A&H

Sweden USA USA

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
What a finish after a bit of a dull game.

Players unable to score pens.

And then a winner by a hair!

The AR seemed to look at her watch. Did the ref have GLT here? Was this a case of too close for GLT and decided by VAR?
 
The Referee Store
The graphic implies it was GLT but I'm unsure why it took so long. Maybe the ref wanted VAR to confirm GLT got it right? GLT has been wrong in the past and it would be awkward to award the goal (and end the shootout) and then bring it back.

This would be against VAR protocols because the referee should make an on field decision but I think the referee would be completely justified in breaking the protocol in this situation.
 
GLT used to have a margin of error of ~5mm, they've possibly improved the accuracy.

Do they give a goal if the system shows k
it's over the line by an amount within the margin of error?
 
With or without the aid of technology, goal given and yet American keeper continued to protest the ball hadn't crossed the line.

One of the more amusing comments on social media I have read about the incident was that keepers are not allowed to attempt a double save at penalties :D :confused:
 
Mooseybaby said:
With or without the aid of technology, goal given and yet American keeper continued to protest the ball hadn't crossed the line.

One of the more amusing comments on social media I have read about the incident was that keepers are not allowed to attempt a double save at penalties :D :confused:
Click to expand...
I can understand the keeper complaining. Nothing Frappart did suggested that glt was involved. She didn't point to her watch. She immediately pointed to her ear. Then pointed to the center before waving no. Then didn't make an audio announcement the one time the entire tournament it would have been useful.
 
An audio announcement would have been terrible. She was obviously frazzled.

Beat practice for me would have been:
1) point to watch when it buzzed, but not over sell it
2) make sure everyone knows they need to wait for a check
3) when check complete get the Swedish player away before whistling and pointing to the centre
4) blow full time

None of this waving around like you're drowning business
 
Redster said:
An audio announcement would have been terrible. She was obviously frazzled.

Beat practice for me would have been:
1) point to watch when it buzzed, but not over sell it
2) make sure everyone knows they need to wait for a check
3) when check complete get the Swedish player away before whistling and pointing to the centre
4) blow full time

None of this waving around like you're drowning business
Click to expand...
I fully realize that this situation was a first (at least that I've seen) in an event like this with GLT. But I have to think that, in theory at least, you should have the following sequence of events.
  1. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, the onfield call is goal if the GLT notifications go off on the onfield referee's watches. I've seen some places (it's the internet, so I take them all with a very large helping of salt) that only the AR had GLT on her watch. I just cannot believe that is the case. I'm a watch nerd, so I always am interested in seeing what watches referees are wearing. In the games I've watched where I have been able to see the watches the referees are wearing, one of them is always a Hublot like the Premier League referees wear. That's the watch that would have GLT on it. Hublot is an official World Cup/FIFA sponsor like with the Premier League, and part of that deal is that referees wear Hublots.
  2. So had Frappart clearly signaled "GLT is saying this is a goal", she would/should have pointed to her watch. I once saw Anthony Taylor give a signal like this in an EPL game where he pointed to his watch above his head, kind of like we would do if we are marking off 10 yards on a free kick and saying "wait for my whistle". Had Frappart given a signal like this, I firmly believe much of the confusion would have been averted.
  3. VAR would check ONLY to ensure that there was not a clear error/malfunction of the technology. In this case, there would never be a view that clearly showed that the ball never completely crossed the goal line. So there would not be a "clear error" or clear evidence to reverse the GLT technology. In the National Football League, this would be a "call stands" decision where the referee would say "the call on the field stands." That is code for "video evidence is not clear enough for us to reverse the call", as a "the call is confirmed" means "we have reviewed the call, and the video evidence is clear that we made the correct call." (Side note - I wish soccer/football referees would use language like this - I think it would help some in terms of helping others know when the video showed the call was clearly right compared to when the video is inconclusive so the onfield call stands.)
I'm a US fan. I wish I didn't have to write this, but I'm firmly convinced that in the end we got to the right call based on the protocol and technology. I just think the heat of the moment and the unprecedented nature of something like this happening just resulted in poor signaling and communication from Frappart. I don't completely fault her for this. It was a very competitive 120 minutes, it was a tense penalty kick shootout, and this type of situation is something that I'm sure has never happened in any of her matches (and if it has, I want her to pick the numbers for my lottery ticket tomorrow night :) ).
 
My read on it was that Frappart's "on-field decision" would have been no-goal, but she got a buzz from her watch. She has tech telling her goal, her experience and instincts telling her no-goal, so decides to wait and get confirmation from VAR before confirming the decision and setting off celebrations.

In the heat of the moment and with that much pressure on her, I think that's incredible judgement. Communication was poor, but in terms of taking a second to be sure before calling the game, I think that was absolutely the right thing to do.
 
bester said:
GLT used to have a margin of error of ~5mm, they've possibly improved the accuracy.

Do they give a goal if the system shows k
it's over the line by an amount within the margin of error?
Click to expand...
The graphics take the margin of error into account when displaying. For example if MoE is 3mm then they either make the ball 3mm bigger or move it 3mm closer the line before displaying. Otherwise you may have a situation that the graphics is showing a gap between the ball and the line but the goal is not awarded (because the gap is less than the MoE). That would create a hell lot of confusion.

At least this is what I hope they do. It's the only thing that makes sense.
 
one said:
The graphics take the margin of error into account when displaying. For example if MoE is 3mm then they either make the ball 3mm bigger or move it 3mm closer the line before displaying. Otherwise you may have a situation that the graphics is showing a gap between the ball and the line but the goal is not awarded (because the gap is less than the MoE). That would create a hell lot of confusion.

At least this is what I hope they do. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they do/can account for the MOE. I think the decision is what the tech says. The MOE just means that it may be wrong on calls with the MOE. Because it is is essentially instantaneous, I don’t think it is changing calls on the field. I think it is the call on the field. (And I think it makes sense. Even if the MOE is 5 mm, that is far, far more reliable than any possible human call on a moving ball.)
 
socal lurker said:
I don’t think they do/can account for the MOE. I think the decision is what the tech says. The MOE just means that it may be wrong on calls with the MOE. Because it is is essentially instantaneous, I don’t think it is changing calls on the field. I think it is the call on the field. (And I think it makes sense. Even if the MOE is 5 mm, that is far, far more reliable than any possible human call on a moving ball.)
Click to expand...
May well be but I don't agree with it being sensible.

Puting 'your approach' in a different way, we are changing a KMI decision that may be right with a more reliable decision that could be wrong.

I am saying only change it if the new decision is right (no maybe).
 
socal lurker said:
I don’t think they do/can account for the MOE. I think the decision is what the tech says. The MOE just means that it may be wrong on calls with the MOE. Because it is is essentially instantaneous, I don’t think it is changing calls on the field. I think it is the call on the field. (And I think it makes sense. Even if the MOE is 5 mm, that is far, far more reliable than any possible human call on a moving ball.)
Click to expand...
I think this is the way it works. As far as I know, GLT uses Hawkeye technology and as previous analysis on Hawkeye in tennis has shown, the 3.6 mm MOE is only an average - it can and does get calls wrong by as much as 6mm.

The accuracy of Hawk-Eye and similar line-calling technologies has been called into question by new research from Cardiff University's social sciences department.

In a paper called You Cannot Be Serious! Public understanding of technology with special reference to Hawk-Eye, the researchers claim that errors made by the machine can be greater than 3.6mm - the average error stated by its manufacturers.

Hawk-Eye has been shown to call a ball 'in' by 1mm when its true position was 'out' by 5mm. This result would pass the International Tennis Federation's testing system, despite being inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Hawk-Eye's beady focus may be blurred, says new research
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
Hawkeye in tennis has shown, the 3.6 mm MOE is only an average - it can and does get calls wrong by as much as 6mm.
Click to expand...

6mm is a fairly large margin for a tennis ball (67mm - 9%) but almost insignificant if the same margin is applied on a football (220mm - 2.7%).

I'm more than happy accepting that it correctly awards a goal 973 times in 1000 but gets it wrong 27 times.
 
A quick bit from AI.
  • The two main goal line technology systems used in major professional leagues are Hawk-Eye and GoalControl. Both claim to be able to accurately detect when the ball fully crosses the goal line to within a few millimeters.
  • FIFA, the world governing body for soccer, approved both Hawk-Eye and GoalControl in 2012 after extensive testing. Their criteria was that the systems must have a margin of error of no more than 5mm in determining if a goal should be awarded
  • The Premier League stated that during testing Hawk-Eye was demonstrated to have a maximum error of 3.6mm. GoalControl claims its system is accurate to within 1-2mm.
 
Last edited:
Can the keeper touch the ball twice in an attempt to save the ball from entering the goal during a penalty shootout?
 
IpsoJure said:
Can the keeper touch the ball twice in an attempt to save the ball from entering the goal during a penalty shootout?
Click to expand...
Yes. The ball is in play and the penalty kick is complete when the ball stops moving. The only person who can't play the ball a 2nd time is the kicker, at any time during a penalty shootout and until another player has played/touched the ball in a normal penalty situation during a match.
 
I had never heard about this myth before and I don't know how it could have started. Possibly due to what @JamesL said that the kicker can't touch it a second time. And that really applies to all restarts and is not just for penalties. A player that takes any restart can't touch it again until another players does.

(Keep in mind a dropped ball restart is taken by the referee)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top