# Japan v Spain



## quiet guy (Dec 1, 2022)

Japan are handing Spain a bit of beating in the second half of this match.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 1, 2022)

This is awesome


----------



## Idaho (Dec 1, 2022)

Get in Japan. 

Germany out and Spain runners up would be just perfect.


----------



## quiet guy (Dec 1, 2022)

The Japanese players are definitely not fazzed by the Spanish


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 1, 2022)

Idaho said:


> Get in Japan.
> 
> Germany out and Spain runners up would be just perfect.



If Costa Rica score again and Spain don't, Spain are out.


----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2022)

What a turn of speed


----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> If Costa Rica score again and Spain don't, Spain are out.


Et voila


----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2022)

Oh that didn't last long


----------



## May Kasahara (Dec 1, 2022)

Japan look well up for it


----------



## Idaho (Dec 1, 2022)

Cripes and Germany have equalised... It's kicking off tonight!


----------



## Supine (Dec 1, 2022)

It’s coming home!


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 1, 2022)

Two good games , Germany now lead .


----------



## Lorca (Dec 1, 2022)

That second Japanese goal looked clearly out of play beforehand to me tho - the var is often terrible innit


----------



## Idaho (Dec 1, 2022)

VAR has comprehensively failed to reduce the number of contentious/crappy refereeing decisions.


----------



## quiet guy (Dec 1, 2022)

The Japanese fans are really putting themselves through it with every kick. This has been one of the better group final matches to watch


----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2022)

Loving the hoof it to Row Z defending, very familiar


----------



## JimW (Dec 1, 2022)

Immense! Japan qualifying the easy way


----------



## tommers (Dec 1, 2022)

Hahah, amazing. Spain are lucky they beat Costa Rica 7-0. Germany out. Oh well, never mind.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

Fucking hell that was some second half. Well done Japan they were superb. Germany out my word.


----------



## editor (Dec 1, 2022)

Lorca said:


> That second Japanese goal looked clearly out of play beforehand to me tho - the var is often terrible innit


I'm glad Japan won but that ball did look way over the line.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

I'm assuming it was down to parallax.


----------



## Cerberus (Dec 1, 2022)

editor said:


> I'm glad Japan won but that ball did look way over the line.



Agreed. Really pleased for the Japanese. 

However, something here stinks. ITV pundits are all but alleging it…


----------



## Maggot (Dec 1, 2022)

FFS


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

I loved it when the itv commentators were saying "why would fifa not show the image showing it was in? ... what's going on here?" when on screen they were showing the camera shot along the line showing that it was still in   

you have to assume they couldn't see the images that were on screen


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 1, 2022)

They  keep saying there is no goal line shot, then show a shot from the air parallel with the goal line with the curve of the ball not going over. What am I missing?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 1, 2022)

I don't trust VAR at the best of times but I've seen at least 3 examples at this tournament that make me feel that they have engineered or attempted to engineer  a result


----------



## dessiato (Dec 1, 2022)

IIRC by coming second we miss Brazil so ought to have a slightly better route onwards.

Fair does to Japan, they were good in second half.


----------



## tommers (Dec 1, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I don't trust VAR at the best of times but I've seen at least 3 examples at this tournament that make me feel that they have engineered or attempted to engineer  a result


Why would "they" want Japan in over Germany?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> They  keep saying there is no goal line shot, then show a shot from the air parallel with the goal line with the curve of the ball not going over. What am I missing?


I thought it was out at the time, but I've changed my mind. By the best camera frame it is just in, by millimetres. There could be a moment between frames when it was out, but we can't know that, so VAR has to go by its best evidence and its best evidence is that it didn't go out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2022)

tommers said:


> Why would "they" want Japan in over Germany?


The money people want the big teams in. If anything they'd be conspiring the other way. 

There's no conspiracy with VAR. Thing is, they have the tech to measure to within millimetres for this or offside, so they can give decisions by millimetres.


----------



## AverageJoe (Dec 1, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> They  keep saying there is no goal line shot, then show a shot from the air parallel with the goal line with the curve of the ball not going over. What am I missing?


They tidy the stadiums up afterwards. 

Worth an extra goal head start in my book, so I'm happy with an iffy VAR call.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 1, 2022)

tommers said:


> Why would "they" want Japan in over Germany?



I'm not saying that they did. Spain had opportunities to equalise and possibly win. The 'they' refers to the VAR set up not some wider unseen shape shifters.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 1, 2022)

tommers said:


> Why would "they" want Japan in over Germany?



Because 'they' were paid more to do so? The two officials (refs, the good old days) who got South Korea to the semis in their WC never refereed another game. Let's not pretend corruption doesn't happen. We're playing in Qatar ffs. How did we get here?


littlebabyjesus said:


> The money people want the big teams in. If anything they'd be conspiring the other way.
> 
> There's no conspiracy with VAR. Thing is, they have the tech to measure to within millimetres for this or offside, so they can give decisions by millimetres.



They can more easily give any decision they like. If that ball was on the sideline, it's a throw-in 100 times out of 100 and nobody argues. But it now gives scope, with this 'highly accurate' measurement we all trust, for VAR to give decisions by mm when it may be 'necessary'. Yesterday there were offsides given on a random measurement of the arm. And nobody will convince me the first decision of this WC - giving Qatar a second chance by disallowing the Ecuador goal - wasn't fixed.


----------



## tommers (Dec 1, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Because 'they' were paid more to do so? The two officials (refs, the good old days) who got South Korea to the semis in their WC never refereed another game. Let's not pretend corruption doesn't happen. We're playing in Qatar ffs. How did we get here?


Sure, of course it's all corrupt. But S Korea got those decisions in South Korea, when they were hosts. I can see the advantage of them progressing but what are we saying? Japan have paid off the VAR team? Seriously?


----------



## tommers (Dec 1, 2022)

Or Big Football have had enough of the Germans? What?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

tommers said:


> Sure, of course it's all corrupt. But S Korea got those decisions in South Korea, when they were hosts. I can see the advantage of them progressing but what are we saying? Japan have paid off the VAR team? Seriously?


Noooooooo we're saying the Germans didn't pay off the VAR team enough


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 1, 2022)

tommers said:


> Sure, of course it's all corrupt. But S Korea got those decisions in South Korea, when they were hosts. I can see the advantage of them progressing but what are we saying? Japan have paid off the VAR team? Seriously?



How many officials in FIFA were paid off to win the WC for Qatar? Seriously.

Less than a VAR team?


----------



## AverageJoe (Dec 1, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> How many officials in FIFA were paid off to win the WC for Qatar? Seriously.
> 
> Less than a VAR team?


They were just paid to allow them to host it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 1, 2022)

AverageJoe said:


> They tidy the stadiums up afterwards.


WHat does that mean? 


AverageJoe said:


> Worth an extra goal head start in my book, so I'm happy with an iffy VAR call.


I don't know what VAR is, but I saw a shot on the telly that was parallel to the line and the ball didn't look like it went over at all.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> WHat does that mean?


The Japanese supporters clear up after them in the stadium, the Japanese players clear up the changing rooms 

I mean there's polite and there's polite but that's POLITE


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 1, 2022)

AverageJoe said:


> They tidy the stadiums up afterwards.
> 
> Worth an extra goal head start in my book, so I'm happy with an iffy VAR call.


Ha, that was like the first gig I played in Japan. Everyone left fags, bottles and all sorts of shit all over the place. Then at closing, the whole audience all got together and helped tidy the whole venue up. Punk rock!!


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Dec 1, 2022)

Goals should be allowed unless there's conclusive proof it shouldn't be.  The TV images showed were so, so close that it's next to impossible to determine whether the whole ball went over the whole line, so it's right that the goal is given.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 1, 2022)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Goals should be allowed unless there's conclusive proof it shouldn't be.  The TV images showed were so, so close that it's next to impossible to determine whether the whole ball went over the whole line, so it's right that the goal is given.


Yes indeed, this ^^

 and it did mean that germany went out


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 1, 2022)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Goals should be allowed unless there's conclusive proof it shouldn't be.  The TV images showed were so, so close that it's next to impossible to determine whether the whole ball went over the whole line, so it's right that the goal is given.


I quite like this, I don't want football to be an exact science tbh.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 1, 2022)

it was worth it for the team on itv totally losing their shit and waffling on about conspiracies. souness thought the illuminati were staging a coup in germany


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 1, 2022)




----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

AverageJoe said:


> They were just paid to allow them to host it.



Oh that's alright then. Completely different.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I thought it was out at the time, but I've changed my mind. By the best camera frame it is just in, by millimetres. There could be a moment between frames when it was out, but we can't know that, so VAR has to go by its best evidence and its best evidence is that it didn't go out.



Yep, the ball was clearly in.  Clearly in the sense of definitely, if not by a large amount.  I'm not sure whether this was ultimately a VAR or goal line technology thing, or whether the tech is usually used to check whether the ball was in prior to a goal. But ultimately this was an example of the technology working perfectly - getting the right result when the naked eye would have almost always gone with 'out'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Yep, the ball was clearly in.  Clearly in the sense of definitely, if not by a large amount.  I'm not sure whether this was ultimately a VAR or goal line technology thing, or whether the tech is usually used to check whether the ball was in prior to a goal. But ultimately this was an example of the technology working perfectly - getting the right result when the naked eye would have almost always gone with 'out'.


Yep. A linesperson is inevitably going to be placed at some point along the touchline behind the ball, and will then see the ball as out before it is actually out. I have mixed feelings about VAR, but this is an instance of it working. And I agree with the comment above that a goal should stand unless there is clear evidence that it shouldn't. We want goals, after all.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

Bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

You can't say bollocks when you're posting a photo taken from behind the line.


----------



## strung out (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> View attachment 353916


It's almost like you haven't ready any of the posts that show the ball was in play.

Here's a good explainer:


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> View attachment 353916


Even that angle suggests it's in to me. Probably something about the difficulties of mapping 3d objects onto 2d backgrounds or summat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

Wilf said:


> Even that angle suggests it's in to me. Probably something about the difficulties of mapping 3d objects onto 2d backgrounds or summat.


We had exactly this problem in cricket for a while with catches declared to have hit the ground because that's what it looked like from a camera at the wrong angle. Zooming in often doesn't help. When you zoom in it has a foreshortening effect. We saw that during Covid with zoomed images of 'crowded' parks and beaches causing outrage.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

strung out said:


> It's almost like you haven't ready any of the posts that show the ball was in play.
> 
> Here's a good explainer:




Yeah. "About" 5mm. Totally accurate.

Like The39thStep said, I don't want football to be an exact science - or even an attempt at an exact science. If that's what this even is. That ball, on the sideline as I said earlier, is a throw-in 100 times out of 100. Nobody would even question such a decision. So where's the consistency?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Yeah. "About" 5mm. Totally accurate.
> 
> Like The39thStep said, I don't want football to be an exact science - or even an attempt at an exact science. If that's what this even is. That ball, on the sideline as I said earlier, is a throw-in 100 times out of 100. Nobody would even question such a decision. So where's the consistency?


So you think the wrong decision should have been made instead? 

They're checking stuff specifically when goals are scored. Either they check or they don't. If they do, then they have to give the decision they think is the correct one, which in this case is that the ball was still in. 

It's ok to be totally against VAR, if that's your stand. But if you're not totally against VAR, then this was the correct decision and the correct decision process, imo.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 2, 2022)

strung out said:


> It's almost like you haven't ready any of the posts that show the ball was in play.
> 
> Here's a good explainer:



That bottom one's out to be fair


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So you think the wrong decision should have been made instead?



I last beat my wife in...

So you're really unhappy with literally millions of wrong decisions being made in the past? You think England's World Cup in 1966 should be handed back?

Yes I am totally against VAR and have been from the start. Football is a game, like all games, of human skill and human error. I really don't know how we made it to the 21st century.


----------



## strung out (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Yeah. "About" 5mm. Totally accurate.
> 
> Like The39thStep said, I don't want football to be an exact science - or even an attempt at an exact science. If that's what this even is. That ball, on the sideline as I said earlier, is a throw-in 100 times out of 100. Nobody would even question such a decision. So where's the consistency?


So you want it disallowed based on vibes then? It feels like it's out of play, so therefore disallow it, even though the rules say it's in play. 

I hate VAR with a passion, but this was a goal, no question, and the fact it favoured an unfancied team, while knocking out the Germans makes it all the more fun.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

strung out said:


> So you want it disallowed based on vibes then? It feels like it's out of play, so therefore disallow it, even though the rules say it's in play.



I usually stop debating with people when they put words down I've never said. I guess 'vibes' would make me look ridiculous and this is your intention. Surprised you didn't go with 'feels'.



> strung out said:
> 
> 
> > I hate VAR with a passion, but this was a goal, no question,



But there are questions, obviously. Over the decision, over how the sport is played, over consistency, over lots of things.

But Germany, yes. It's definitely good to rejoice in the defeat of one of the only teams to have the balls (see what I did there?) to make a protest against this shit-fest. The Qataris are delighted too.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We had exactly this problem in cricket for a while with catches declared to have hit the ground because that's what it looked like from a camera at the wrong angle. Zooming in often doesn't help. When you zoom in it has a foreshortening effect. We saw that during Covid with zoomed images of 'crowded' parks and beaches causing outrage.


I'm still outraged.


----------



## strung out (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> I usually stop debating with people when they put words down I've never said. I guess 'vibes' would make me look ridiculous and this is your intention. Surprised you didn't go with 'feels'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you want consistency, go protest over the throw ins that are incorrectly given before the ball's out of play rather than a legitimate goal given to an underdog against one of the big guns, nobhead.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> I last beat my wife in...
> 
> So you're really unhappy with literally millions of wrong decisions being made in the past? You think England's World Cup in 1966 should be handed back?
> 
> Yes I am totally against VAR and have been from the start. Football is a game, like all games, of human skill and human error. I really don't know how we made it to the 21st century.


That's fine to be totally against VAR as long as it's clear that this is your position. I'm not. I think it's untenable in the end to have instant replays available to TV that can show the decision is wrong.

Re 1966, the tech wasn't there then. The decision was given. It was wrong - ball wasn't in - but at that point in history, that was the system. We're now in a different place. To be able to see that Lampard had scored instantly and still have the goal disallowed was absurd.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

strung out said:


> If you want consistency, go protest over the throw ins that are incorrectly given before the ball's out of play rather than a legitimate goal given to an underdog against one of the big guns, nobhead.



Nobhead? You really can't handle someone with a different opinion to you?

Fuck off then.


----------



## Athos (Dec 2, 2022)

We need to remember the bigger picture:


----------



## strung out (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> Nobhead? You really can't handle someone with a different opinion to you?
> 
> Fuck off then.


Angry man is angry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

planetgeli said:


> I usually stop debating with people when they put words down I've never said. I guess 'vibes' would make me look ridiculous and this is your intention. Surprised you didn't go with 'feels'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have a good point about the protest. It is a massive shame that England and Wales bottled it. Special mention to Iran as well. That was a genuinely brave stand.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 2, 2022)

strung out said:


> Angry man is angry.



Aren't you just darling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2022)

As for corruption, far harder to bribe the officials now there is VAR, I would suggest. They'd have to doctor the images, which would require the collusion of a whole bunch of tech people. Not really feasible.


----------



## Idaho (Dec 2, 2022)

White painted lines on sports pitches. Standardisation of team sizes. Regulation ball/bat/goal/field sizes. Professional, paid sports people and paying crowds. Television. Replays. Governing bodies. 

These are all changing technologies and culture with regards to sport. Each change, like all change, makes things 10% worse somehow. The controversies remain, but the goalposts move a little each time.

Jumpers for goalposts, etc...


----------



## Infidel Castro (Dec 2, 2022)

Some class arguments here. Keep it up, team.

Can the ball in or ball out processes be automated with some fancy-tech-fine-mesh built into the football's skin and some laser or other type of stuff that can detect a ball completely leave the field of play? If Tesco can catch my nan lifting a packet of pasta with its security beepy machine, I'm sure it could be applied in the realms of footie and rugby, etc.

(Disclaimer - my nan never robbed Tesco)


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 2, 2022)

Wasn't the goal initially 'given' on sight by the linesman before it went to VAR to be checked? Would that not mean that either way it would have been a goal? 
Also that shot from above and in parallel with the line (which I have not seen since) made it look quite clearly in, more so than the diagram on this thread. 
Not sure what the problem is. 

Did Jesus really exist? Did dinosaurs have feathers?


----------



## quiet guy (Dec 2, 2022)

In honour of VAR Japan have amended their flag


----------

