*** FA Cup final: Chelsea v Liverpool (1715) Wembley...Wembe..ley...***

[Southern Scouse]

Just returned from the game.
No idea where LFC was for the first 60 mins. AC header never went in, great save. Best team won on the day, but their fans........
Not happy, but I didn't cry like I did in 1983.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I love the way someone has spent time making this, but the goalposts are clearly not parallel with the deadball line which makes his/her efforts entirely fruitless.

 

[vegster]

Eh?

If you look at it in slo-mo it is difficult to find any part of the ball that is not over the line.. if that ball had been struck by a player in our colours we would have called it a goal. It's all about perception

 

[perseus]

I think cameras distort the view. Looked a sure-fire goal to me !!! Chelsea would have won in extra time though. They were the better side buy about four players. On of these was Lucas (injured), Caroll (part-time) and Maxi (Can we sign him? with the left back Aurelio? )

 

[perseus]

Over or not, what a reflex save.

God, Barnsey would headed that in damn easy !!!

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Chelsea won, Liverpool lost, score says 2-1 to Chelsea, ref didn't give a goal for a ball that didn't cross the line, end of story.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Chelsea won, Liverpool lost, score says 2-1 to Chelsea, ref didn't give a goal for a ball that didn't cross the line, end of story.

This!! I wish the f***ing pundits would stop going on about it. The ball didn't cross the line, Liverpool are shit give it up.

 

[Frutos]

Chelsea won, Liverpool lost, score says 2-1 to Chelsea, ref didn't give a goal for a ball that didn't cross the line, end of story.

Is the correct answer.

It being Liverpool though, they'll just use this to build the chips on their shoulders that little bit more. They must have some of the most delusional fans in the country.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

This is the best digi-rendition of where the ball was...and too me this says it was a goal. Either way Goal line technology is a must

 

[OSRGull]

If it was us, I guarantee a lot of people who are saying it wasn't over, would be saying it was over.

I thought it'd crossed the line personally and this is another nail in the coffin for goal line technology to be introduced.

 

[Acker79]

This is the best digi-rendition of where the ball was...and too me this says it was a goal. Either way Goal line technology is a must

View attachment 31886

I don't think it does. If the angle was directly over the goal we wouldn't be able to see the goal line, but you can clearly see the left edge of the goal line showing that the angle isn't direct, which draws into question for me the accuracy of the rendering.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

I don't think it does. If the angle was directly over the goal we wouldn't be able to see the goal line, but you can clearly see the left edge of the goal line showing that the angle isn't direct, which draws into question for me the accuracy of the rendering.

Isn't that because a cross bar isn't the same width as the painted goal line?

Even if it was straight, therefore pushing the cross bar 'to the left' you would then see more of the ball not less wouldn't you?

 

[Acker79]

Isn't that because a cross bar isn't the same width as the painted goal line?

Nope. The laws of the game state the posts and crossbar have to be the same width as the goal line (no more than 12cm/5inches).

Even if it was straight, therefore pushing the cross bar 'to the left' you would then see more of the ball not less wouldn't you?

I'm not sure. If the rendering is assuming the angle is straight, but the camera angle isn't actually straight then I'm sceptical of the accuracy of the rendering. I'm not entirely sure how the imaging software works so it might not be making a straight view assumption.

If the camera angle is straight then the alignment of the rendering of the goalline and crossbar is out of sync, how can we have much faith in the accuracy of where the rendering has put the ball?

Zooming in, I'm not convinced that image shows the whole ball either. I think the edge of it is still masked by the goal.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

Nope. The laws of the game state the posts and crossbar have to be the same width as the goal line (no more than 12cm/5inches). I'm not sure. If the rendering is assuming the angle is straight, but the camera angle isn't actually straight then I'm sceptical of the accuracy of the rendering. I'm not entirely sure how the imaging software works so it might not be making a straight view assumption. If the camera angle is straight then the alignment of the rendering of the goalline and crossbar is out of sync, how can we have much faith in the accuracy of where the rendering has put the ball? Zooming in, I'm not convinced that image shows the whole ball either. I think the edge of it is still masked by the goal.

Well i didn't know that! I guess i never really thought about it before. Makes sense that they would be the same width otherwise you could have a massive cross bar! Now we know they have to be the same then that does throw the rendering into question. Why would you not make it completely in-line? So i am not as sure anymore.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Even if it is over the line by a hair's width, the referee (or the linesman) could not have flagged that they were 100% certain that the ball crossed the line.
Until we're f***ed over by an incorrect decision, I'll remain on the side against goal-line technology.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

Even if it is over the line by a hair's width, the referee (or the linesman) could not have flagged that they were 100% certain that the ball crossed the line.
Until we're f***ed over by an incorrect decision, I'll remain on the side against goal-line technology.

And i present to you an incorrect decision...

 

[Acker79]

The problem I have with examples that are used to support the call for goal line technology is that, as with Lampard's goal above, is that they tend to be ones where there shouldn't be a need for GLT, that they are so far over the line it should have been seen with the naked eye, (or they use examples where the refs got it right without the need for technology)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Football has survived for 150+ years without goal line technology.

How much would it cost and where in the league pyramid would it stop?

I don't buy the whole "It could decide whether you get a £90m windfall or not..." (one season in the top flight and four years of parachute payments). The easiest solution to that is make finances fairer.

 

[1066familyman]

Football has survived for 150+ years without goal line technology.

How much would it cost and where in the league pyramid would it stop?

I don't buy the whole "It could decide whether you get a £90m windfall or not..." (one season in the top flight and four years of parachute payments). The easiest solution to that is make finances fairer.

Well said.

Part of the character of football is that the ref sometimes gets it wrong. Analysing a refs performance is as much a part of the game as rating the players...I like that. I'm still with the "swings and roundabouts" school of thought anyway. I don't want goal line technology.

 

[Acker79]

This is the ITV cg image:

Again, not straight, in this one you can see the right edge of the goal line.