Ricardo Alejandre

Soccer NBA Hip-Hop/Rap Technology & Science

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@PFTCommenter This is another interesting take on this
https://t.co/qWkAcR6vd6

[Patriot2929 @Patriot2929x]

Portugal vs Croatia

The decision to disallow Joško Gvardiol’s late equalizer for Croatia against Portugal relies on a fundamentally flawed and contradictory interpretation of the rules of football. The official ruling states that a microscopic sensor spike inside the ball registered a touch from Igor Matanović, constituting a "pass" that put Mario Pašalić offside. This logic falls apart under intense scrutiny when evaluating intent, physics, and the game's established precedents.

1. Completely Clean Initial Onside Positioning

First and foremost, when Ivan Perišić initiated the original ball into the box, every single Croatian player was in a completely legal, onside position. The entire sequence built toward a legitimate scoring play. Stripping away a critical goal based on a microscopic, invisible inflection point later in the sequence violates the spirit of fair play.

2. Contradictory Logic Regarding Intent

The VAR interpretation relies on a paradox. The officials claim that the touch from Portugal defender Renato Veiga was "irrelevant" and a mere deflection because he was not the intended recipient and was oblivious to the ball hitting his back. Yet, they simultaneously label Igor Matanović's headbutt attempt as a "pass" to Mario Pašalić. Matanović was clearly making a direct attempt on goal, not trying to pass. If the referee rules that a player's deliberate intent does not matter for Matanović, they cannot logically turn around and use a lack of intent to excuse Veiga.

3. The Precedent of Defender Liability and the "Block"

Ruling that Renato Veiga's touch was irrelevant directly contradicts basic football rules regarding defensive liability. Consider an identical physical scenario on the pitch: an attacker fires a shot or cross full force at a defender who has his back turned and has no idea the ball is coming. If that ball hits the oblivious defender's back and goes out of bounds over the goal line, the attacking team is awarded a corner kick. The defender is held fully liable for the touch simply by taking up space on the field.

Veiga did not stand in the 18-yard box by happenstance; he placed himself there deliberately to block the path to the net and take up critical space. If the microchip dictates that Matanović's goal attempt counts as a conscious play on the ball, then Veiga's body placement must be counted as a defensive block.

4. A Loose Ball Interception, Not a Pass

Because Matanović's action was a clear attempt to score, the resulting collision with Veiga’s back was a physical block that completely disrupted the ball's original speed and trajectory. Once the ball deflected off a defender who was actively acting as a human shield, the phase of play changed. Mario Pašalić did not receive a calculated, deliberate pass from his teammate; he intercepted a loose ball resulting directly from a defender’s physical block. Therefore, no offside offense occurred, and Joško Gvardiol’s goal should have stood.

#croatia #portugal @FOXSports
@barstoolsports
#fifa #portugalvscroatia
@FIFAWorldCup

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@PFTCommenter What I don’t get is that if this tech is there, why the VAR don’t make the call themselves and instead they call the referee to watch the video and make the call, you only do that when there is doubt

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Patriot2929x Very interesting

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Y1O2N3A4S5 @JC_DC420 @Pin3007 @PFTCommenter Yes this is assuming there was a touch which is what i am questioning, also the VAR did not deemed Veiga's touch, they could not make a decision about that touch and that is why they called the ref. The ref then make the decision that the touch was unintentional.

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@PabloFMarino Lo del MVP es de risas, de eso no hay ni que discutir

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Y1O2N3A4S5 @Pin3007 @PFTCommenter At this point idk if you are serious or just trolling

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@AjMasteer Esto es lo que creo you

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@shawyonix @ciaroyalty @PFTCommenter hahahaha

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@PFTCommenter I am gonna go even further and throw this out. I think they made a mistake and the graph is the defender touch on the ball. I trully dont think the attacker touched it, like the rotation of the ball was not alter at all

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@UnprobableP @jangatron1 @PFTCommenter i am just calling out the inconcistency, they have tech for the offsides and they make the call, if they also have this tech that seems irrefutable, why not make the call as well

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

you are the only one repeting the same thing over and over after explaining you that the VAR by itself tell the ref when there is a penalty and if it was a red card that the ref missed, and yes the red card is pulled by the ref and the penalty is called by the ref but the decision is made by the VAR when the evidence is clear, idk how is this an argument to you

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@azzurro1997 Esto es lo que creo yo tambien, y coincide con el tamaño de la grafica. Porque si ese rose casi inexistente hace esa grafica un remate te saca la barra de la grafica

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@XanzerXIII @PFTCommenter It is like talking to the wall with you 😂lets agree to disagree

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@gandhy_salgado no es solo eso, es que la rotacion de la pelota continua como si nada

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Y1O2N3A4S5 @Pin3007 @PFTCommenter Penalties are the perfect example of VAR sometimes making the decision, the ref dont call it and the VAR says "yes there is a penalty", sometimes they see a potential penalty but they cant assure it because they are in doubt, that is when they call the ref to see the video

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@DavidCardenasL @Augustocesar22 Depende si es intentional o no, si es intentional entonces si se reinicia la jugada y ya el supuesto offside no cuenta

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Augustocesar22 Me pregunto como se vera esa grafica con un remate poque si se ve asi con un toque que ni modifica la rotacion de la pelota, con un remate no cabe en la grafica

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@XanzerXIII @PFTCommenter that is the point, the ref not always reviews the video, he only does if the var cant make the decision themselve

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

right, i am questioning that the touch existed, i am sure the tech exists. The speed of the graph compared to the video is weird and further more the strenght of the touch by the graph size dont match what we saw, the rotation of the ball was not even disrupted or changed, so i am expectin an even more subtle graph

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Whynott729 @ZeromuSPlays @PFTCommenter This can be the reason, but it has not been explained like that

[Ricardo Alejandre @ralejandreKY]

@Whynott729 @ZeromuSPlays @PFTCommenter again, that play is under the assumption that the attacker touched the ball with the head, if he did not, which is the argument we are having, the intention of the defender doesnt matter because there is no offside to begin with