Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] World Cup - Day Twelve



Poojah

Poojah

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2010
1,881
Leeds
GT49er said:
Yes, I know the rule (all of the ball must be over all of the line and all that) and I've seen the pictures that clearly show that according to that rule the ball was in (OK then, not actually out if you prefer it that way!) - but to me, just looking at it logically - and according to the way it was when I played football back in the day - and for a fair few years after that too!) that would be well out!

Ah well, c'est la vie. The world's gone bat-shit mental - but I guess we all know that anyway!
Click to expand...
Yep, would agree with all that. Technically the correct decision, and yet somehow the most controversial one at the same time. Had the goal remained disallowed, albeit wrongly, no one would have argued and no one would been talking about it now.

This is the age of microscopic officiating.
 




JamesAndTheGiantHead

JamesAndTheGiantHead

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2011
6,270
Worthing
210A1CE0-F5CC-41A7-9F58-6009ABDF60A7.jpeg
 




dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,479
Burgess Hill


Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,503
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
nickjhs said:
Simply because it would be a damn sight easier to adjudicate without the need for VAR. You don't need to have a bird's eye view to see if the ball is touching the line. You absolutely do if you have to determine if a part the ball is inside the line if you draw a horizontal line down from that point.
Click to expand...
The VAR team also monitor the goal line technology so it wasn’t VAR that awarded the goal.

Unfortunately for Sheffield United, GLT failed them 18 months ago.
 




Not Andy Naylor

Not Andy Naylor

Well-known member
Dec 12, 2007
8,798
Seven Dials
I thought that ITV's pundits had a poor game. Souness was outraged that the decision was given in Japan's favour whether it was right or wrong, and Eni Aluko said 'I shouted that it was out as soon as I saw it!' as if her opinion (which was proved wrong in any case) should affect the outcome in any way at all. Revealingly (and not for the first time) former players were shown to be ignorant of the laws of the game.
 


Driver8

Driver8

On the road...
NSC Patron
Jul 31, 2005
15,982
North Wales
nickjhs said:
Simply because it would be a damn sight easier to adjudicate without the need for VAR. You don't need to have a bird's eye view to see if the ball is touching the line. You absolutely do if you have to determine if a part the ball is inside the line if you draw a horizontal line down from that point.
Click to expand...
What if the ball is in the air? Would it never be out unless it touched the ground?

I can’t see anything wrong with the current rule.
 


PILTDOWN MAN

PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,705
Hurst Green
nickjhs said:
So this just confirms for me that the rules need adjusting. The ball should be considered out if the midline crosses fully over the boundary ie the ball can no longer physically touch the line unless it is brought back into play. As it stands the ruling is correct as it complies with the rules
Click to expand...
You are of course completely wrong.

You assume every time there's a close call the ball is on the ground, well it isn't. It's much harder to see and assess with the naked eye if the ball has half crossed the line, as you suggest, if it is in the air.

Too many people who fail completely to understand or indeed are ignorant of the laws of the game try to change something or make it up when it suits.

The ball was checked by the same cameras that monitor the line for a goal check. They say the ball was in, get over it. Having fixed cameras monitoring one thing is about the most certain decision we can have in the game.
 






Braggfan

Braggfan

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
May 12, 2014
1,835
Icy Gull said:
From the angles I’ve seen that ball was 100% out and I’d be in meltdown if it was given against the Albion. However as it knocked Germany out of the WC I am ecstatic, of course it was the right decision.
Click to expand...

It's a weird one and I think I've changed my mind on it. When I first saw it, I thought it was 100% out. But on reflection, if that shot had been about waist high, the same process would have been applied and we'd all say, "fair enough, it was close but not all of the ball crossed the line." The big problem is looked out because the ball was on the ground and we could see the gap between the ball and the line. It's weird, but i think its an optical illusion. Having said that I can still see why people would grumble if it went against you.
 


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,746
Gloucester
PILTDOWN MAN said:
Problem is I suspect that when you played the lino was a sub and as often shown on here hardly anyone who plays or watch the game bother to understand the laws of the game. I feel sorry for grassroots refs for they are dealing with thicko's
Click to expand...
I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?
 




pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,315
GT49er said:
Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?
Click to expand...
Same principle for corners isn't it? The whole ball over the whole line to be outside the quadrant, otherwise inside.

Penalty might be defined as a spot, rather than a line/area.
 








B

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
11,837
Cumbria
GT49er said:
I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?
Click to expand...
Law 9 hasn't changed since c1888 when it said that a ball on the line is in play, it's out of play when it crosses the touch line. Law 10 adds that a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line. That doesn't seem to have changed either.

So I guess what you're really talking about is the interpretation of 'touch line' and 'crosses' rather than the law/rule itself.

The current interpretation was being used in 1966, as the German press have reminded us today!
 


herecomesaregular

herecomesaregular

We're in the pipe, 5 by 5
Oct 27, 2008
4,226
Still in Brighton
It's just the same as in tennis, can't see the controversy myself other than FIFA/VAR didn't immediately show a clear picture (as they do for goal or no goal). Souness was an absolute embarassment last night. We really need to get rid of so many ex players from years ago as pundits. All this "you have to have played the game to understand" nonsense.
 


pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,315
Look at this angle, surprising to think that that it (probably) was in!

1359.jpg
 






PILTDOWN MAN

PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
18,705
Hurst Green
GT49er said:
I would very much doubt if that was the rule back then - I'm pretty sure everybody accepted the centre of the ball as the criteria. On the ground, if the ball had rolled out so that it wasn't in contact with the line (or if in the air, vertically above that) it was out. Whether that was rhe rule, and it has since been changed, or whether the current rule has always been the rule, that was the way it was always interpreted and fully accepted by both sides, so effectively it was the rule back then.

Likewise. for corners, the ball had to be inside the quadrant or touching the line - none of this 'part of the ball must be vertically over the line even if the ball is resting on the ground outside' stuff - and for penalties, doesn't the ball have to be actually placed on the spot, not somewhere vaguely near it?
Click to expand...
Ball out of play law has never changed. There isn't any rule book and never has there been.

All the goal line technology has done is show where so many have been wrong over the years. As I posted previously the lack of knowing the laws of the game is shocking.

Another example of ignorance was when in an earlier game in the WC a player given offside and the game restarted in their own half. Players raising arms in disbelief. These professional players not understanding the offence happens when the player becomes active. If he has retreated into his own half from an offside position when the ball is kicked the offence is in his own half.

My other issue is throw-ins, there's numerous foul throws in a single game at the top level. Ones that you'll never get away with on a park on a Sunday morning. Never gets a mention by the commentators. One yesterday the player's back foot was nearly touching his backside it was that bad.
 
Last edited:


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,746
Gloucester
Bodian said:
Law 9 hasn't changed since c1888 when it said that a ball on the line is in play, it's out of play when it crosses the touch line. Law 10 adds that a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line. That doesn't seem to have changed either.

So I guess what you're really talking about is the interpretation of 'touch line' and 'crosses' rather than the law/rule itself.

The current interpretation was being used in 1966, as the German press have reminded us today!
Click to expand...
Yes, but only Law 10 specified the whole of the ball; Law 9 merely specified 'crossing the line' - and it's only comparatively recently that the 'whole of the ball' has become the interpretation of Law 9. Certainly corner kicks had to be taken inside the quadrant, or at least touching the line.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here