boogieman said:

---

merc said:

---

I'm a new fan and I don't understand that. I didn't see anything that proved he touched it.

---

That's the rub. It doesn't look like it was touched.
But the chip says otherwise.

This is a wild new feature- the chip in the ball graph that shows when it gets touched. the NBA is gona have this asap pic.twitter.com/3fSixXuhob

— PFT Commenter (@PFTCommenter) July 3, 2026

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

boogieman said:

---

merc said:

---

I'm a new fan and I don't understand that. I didn't see anything that proved he touched it.

---

That's the rub. It doesn't look like it was touched.
But the chip says otherwise.

This is a wild new feature- the chip in the ball graph that shows when it gets touched. the NBA is gona have this asap pic.twitter.com/3fSixXuhob

— PFT Commenter (@PFTCommenter) July 3, 2026

---

They could show the next literal millisecond to show the second more obvious touch and assure everyone it's well calibrated...But that would make too much sense

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

A big FU from the fan.

---

Yeah...She's not from croatia. That was in very clear english haha.

---

AG@RICE said:

---

For me, the only problem is that they didn't show the second touch by the Portuguese defender on the meter. If they show two touches, nobody is going to argue that ruling, but they only showed one touch. Certainly it can measure the faintest of touches, but is it properly synced to the video?

---

aggietony2010 said:

---

boogieman said:

---

merc said:

---

I'm a new fan and I don't understand that. I didn't see anything that proved he touched it.

---

That's the rub. It doesn't look like it was touched.
But the chip says otherwise.

This is a wild new feature- the chip in the ball graph that shows when it gets touched. the NBA is gona have this asap pic.twitter.com/3fSixXuhob

— PFT Commenter (@PFTCommenter) July 3, 2026

---

They could show the next literal millisecond to show the second more obvious touch and assure everyone it's well calibrated...But that would make too much sense

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

If they don't have a chip in the ball I don't think you can definitely say it touched him and that's a good goal. If he gets a haircut today it doesn't touch him and it's a good goal.

This is the play people should be upset about. Not the lean offside. This touch didn't affect the play.

---

oh no said:

---

The graph for that little chip in the ball should show a little blip when it grazed #20 and a big blip when it his the Portuguese player afterwards. Why doesn't fifa show a longer clip of that graph?

---

oh no said:

---

The graph for that little chip in the ball should show a little blip when it grazed #20 and a big blip when it his the Portuguese player afterwards. Why doesn't fifa show a longer clip of that graph?

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

There is no way that contact with his hair made any impact on the ball that would register

---

FriscoKid said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

There is no way that contact with his hair made any impact on the ball that would register

---

It could have, but there should be a massive spike right after that one. Submitting this graph in any engineering test report would be rejected immediately. Video, graph, done and 100% verified? I manage some EEs right out of college. Zero chance I accept this "report" and call it good. This "graph" is 100% BS to confirm a "touch".

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Portugal defeated Croatia 2-1.

---

boogieman said:

---

I can't believe that ball got thru for the tap in. Amazing by Switzerland.

---

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Just get the feeling the Swiss are gonna need at least 2 goals, maybe even 3

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

MattAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

There is so much that is imprecise in soccer with the clock, how players just throw in from wherever they want, etc. that I think it's asinine to use an accelerometer to sense a touch that had no impact on the play. Same result whether it touches his hair or doesn't. It's jarring that FIFA uses VAR to essentially decide the result of some of these games. The Iran match the other day featured a player offsides by literal millimeters that disallowed a goal that would have pushed them into the knockout round.

Replay should be for righting clear and obvious wrongs, if you can't visually see a touch, then there was no touch.

---

I'm starting to come to the opinion the offsides should be determined by where their feet are, not any part of their body.

---

Maybe I'm just a dumb American, but why can't the same logic used for illegal forward passes in football apply to offsides…meaning the attackers entire body must be past the defender to be considered offsides?

---

You're not a dumb American.

Problem is that you change the question from, "is the attacker's toe beyond the defender?" to "is the attacker's toe not behind the defender?" The fundamental issue is the same.

---