The World Cup of conspiracies: a camera cable, chips and identity confusions

BarcelonaThe World Cup had its semifinals defined with the four best teams according to the world ranking classified. Four top-level teams and two of great rivalry. On the one hand, France and Spain. On the other, England and Argentina, teams that every time they face each other, it seems they play in such a way that the winner can keep the Falkland Islands. Or the Falklands, as the British call them. But the draw was set and a good part of the debates were not about football. Both Argentinians and English were accused of having qualified thanks to refereeing assistance. In England's case, the debate was surreal: had the ball touched a cable from the camera hanging from the ceiling? Journalists, fans, and curious people debated the ball's trajectory, physics, and astrophysics.

Norway was winning the match 1-0. The Scandinavian goalkeeper, Nyland, took a goal kick and the ball fell to the feet of Elliot Anderson, who started the play for the equalizer, scored by Bellingham. But Nyland's shot, which went very high, seemed strange. It appeared that the ball touched one of the cables holding the so-called spydercam, the camera that moves above the pitch. According to the rules of the game, if the ball touches an object outside the match, play must be stopped. And, therefore, the goal should not have counted, as the Norwegians claimed at that very moment. Norway's coach, Stale Solbakken, complained and said: "There are things that have happened that are a bit strange, but that's also part of football".

But the chip installed in the ball that FIFA uses to track its trajectory did not register any contact with the wire, even though the television images seemed to show that the ball had taken a strange trajectory and had fallen very quickly. "The ball fell from the sky directly and I think it did touch the wire. It falls vertically, it is clear that it did touch the wire. A very strange thing. What can I say against FIFA's statement, if they indicate that there is no internal signal? But the ball is falling from the sky," added Solbakken, who also spoke about the goal that VAR disallowed for Torbjorn Heggem for a previous push by Erling Haaland and about the “set of small details” that, in his opinion, did not lean towards the Norwegian side. "We can start complaining and feel that most of the small details have not gone our way, but that's how things are in football. We need these details to go our way," reflected the Scandinavian coach.

Did the chip fail?

According to FIFA, "before England's goal in the 45+2 minute against Norway, the ball sensor did not show any peak in the ball's beat when it was in the air and, therefore, there was no evidence that the ball touched the aerial cable and changed the ball's movement." The technology known as Snickometer, which consists of a chip inside the ball that sends signals to sensors installed in the stadium to show when someone touches it, had already been at the center of controversy in this tournament during Portugal's dramatic 2-1 victory over Croatia in the round of 16. In that case, Croatia was celebrating the equalizer goal in the last minute, but the chip detected that Igor Matanovic had made a slight touch with his head, which was not visible on television, which caused his teammate Gvardiol to be offside.

An explanation for the case would be that the chip failed due to altitude. The chip inside the ball sends the information live to a network of antennas placed around the pitch, which is what finally delivers the data to the VAR. As these antennas are located at a low altitude, they may not have been able to properly capture the ball's information when it was more than 30 meters away, in the area where the camera is.

The BBC, using its own software to analyze the World Cup, published a video showing that the ball's direction did indeed change. Dale Johnson, one of the heads of the BBC's big data department, however, argues that it may not have touched the cable, as the chip signal was always connected and, analyzing the camera footage, no tremor is seen at the moment the ball would have touched the cable. Furthermore, according to Johnson, the sixteen antennas installed inside the stadiums are at different altitudes. Analyzing other World Cup goalkeeping services, Johnson states that the ball can make strange movements depending on factors such as force, wind, or temperature. The debate is on.

The red card for Embolo sparks more debate

Argentina also could not escape the controversies, a team that for years has walked with the stigma on its back of receiving refereeing favors. In this case, the controversy arrived with the tied match against Switzerland. Embolo, a Swiss forward, already had a yellow card. And in a play in midfield, he faked a foul by Paredes. The referee cautioned the Argentine midfielder, but VAR alerted him. Upon reviewing it, he removed the yellow card from Paredes and showed a second to Embolo, who was sent off. The referee applied the so-called identity confusion protocol, which is being applied for the first time in this World Cup. The name of the rule, which does not help much, is applied in cases like this, when the referee, in this case the Brazilian Pinheiro, shows a wrong yellow card. That is to say, to Paredes, instead of Embolo. If the official had not shown a yellow card, VAR would not have been able to intervene. "It's well refereed, following the regulations," said former referee Iturralde González on SER. "Paredes receives an unfair yellow card and VAR intervenes due to identity confusion when cautioning. Well done," defended former referee Joan Fàbregas. Iturralde, however, joked that perhaps the name of the rule should be changed because this identity confusion can confuse spectators.

But it was "Embolo's mistake, who should have seen that it had happened before", according to Iturralde, in reference to the fact that this rule was already applied on the first matchday in the game between the United States and Paraguay. On that occasion there was no expulsion, but the situation was identical, as the referee cautioned the American Tim Ream for a foul on Almiron, but the VAR warned that the Paraguayan had faked the foul. And it was he who got the yellow card. "The rules are what they are, but they have ruined the game", said the resigned Swiss Granit Xhaka. In this case, the refereeing specialists have agreed and stated that the red card was correctly shown. If in the case of a possible red card for Messi on the first matchday or a possible penalty for the Egyptian Salah against the Argentinians there was debate, here the rule is clear. It is a very different thing whether the rule is liked. Former referees who now explain the game do not agree on whether the rule is fair, as for an action in the middle of the field without clear impact on the game, Switzerland was left with one man less. Others celebrated it, because the rule punishes those who feign. A debate that goes beyond the rules because it involves everyone's view of football.