven’t been given (Belgium vs Romania for instance).
I didn't hate disallowing it but it felt awful giving Germany such a cheap (non)penalty right after.
It was dumb defending first of all. I've seen a lot of pens like that given when defenders act clumsy.
I am of course not neutral but that is my point. What i felt after the match was more than anything fatigue. You invest feelings and compassion in the team you support. Losing this way because of things decided in a video room take away a lot of my desire to watch football. The decisions were not about big things but small things. Decided the match though. When it happens with a referee decision in the same second it is a different feeling. It felt more like watching a video game. I understand the result is that matters. I also understand Germany of course has a better team overall. But watching a game with energy and passion? It is difficult this way. In the match threads the up-down votes remind you of the difference between countries with 6 million and 80 million people. So only a small minority is left with that feeling about football.
This post deserves more attention. Perfectly describes how I felt. Taking this to a commercial discussion. No good for football if this is the feeling that you leave some teams fans with. In the end that will cause fan attrition and through that lost revenue
Thank you. So far it has only cost downvotes (again, 6 million feelings versus 80 million). I am not disputing the result. I am debating my own investment in the game. I don’t blame Joachim Andersen if he is too. He has by the way never scored for Denmark before. Still hasn’t. Because rational speaking watching football and caring is weird. But it is the passion of the moment. The feeling. If you take that away it is just robots and a soulless computer. For the Germans, the result is what matters. I get that too. But maybe one day they will feel the same.
While we're here, why is it when Lewy scored his pen doing the stutter, the whole world went crazy? Kai comes to a complete stop, and no one cares.
It is ridiculous, so was the "handball", but those are the rules at the moment. Its ruining the sport to a degree imo, but at least it is the same for everyone. It'll change again at some point, we'll just have to wait until then.
Yeaaah no. It is ridiculous because we are not used to it. Offside is offside even if it's only a centimeter. If this is what it takes to have a better football, then i'll take it. I just hope the ref will be consistant with it. For the handball, sadly his hand can be ruled as reaching out. I mean sure it's natural position but people can easily do it to prevent crosses deliberately and say it's natural position. So the handball call is correct as andersen didn't have any movement to retract his hand to the side or to his back, it might be deliberate
Both are correct with the current rules, i know that. It just seems ridiculous that we're talking about one toe over the line in one and one unlucky finger in the other. This isn't how we make sure the best team wins. The rules are supposed to make sure the best team wins without cheating. As long as the rules look like this, much more luck is involved than necessary.
The rule are there to be fair to both team based on the rules. not to make the best team win. Even the best team can lose under the rule. Unlucky? Yes. But rule is rule. Get used to it, with VAR getting better, the rule will be tighter. There won't be any controversial things like "hand of god" goal if the VAR is used correctly. Let's take "hand of god" goal as example. Controversial, but it's the spirit of the game and people like it, yet it's unfair for the england and it makes them lose the game. Does that mean england was the worse team? Get used to it, VAR will be strict and sometimes it will be against spirit of the game, but rule is rule, as long as the ref consistantly call it, it'll be better in the long run.
Maybe the best team shouldn't win, but the team who plays the best on the day should. Rules like these make it more luck based, which is objectively worse for the sport. The hand of god was never, and should never be allowed, so i dont get that point? Like in court the spirit of the law should be more important than the wording.
Mark my words this kinda tech will drastically reduce goals
It reduces the number of proper goals but increases the number of fake penalties. It is killing football
Football has fallen. Millions must raise the flag when the forward was like 3 meters onside.
Before VAR, a decision that tight would never have been made. Players were out there half an inch offside and no one cared. Now with VAR... The PGMOL officials can't handle making any decision without VAR's hand holding the entire way. It's a shame to watch how much the PGMOL officials are wrecking things both at home and on the international stage
Coach Hjulmand is a wise man who is brave to speak up. We need more free voices to get rid of this nightmare. Unfortunately most people are watching the games as background noise for Instagram browsing and have never played any sports so they are more interested in fake controversy produced by VAR than real football, which this technology is killing If you understand football you know that taking away a goal like this is unjust