- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The sensors in the WC ball
Posted on 7/2/26 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 7/2/26 at 8:32 pm
How much should we trust these things? I am suspicious as hell the accelerometer in the ball correctly picked up on the ball supposedly grazing the Croatian player, and that it was perfectly synchronized with the cameras at that timescale given that it instantly touched a Portuguese player right after. Some Croatian nerds should test this out. But also I hate FIFA so that may be influencing my thinking here.
7
Posted on 7/2/26 at 8:40 pm to Lou Pai
I'm fairly skeptical as well. Did the graph show two touches? Because if not something's wrong.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 9:41 pm to Lou Pai
I like the American sports rule here.
If that were called offside on the field then let the play stand as off. The fact that it wasn’t called off and it was a 50/50 call the goal should count.
If that were called offside on the field then let the play stand as off. The fact that it wasn’t called off and it was a 50/50 call the goal should count.
This post was edited on 7/2/26 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 7/2/26 at 9:44 pm to Lou Pai
One spike indicating contact with the ball.
If it hit the croatian player, then why did it not register the definitive contact with the portugal player?
Answer: it never touched the croatian player. He was onside and the goal should have been allowed.
Croatia got fricked.
If it hit the croatian player, then why did it not register the definitive contact with the portugal player?
Answer: it never touched the croatian player. He was onside and the goal should have been allowed.
Croatia got fricked.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:01 pm to magildachunks
The conspiracy minded part of me believes the one touch the graph represents is the touch off the Portuguese player. If that spike seen in the graph is truly timed up exactly with the ball grazing of the Croatian players hair then there should be a massive spike following near after once ball bounces off Portuguese head
Want to see that replay with the graph go an additional second for confirmation
Want to see that replay with the graph go an additional second for confirmation
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:02 pm to Lou Pai
Whoever believes this sensor story is dumber than a box of rocks. FIFA is about as corrupt as it gets. They review VAR only when it favors their outcome. The review system doesn't even have criteria to go off on. They rigged in Messi last cup. They can't have Fagnaldo going this early. Especially against Croatia. They automatically review Croatia's goals but don't bother with the hand ball by the Portugal player.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:05 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
look at my posted video and tell me where the croatian touch was that triggered that spike
The ball never touched him.
The ball never touched him.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:07 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
Right where's the second spike? Since it touching the Portuguese player isn't in dispute, there needs to be 2 spikes in order for it to prove it also touched the Croatian player. Video cuts off too early.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:08 pm to ShoughTFU
They gifted Portugal a goal and then every single Croatian goal they found a reason to call it back. It’s a sham.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 10:09 pm to magildachunks
I’ve seen it. Seems intentionally deceitful to put that graph up on international broadcast and not show an additional millisecond if they’re able to time it up like that for replay. You should see the spike at the end of it for deflection off Portugal and you don’t.
Posted on 7/2/26 at 11:49 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
Croatia got screwed big time! It’s hard to argue against corruption when that many officials looked at it and came to that conclusion.
FIFA can’t have bitch boy Ronaldo getting upset 2 world cups in a row.
Croatia has every right to be livid.
FIFA can’t have bitch boy Ronaldo getting upset 2 world cups in a row.
Croatia has every right to be livid.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 12:27 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
I like the American sports rule here.
If that were called offside on the field then let the play stand as off. The fact that it wasn’t called off and it was a 50/50 call the goal should count.
One thing I need to remind folks is video replay in soccer is relatively new compared to how long other sports around the world have been using it.
Changes have been made since it was first used, kinks keep getting ironed out. New rules have been implemented just for the world cup that might not carry over to leagues right away.
The wording on what you describe has been clear and obvious. Problem is that's become subjective. But not with offsides. When you are off you are off.
This post was edited on 7/3/26 at 12:29 am
Posted on 7/3/26 at 12:32 am to Who_Dat_Tiger
He's clearly in an offside position from that screen shot.
The guy is offsides. What some of you want is for Croatia to be awarded a bogus goal.
The guy is offsides. What some of you want is for Croatia to be awarded a bogus goal.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 12:55 am to dgnx6
quote:
He's clearly in an offside position from that screen shot.
The guy is offsides. What some of you want is for Croatia to be awarded a bogus goal.
He wasn't when the ball was kicked.
The angle I posted shows that the ball never touched the croatian player that rendered him "offside".
They post a graphic showing a "spike" indicating the ball being touched. Okay, so show the second spike when it touched the defender, because we can see he touched the ball.
The angle I posted shows only one touch on the ball, and it's the defender's head that touches it.
It appears that Croatia was robbed of a goal to equalize the game. Again by VAR, which gifted Portugal a PK.
Croatia was defeated by a booth official in this match, not Portugal.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:05 am to Lou Pai
I was all for VAR for to reverse the obvious, with England-Germany 2010 in mind. We've gone too far however. Chips, graphs, a controversial game changing review every third game it seems, it's all too much.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 7:28 am to dgnx6
quote:
He's clearly in an offside position from that screen shot.
The guy is offsides. What some of you want is for Croatia to be awarded a bogus goal.
He was on when the ball was played so if his teammate didn't touch it he remained on. That's the whole point of the thread.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 7:37 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
that were called offside on the field then let the play stand as off. The fact that it wasn’t called off and it was a 50/50 call the goal should count.
That's where I am. Same with the Balogun call. Use VAR for what's called, not to pull one out your arse after the fact.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 8:00 am to dgnx6
quote:oh boy
He's clearly in an offside position from that screen shot.
The guy is offsides. What some of you want is for Croatia to be awarded a bogus goal.
you don’t even know what’s going on here or being argued. Come back in another 4 years
Posted on 7/3/26 at 8:27 am to Lou Pai
quote:
I am suspicious as hell the accelerometer in the ball correctly picked up on the ball supposedly grazing the Croatian player, and that it was perfectly synchronized with the cameras at that timescale given that it instantly touched a Portuguese player right after.
It is a complete scam. There is absolutely no way. That ball touched the guy’s hair literally. Games are blatantly fixed.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 8:33 am to T1gerNate
In real time how long do you think it took in between the supposed Croatia touch and the Portuguese obvious touch. .2 seconds? It stands to reason the blip should be in that graph.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News