JBizzleBeard
Well-known member
I stand corrected! Well done to those who indeed went with no goal. Although if that were to happen to the Albion I would be arguing the toss ;-)
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Goal or no goal? You decide...
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Quite. The aerial photo has the goal line obscured by the near post. There is no evidence from this photo to say the ball has crossed the line. Equally there is none to say it has not. And there might be subsequent stills which paint a different picture. Given the lack of evidence I have to say I cannot give a goal.
SeagullSongs
And it's all gone quiet..
183 people either haven't seen the correct angle, don't understand parallax error or don't understand the laws of the game. I'll give most of you the benefit of the doubt for not seeing the picture taken in line with the goal.
For the record, I thought it had crossed the line at the time, but I saw a replay in the concourse afterwards and it did NOT cross the line.
For the record, I thought it had crossed the line at the time, but I saw a replay in the concourse afterwards and it did NOT cross the line.
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
I've now come to the conclusion that all those that are trying to argue that a goal should have been awarded are one of the newish breed of fisherman that frequent this board. You know the sort, boldly state something that is clearly wrong and giggle like school children when the more sensible posters come along to explain the error of their ways.
Too many posters are hiding behind the officials decision not to give a goal and electing not to provide an opinion of their own. The rules of football state that the whole of the ball must be fully over the line and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is what actually happened. Indeed the best placed side view camera very clearly shows that not all of the ball had gone over the line.
Accordingly, the correct outcome should have been no goal and the officials got this correct.
Too many posters are hiding behind the officials decision not to give a goal and electing not to provide an opinion of their own. The rules of football state that the whole of the ball must be fully over the line and I'm yet to see any evidence that this is what actually happened. Indeed the best placed side view camera very clearly shows that not all of the ball had gone over the line.
Accordingly, the correct outcome should have been no goal and the officials got this correct.
nwgull
Well-known member
That side on photo has the flood lights reflecting brightly off of the posts. This makes them look thicker than they are and wider than the goal line, so the ball is probably 100% over the line. Don't give a massive shit to be honest; it makes up for the last minute goal wrongly given for Leeds.
Gullys Cats
Sausage by the sea!!!
100% a Goal but it doesn't matter!
As yet nobody has provided a true "goal line" photo - even the second side on photo in this thread isn't precisely inline. Given the narrowness of the decision it needs to be an exact photo.
Perfidious Albion
Well-known member
Whether it really passed the line or not - the ref waved play on....so no goal........
Bottom line is that if it was as close as the side on photo suggests, the officials got it right. They cannot give a goal unless they are 100% convinced and it would be impossible in real time to say with certainty that the ball was in. Unless you had technology - which people would probably then start claiming didn't work properly.
beefypigeon
Well-known member
- Aug 14, 2008
- 972
I've changed my mind on this one.
The whole of the ball must cross the line and it isn't obvious from the angles whether it has or not (particularly the side-on view).
If the ball is not grounded, it simply isn't a goal as there is no daylight between line and ball from a side-on view. It's the side on view that has to be used, you can't use a view from the front to dictate whether it has FULLY crossed the line!!
The whole of the ball must cross the line and it isn't obvious from the angles whether it has or not (particularly the side-on view).
If the ball is not grounded, it simply isn't a goal as there is no daylight between line and ball from a side-on view. It's the side on view that has to be used, you can't use a view from the front to dictate whether it has FULLY crossed the line!!
SeagullSongs
And it's all gone quiet..
That's as close as we're gonna get without specialist goal-line cameras. I guess it'll have to do until we get promoted!
Agreed - which means from an official perspective the "no goal" decision was correct. That said I still "feel" it was a goal !
BarnhamBlue
New member
Like most, at first glance i thought it was a goal. After reviewing the evidence, i've changed my mind.
It's like watching the film classic - 12 angry men!!!
It's like watching the film classic - 12 angry men!!!
Cowfold Seagull
Fan of the 17 bus
Well l voted 'goal', not because l could tell at the time, l doubt many at the game actually could, but everyone l spoke to who saw it on tv tells me the ball was well over the line, and it was those people who probably had a much better idea.
Eddie Bee
Active member
Just an aside to this goal or no goal argument. When a player takes a corner can he place the bottom of the ball outside the corner wotsit as long as part of the ball is in line (with the line). Blimey this is confusing 
Just an aside to this goal or no goal argument. When a player takes a corner can he place the bottom of the ball outside the corner wotsit as long as part of the ball is in line (with the line). Blimey this is confusing
Yes he can. It annoys me when fans don't seem to understand this so get irate at the corner taker as if he has placed it illegally when he hasn't.
EDIT (to clarify) the fans getting irate at it because they don't understand it annoys me, not that they don't understand.
Eddie Bee
Active member
VAL1850
Well-known member
No Goal - It was an illusion created by the curvature of the earth