Nick Ukalovic

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@vAvAkiLLy @RefereeC21621 The ball sensor technology is flawed. Pure and simple.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@RefereeC21621 Amazing ball technology. It can sense hair being touched when the naked eye can’t see it, but when many people see it hit an overhead wire, the ball sensor can’t detect it. Shows that it’s a load of rubbish. Go back to believing what you see with your own eyes.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@DamirWallener @Footballtweet Very interesting that Veiga has not made any public comments whatsoever about this game considering he was involved in both major controversial calls. 1. He dives for the penalty and 2. He attempted to head the ball away but instead headed it to pasalic.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@DTHayward7 @Footballtweet Very interesting that Veiga has not made any public comments whatsoever about this game considering he was involved in both major controversial calls. 1. He dives for the penalty and 2. He attempted to head the ball away but instead headed it to pasalic.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@Akvicoc @Footballtweet Very interesting that Veiga has not made any public comments whatsoever about this game considering he was involved in both major controversial calls. 1. He dives for the penalty and 2. He attempted to head the ball away but instead headed it to pasalic.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@shotfootballapp Very interesting that Veiga has not made any public comments whatsoever about this game considering he was involved in both major controversial calls. 1. He dives for the penalty and 2. He attempted to head the ball away but instead headed it to pasalic.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@ChaudhariH1109 @PandaNoComply So contact with hair was ‘playing the ball’ but a bounce off Veiga’s head, who was watching the ball come in and squatting down in motion as the ball lowered, was merely a deflection? You people seriously believe that? If matanovic ‘played’ at the ball then Veiga cleared it.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@Grozo007 @PandaNoComply What part? Where it says a deliberate attempt to clear the ball means that the player is then onside? Thanks. It’s clearer to me than ever.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@sureshnancy1631 @ED8238770380736 @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup We know it’s a final decision. We also know it was the wrong decision.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@ED8238770380736 @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup If it did touch his hair, the scale of the graph would be impossible to see when compared to the touch by the Portuguese defender. Therefore they can’t show us both touches on a graph…. Or there was no Matanovic touch. Either way it would prove Pasalic was onside.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@Yafei123 @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup Ahhh. Yeah it changes direction when Veiga headers it backwards to Pasalic. His intent to clear the ball resulted in a backpass to Pasalic. Not offside. Clear to me.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@sportpunter @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup Oh man… you are funny.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@Guayakilo @DokGooners @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup Yeah it did… when Veiga headed it with intent to clear it away and played Pasalic onside.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@jcaires63 @DokGooners @fifamedia @adidasfootball @FIFAWorldCup Do you mean veiga’s head? He plays for Portugal dude. That means pasalic was onside. Therefore it was a goal. Simple and straight forward…. And clear with and without the technology.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@TomoCura @AbsoluteMxssi And Denmark too. Amazing.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@DailyStartingXI You mean….. FIFA/USA 0 - 1 Belgium

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@gbellseattle @thenewstribune Belgium 1-0 FIFA after goal in 10th minute.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@CFCBen_X Not at all. We aren’t upset with Portugal..: just with FIFA. It’s the ref that robbed us. Portugal just happened to be the recipient.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@BlazzePT @Footballtweet So if FIFA says they have a machine that detects what a player is thinking, we also accept that as gospel? Just because they ‘say’ they have a chip that can interpret things doesn’t mean it’s correct. Technology can be wrong unless there are ways of checking it.

[Nick Ukalovic @Nickuk74Nick]

@BlazzePT @Footballtweet Happy to move past this now and to agree to disagree. I will always think this ruling was poor. Whether there is technical merit or not, fact is it was one of those very close calls that divide opinions. Such is life. 😀