Ok, some tweets on the Leicester goal, the offside, the technology and the camera angle. #ARSLEI
The frame is selected which shows the first point of contact on the pass by Gray.
Once this frame is "locked in," the same frame can be cross-checked on other angles.
That enables the VAR, Stuart Attwell, to check the position of players from other camera angles at that same point of play.
So the VAR was able to tell from this angle that the Arsenal defender was playing Vardy onside with his stretched leg.
However, it is important for the main VAR image to show the point the ball is being kicked for transparency.
This can offer a misleading camera angle, as was the case here. The perspective here gives the impression Vardy is further forward relative to the defender.
This changes at the point Ayoze Perez (who was onside) attempts to play the ball, as any touch would have created a new phase and made Vardy offside (he may look level with the ball on this camera angle).
So the only question now is does Perez touch the ball. And if anyone can categorically say he did you have better eyesight than I do.
In addition, Chris Kavanagh got a lot of misplaced praise for using the monitor on the Nketiah red.
1. He now has to. 2. In the PL this is merely a confirmatory process when the VAR decides it's a sure red. 3. So you won't see the ref use the montior on, say, Vardy-Mustafi.
VAR red cards this season have been:
1 professional foul
1 handball on the goalline
6 serious foul play tackles
There has been no VAR red for any kind of "stray" arm or boot that caught an opposition player.
If the referee tells the VAR he saw Vardy's boot accidentally catch Mustafi as both players fell to the ground, and there was no intent, you won't see a red.
The ref only uses the monitor on definite reds *in the opinion of the VAR*. Won't be a review for a "possible red".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Had clarification of World Cup draw conditions. We know a few more things.
- England 75% chance of group of 5
- Wales definitely group of 5
- Northern Ireland 85.71% chance of group of 5
- Rep of Ireland & Scotland definitely group of 4
Thread to explain, and here are the pots.
The specific conditions over the 4 and 5 team groups depended on the number of teams in each pot who needed a QF/playoff.
As the number is lower than 6 in pots 2 and 3, it can now be confirmed playoff teams in Pots 2 and 3 (Scotland, ROI) will definitely be in a group of 4.
There are 10 teams in Pot 1 who need a QF/playoff but only 6 groups of four.
The 4 "QF winners" automatically get a group of 4.
That leaves two groups of 4, and six groups of 5 randomly filled with "QF losers", Austria, Belgium, England, Switzerland.
Why don't leagues have a chip in the ball for semi-automated VAR offside?
🖥️ Tech by Kinexon
⚽️ Centre-mounted chip in ball developed & patented by Adidas
❌ No league uses Adidas
Adidas would need to share/licence, or other ball companies find an alternative to house chip.
Who are the ball manufacturers for the different leagues?
Premier League (Nike this season, Puma from 2025-26)
LaLiga (Puma)
Bundesliga (Derbystar)
Serie A (Puma)
Ligue 1 (Kipsta)
Kinexon has worked with Adidas, Derbystar and Puma so far.
It's not easy to overcome, as Kinexon went through 1000s of prototypes until it achieved a ball that was actually FIFA-approved, in weight and the counterweight and the balance, and that provided good results.
So it's not as simple as saying "put a chip in the ball".
🔷 How many places in Champions League for Serie A
🔷 What happens to place in UCL for the UEL titleholders
🔷 What happens to seeding for the 2024-25 UCL, 👀 Barcelona
Pull up a chair a moment.
1. How many places will Serie A get in the Champions League?
We know Italy will have 5 teams in the UCL next season as they have one of the 2 extra places for league performance.
Atalanta are 5th. If they finish 5th, and 5th only, Italy will have 6 teams in the UCL.
AS Roma are guaranteed to finish in 6th, so they are left waiting on Atalanta's final position.
If Atalanta finish 5th, AS Roma will be in the UCL.
If Atalanta finish 3rd or 4th, AS Roma will be in the UEL.
Atalanta sit two points outside the top 4 with a game in hand.
Sick of keepers holding the ball for 30-40 seconds to waste time or slow down play?
The [unenforced] law says a keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Any longer and it's an indirect FK to the opposition.
We now have details of The IFAB trial to change it.
Thread. 👇
As well as wasting time, a goalkeeper holding the ball for too long is considered an unfair tactic because the opposing team has no possibility to regain possession.
That's because a goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A keeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds should be punishable by an indirect free kick.
However, we have got to the stage where this is rarely enforced by referees, which in recent years has been exploited tactically.
Mauro Icardi's offside in Galatasaray vs. Manchester United gives us a good illustration of how semi-automated technology will be more accurate and reliable - yet may lead to more goals being disallowed.
This was ruled out on the field, but stay with me.
There's a common misconception that handball starts at the bottom of the sleeve.
This isn't the case.
It's the arm point level with the armpit - if you had it by your side - around the whole arm.
Basically, the area of the arm which can't increase body size if you move it.
The starting point for offside (and handball) is therefore an imaginary line on the arm.
With the old tech, the point on the attacker and defender is plotted manually by the VAR and operator.
This obviously has to cause inconsistencies, and it's why there's a tolerance level.
This is what happened with the Luis Diaz "goal" which Liverpool had disallowed vs. Tottenham.
There will be a deeper dive in the Monday VAR thread, but in simple terms the VAR took the wrong onfield decision - it led to the goal being disallowed.
So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."
It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".
In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.
So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.
The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.
The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.