Norwegian cinematography experts are challenging FIFA's response to complaints about Spidercam interference in the build-up to England's equaliser against Norway in the World Cup quarter-final. Jude Bellingham's first-half goal on Saturday has been disputed after the ball appeared to strike one of the four cables linked to the stadium's overhead camera before reaching the midfielder.
FIFA's response and sensor data
FIFA initially responded by stating that officials 'checked the data and no peak on the graph from the connected ball heartbeat sensor'. The World Cup match ball contains a built-in sensor chip that captures the ball's position, speed, and exact kick point 500 times per second. This data is fed back to officials to detect whether a touch on the ball was made by the cable.
A FIFA statement read: '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.' In a follow-up statement to Norwegian outlet VG, FIFA added: 'The recording of the goal from the camera went on air, and from that it is clear that the camera did not shake or move.'
Experts reject camera stability claim
However, cinematographers in Norway insist that the lack of movement from the camera should not be used as evidence by FIFA that the ball hit the cable. Terje Rokke, who has worked in the cinema industry for over 30 years, including on films such as James Bond: No Time to Die and Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, is adamant that the camera would not move even if the cable was touched by the ball.
'It is a completely hopeless statement from FIFA,' Rokke told VG. 'For example, if a ball hit the cable directly above the lens, the camera would tilt upwards if it were not gyro-stabilised. Since the camera is stabilised, it will be detected and compensated for by tilting the camera downwards. It takes an extremely long time for the camera to register that the ball is hitting.'
Havar Karlsen, a cinematographer at TrueStories who has worked with gyro-stabilised camera equipment, claims FIFA's latest explanation 'has no value'. 'The statement suggests that they have not checked with the supplier of the camera technology. They are just trying to kill the case in every possible way,' Karlsen said.
Technical details of Spidercam stabilisation
Karlsen elaborated on the capabilities of the Spidercam system: 'It's a camera you can hang out of a jet plane and still have 100 per cent stable images without shaking. It can stabilise heavy cameras, and creates very stable images almost regardless of external influences. I'm absolutely certain that the camera wouldn't have shaken if the ball had hit the wire. A ball on a cable is nowhere near enough to cause shake in a system like that.'
'It has no value as a statement. Then it means that you don't know the system and that you haven't checked with the technical supplier. There is no proof that the ball hit the wire, but there is no proof against it either,' Karlsen added.
IFAB rules on ball contact with outside agents
The International Football Association Board (IFAB), which oversees the laws of football, states that if the ball hits Spidercam or one of its cables, the referee should give a drop ball at the point where the ball made contact. According to IFAB's Law 8, the ball is dropped for the team that would have retained or gained possession had play not been stopped, which would have ruled out Bellingham's equaliser. The controversy has sparked debate among fans and officials, with Norway's complaints highlighting the challenges of using technology in high-stakes matches.
