Goal line technology....

[Hendrax]

Just seen the shambles in the France Honduras match, shocking and amusing.

 

[16bha]

Didn't fully cross the line.

 

[Northstander]

Just seen the shambles in the France Honduras match, shocking and amusing.

Was goal, why they felt the need to reply off the bar god only knows. The question was when the keeper had it and showed it works with the correct decision

 

[DumLum]

Didn't fully cross the line.

It did.

Glad it's got rid of all the arguments.

 

[Hendrax]

The second decision video would suggest otherwise

 

[R. Slicker]

I think it was just the commentator getting confused. It showed no goal when it hit the post. Then Goal when it went in off the keeper.

 

[skipper734]

Not using Hawkeye, which is British. I see no problem with the two shots, hits the post, not in. Hits goalkeeper crosses line. Goal. I see nothing that is confusing.

 

[Quinney]

Looked fair enough. 1st shot hit post and didn't cross line and then once it hit keeper it did cross. Looked very tight. Showing 1st shot and saying no goal probably didn't help matters.

 

[Beach Hut]

Proves the technology works

 

[Dan Aitch]

Reliable system, confused by Jonathan Pearce not understanding it.

I had an OG at 12/1. Suits me very well.

 

[Hendrax]

Not using Hawkeye, which is British. I see no problem with the two shots, hits the post, not in. Hits goalkeeper crosses line. Goal. I see nothing that is confusing.

Nor I. Quite astonishing hearing the confusion from the commentator and the Honduran fans as they thought the first video was decision.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I think it was just the commentator getting confused. It showed no goal when it hit the post. Then Goal when it went in off the keeper.

This. Hardly difficult to understand.

 

[ExmouthExile]

The commentator is still saying it was a controversial second goal

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Didn't fully cross the line.

I don't know where to even begin with this statement.....

 

[portlock seagull]

Only thing controversial about goal is how an experienced commentator and clutching at straws Hondurans think it's still controversial despite having eyes to use, supporting technology and half a dozen replays all showing the ball went over the line. FFS, anyone still rambling on about it not being a goal should be done for incitement and deported. And shot. And buried at sea. Crabs too good for em.

Have I gone OTT?

 

[seafordtillidie]

It's probably a design fault in the system to show both shots, was it necessary to show the first one if the second showed a goal had been scored.

I believe the Hawkeye system only alerts the referee to a goal when one has been scored so it wouldn't have been activated by the shot against the post?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

why does pearce keep on calling it a contraversial goal?!?! it was 100% over the line as proven

what a ****ing idiot

 

[carteater]

they thought it was 3

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

And now Pearce is thinking balls are in goals when they aren't...

He's lost it.

 

[portlock seagull]

Jonathan Pearce needs to Resign NOW along with Phil Neville. He's still going on about a controversial second goal and now thought France scored and said so even though side netting.

Drunk. Clearly drunk. Get him off Beeb.