The World 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 rankings qualified. Four top-level teams and two with great rivalry. On one hand, France and Spain. On the other hand, 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 Malvinas, 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 onlookers 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 looked like 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 external to 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 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 to 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 in our favor, but that's how things are in football. We need these details to go in our favor," 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.

One 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. Since these antennas are located at a low altitude, perhaps they were unable to properly capture the ball's information when it was more than 30 meters away, in the area where the camera is.

The BBC, which uses 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 images, no tremor is seen at the moment the ball should have touched the cable. Furthermore, according to Johnson, the sixteen antennas installed inside the stadiums are at different altitudes. Analyzing other World Cup goal-line services, Johnson states that the ball can make strange movements depending on elements such as force, wind, or temperature. The debate is served.

The red card for Embolo sparks further debate

Argentina also could not escape the controversies, a team that for years has walked with the stigma 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 doesn't help much, is applied in cases like this, when the referee, in this case the Brazilian Pinheiro, shows the wrong yellow card. That is, to Paredes, instead of Embolo. If the official had not shown a yellow card, VAR could not have intervened. "It was well refereed, following the rules," said former referee Iturralde González to SER. "Paredes receives an unfair yellow card and VAR intervenes for 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, referring to the fact that this rule was already applied on the first day in the match between the United States and Paraguay. On that occasion there was no expulsion, but the situation was identical, as the referee booked the American Tim Ream for a foul on Almiron, but 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've ruined the match," 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 day or a possible penalty for the Egyptian Salah against the Argentines 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 less man. Others celebrated it, because the rule punishes those who feign. A debate that goes beyond the rules because it involves everyone's vision of football.