New evidence – direct from the World Cup stadium spidercam – now proves that Jude Bellingham’s controversial first goal against Norway was right to stand after all, despite the claims of the Norwegian players.
Norway had insisted that a goal kick from their goalkeeper Orjan Nyland struck one of the mid-air cables that supports the overhead spidercam before falling to England’s Elliot Anderson, who went on to pass to Anthony Gordon to set up Bellingham’s goal.
That scenario should have seen play stopped and the goal disallowed. But FIFA has reviewed videos from various angles and Daily Mail Sport has seen footage which shows a natural flight path of the ball.
And in video taken directly from the spidercam itself, there is no ‘wobble’ in the footage, showing that the ball had no impact with any cables. The video is available in the player above.
While that angle does appear to show a quick drop in the ball, side-on footage seen by the Daily Mail proves the ball instead had a smooth arc and dipped naturally. Officials have even reviewed colour-contrasted image to check further and there is no cable close to the ball.
A sensor inside the ball reveals it was only touched three times in the sequence – the goal kick, by Anderson, and then on the ground. The newly-uncovered data from the ball also shows there was no change in the rotation of it.
Footage of the goalkeeper’s kick leading to Jude Bellingham’s controversial goal is from the Spidercam itself – it would have shaken had a cable been struck
The acceleration magnitude and the gyroscope magnitude – rotations per minute – did not change while the ball was in mid-air
Had the ball struck a camera cable, there would have been another spike on the graph and a change in rotation.
Norway had argued the failure to stop the game was ‘ridiculous’. Midfielder Sander Berge said: ‘It’s ridiculous, this one with the wire, 2-1 says itself – there are small margins and we know which way it went.’
Manager Stale Solbakken said: ‘Many on the bench reacted immediately. I was not one of them, but many of them saw it.
‘He [the referee] says that he didn’t see it himself and that he didn’t get any message that it actually happened.
‘That’s a good explanation and since FIFA says there was no touch and there was no signal from the chip of the ball, then he can’t do anything about it. The ball fell straight down, right in front of the bench, so it did touch it.
‘I can’t say anything about that because if there was no sound from the chip, what can I say?
‘The ball dropped down straight from heaven, says everyone – including the goalie, including the guy who was going to receive the ball. I think it was pretty clear that it did. It was a strange thing.’
FIFA’s word has been under question among fans given a spate of controversies this tournament, most notably due to the decision to suspend USA striker Folarin Balogun’s ban so that he could play in the last 16 against Belgium.
That came after United States president Donald Trump rang FIFA boss Gianni Infantino, though the latter claimed he could have no sway over disciplinary decisions. It is unclear from the laws of the game how delaying Balogun’s ban was permissible.
There have also been questions about refereeing decisions, particularly around Lionel Messi’s Argentina. Egypt and Switzerland have both complained vehemently against what they saw as favourable treatment given to the 2022 champions.
Jude Bellingham scored twice to send England through against Norway at the weekend
A microchip is placed inside the Adidas Trionda balls for the World Cup for real-time data
FIFA insisted of their ‘Snickometer’ technology: ‘Before England’s goal in minute 45+2 against Norway, the sensor in the connected ball showed no peak in the ‘heartbeat of the ball’ when in the air, and therefore no evidence that the ball touched the overhead wire and changed the movement of the ball.’
The footballs being used at the tournament are each fitted with a chip and utilise ‘connected ball technology’, which relays data directly to the VAR system.
The microchip produces accurate, instantaneous data on everything from ball movement, speed and trajectory to player touches, with adidas claiming the technology enables ‘faster in-game officiating decisions and more insight into gameplay than ever before.’
The system was at the centre of controversy earlier in the tournament when Sweden were awarded a goal against Tunisia in the group stage.
Igor Matanovic’s hair may well have touched the ball, but did it affect the flight of it?
Matthias Svanberg scored in the second half after converting a free-kick, but the effort was initially ruled out for offside.
However, sensors inside the ball determined that Sweden and Liverpool striker Alexander Isak had made the faintest of touches after the free-kick was taken. By that point, Svanberg had moved back into an onside position, meaning the goal was allowed to stand.
Later in the tournament, Croatia’s last-gasp equaliser against Portugal in their Round of 32 match was chalked off for similar reasons, after the heartbeat monitor determined that Igor Matanovic was offside in the build-up to Josko Gvardiol’s scrambled goal.
The sensor said that Matanovic made faint contact with the ball via his hair, though Croatia disputed this. They also pointed out that in FIFA’s own rules, ‘hair is only considered part of the body if it affects the movement or trajectory of the ball’; it didn’t seem to do that on this occasion.
How much is David Beckham set to pocket from his World Cup brand deals? Take on our quiz in our newsletter HERE
