Goal or no goal? You decide...

[Bold Seagull]

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the actual rules of football? This is bizarre.

It's been PROVEN to NOT be a GOAL. Yet people still PERSIST.

I'm refusing to accept it can be PROVEN either way with the only camera angles we have. I hope you're jesting that the diagrams, rugs and door thresholds we've seen so far constitute some kind of conclusive mathematical proof!?

 

[AZ Gull]

Andy Naylor says it should have been a goal...that's good enough for me. A goal it should have been!

The photo in yesterday's Argus would bear that out too. No idea how to post it from the Argus site though.

Mr Naylor says it's a goal and anyone who says the opposite is wearing rose tinted glasses. So there!

I'm not one to knock Andy Naylor for the sake of it - I subscribe to the digital version of the Argus, and it remains one of the best sources of information about the club. However, today's article is possibly the shoddiest piece of journalism I have ever read in the paper.

The caption to the series of photos shown says "...but the ball is clearly over the line". Except - the ball IS NOT clearly over the line, because from the angle presented it is impossible to tell (as has now been done to death on this very thread, although there are still a few numpties, it would appear, who cannot grasp that fact).

Whilst Naylor himself probably didn't write that caption, his article does state "Fernando Forestieri's shot .... was over the line when Gordon Greer had a second stab at clearing it." Not satisfied with that, he goes on to say "Any Albion fan trying to argue otherwise is viewing replays of the incident through blue and white tinted spectacles."

Mr Naylor, you have had more than 24 hours to study the video evidence, make sure you understand the definition of a goal, and write a piece that will inform and (possibly) educate your readership. Instead, you get it spectacularly wrong, and insult a big chunk of your audience at the same time. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Icy Gull]

It's been PROVEN to NOT be a GOAL. Yet people still PERSIST.

Really? In your mind maybe but there is no conclusive proof I've seen. I've seen a lot of silly diagrams claiming to be factual but they are not proof. There is, however, proof that the world is round and not flat.

 

[Mellotron]

I'm refusing to accept it can be PROVEN either way with the only camera angles we have. I hope you're jesting that the diagrams, rugs and door thresholds we've seen so far constitute some kind of conclusive mathematical proof!?

The fact that it's this hard to tell means it's automatically no goal. We've got an angle with Greer's foot on the ball (so very very unlikely the ball moved any further INTO the goal from there) that pretty clearly shows no daylight between ball and line. It's fairly obviously not a goal.

 

[Curious Orange]

View attachment 48107View attachment 48108

***NERD ALERT***

diameter of ball = 277 pixels
so radius = 138.5px

Acker's calculations say ball radius = 4.297 to 4.456 in
therefore 1px = 0.031025 to 0.032173 in

The red line is a line going through the centre of the ball at 90 degrees to the goal line. This line is 169.4px in length.

The centre of the ball is one radius above the ground, yellow line.

The blue line is the all important shortest distance from the centre of the ball to the goal line. This makes a right angled triangle from which we can calculate the length of the blue line using pythagoras' theorem.

distance of centre of ball over goal line = sqrt(169.4^2 - 138.5^2)
= 97.54px

convert to inches = 3.03 to 3.14 inches from the centre of the ball to the goal line.

3.14 < radius of ball 4.297 therefore the whole ball did not cross the whole line by at least approx. 1.157 inches.

NO GOAL!

*All measurements are not guarenteed 100% accurate... obviously.

Alternatively you can be sensible about it and look at the more relevant view from the side and see much clearer that the ball is not in.

Now i will go back to lurking and not posting for fear of having made a mistake.

Your lines on the photo of the ball look off-centre to me

 

[Shifty89]

Your lines on the photo of the ball look off-centre to me

So does your avatars face from it's shoulders!

 

[symyjym]

It was as near to a goal as it ever could be without actually being one.

The linesman would have only seen it at ground level and would not have had the view of the camera angles. Forestini claims it was half a yard over, but it clearly wasn't.

If there is an eliment of doubt, they cannot give it so it cannot be given. Just like the hand balls and bad penalty decisions, or when a player keeps it in play on the touchline but looks like it could have been a throwing. The fact is it didn't hit the back of the net and it was as close as can be to the line.

Watford certainly weren't cheated like the Lampard goal in the World Cup or was it Euros, I can't remember.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Forestini claims it was half a yard over, but it clearly wasn't.

I thought he made that gesture to tell his fellow team members that Leroy Lita was about to brought on.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I thought he made that gesture to tell his fellow team members that Leroy Lita was about to brought on.

Winner!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

If you take the side on view the ball can be seen to overlap with the post (and, therefore the goal-line) by 1.01(16) inches. Which, within errors, also agrees with the angles method calculation of 1.157 inches on the previous page using the non-side shot.

I thought there was only 2 or 3 millimetres in it not crossing the line but 25 millimetres to 28 millimetres is massive.

 

[TheDuke]

The only way to judge is down the goal from overhead. This shows there is a big shadow of a doubt and so the officials were r ight

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The only way to judge is down the goal from overhead. This shows there is a big shadow of a doubt and so the officials were rightView attachment 48109

It is SO clearly NOT a goal, that I can't believe that anyone is still arguing otherwise. Its insane.

(From the pictures, I mean. Not 'live' - of course it wasn't clearly no goal then, and you really couldn't have blamed the lino if he HAD given it.)

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Well, unless I made an error, and it looks about right then that is what the still shot on the line shows. What it does not show is if that is the furthest back it went. But the two calculations seem to show the two angles were taken at a similar point.
Of course there may be errors I am not aware of.
The only thing we can 100% conclude from all this is that there is not enough information to award a goal and that it was close enough that the only way to tell foe certain would be to use goal-line technology.

The mathematical calculations look ok , my own judgement was that the entire ball hadn't crossed the line but was extremely close to doing so.

 

[symyjym]

I thought there was only 2 or 3 millimetres in it not crossing the line but 25 millimetres to 28 millimetres is massive.

Keep telling your wife that

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Keep telling your wife that

Its not funny when you live up north and the cold weather causes shrinkage

 

[ALBION28]

Not sure you can tell. Don't mistake a gap between the ball and the line as an indicator of a goal. It's not. That gap can exist and the whole of the ball NOT be over the line. The only angle to make a definitive decision is the one from the above and the Sky cameras have showed that it wasn't as 'obvious' from that angle. I reckon there might be millimetres in it either way.

This! As a qualified ref I must emphasize the Laws of the game are 'Whole ball over whole of the line' On the evidence shown you cannot give a goal.

 

[Goldstone1976]

It is SO clearly NOT a goal, that I can't believe that anyone is still arguing otherwise. Its insane.

(From the pictures, I mean. Not 'live' - of course it wasn't clearly no goal then, and you really couldn't have blamed the lino if he HAD given it.)

Ok, I'll fess up. I voted "goal" before the photos went up on here, purely on the basis of the replays on the concourse screens. Having seen the photos on this thread, I'll modify my opinion to "probable goal", for the following reasons, which have to be taken as a whole, rather than individually,

a) I'm not completely convinced that the whole of the ball is not over the whole of the line in the photo sequence, though neither can I be sure it is
b) We have no clue whether the last frame in the sequence captured the precise point that the ball was furthest in to the net. My own view is that looking at Greer's leg position and comparing it to its position when the ball starts moving back out of the net, the ball moves more into the goal after this frame.
c) If, as is claimed, the ball is somewhere between 2mm and 25mm from being a goal, it is (obviously) far, far more likely that a lino would conclude "goal" than "no goal". I think we were very lucky to not have a goal awarded against us.

So, I do accept that none of the above proves it is a goal, but neither do I believe this sequence of photos proves it isn't (see point b).

Thus, the award of "no goal" was, on the evidence presented here, correct. However, I think that the ball actually moved further into the net, hence my revised conclusion of "probable goal"...

 

[Biscuit]

For added clarity, I've highlighted the ball. It clearly hasn't completely crossed the line.

 

[Goldstone1976]

View attachment 48110

For added clarity, I've highlighted the ball. It clearly hasn't completely crossed the line.

Agreed, but is the last shot showing the moment when the ball is furthest into the net? I don't think it does, judging by the angle of Greer's leg.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Ok, I'll fess up. I voted "goal" before the photos went up on here, purely on the basis of the replays on the concourse screens. Having seen the photos on this thread, I'll modify my opinion to "probable goal", for the following reasons, which have to be taken as a whole, rather than individually,

a) I'm not completely convinced that the whole of the ball is not over the whole of the line in the photo sequence, though neither can I be sure it is
b) We have no clue whether the last frame in the sequence captured the precise point that the ball was furthest in to the net. My own view is that looking at Greer's leg position and comparing it to its position when the ball starts moving back out of the net, the ball moves more into the goal after this frame.
c) If, as is claimed, the ball is somewhere between 2mm and 25mm from being a goal, it is (obviously) far, far more likely that a lino would conclude "goal" than "no goal". I think we were very lucky to not have a goal awarded against us.

So, I do accept that none of the above proves it is a goal, but neither do I believe this sequence of photos proves it isn't (see point b).

Thus, the award of "no goal" was, on the evidence presented here, correct. However, I think that the ball actually moved further into the net, hence my revised conclusion of "probable goal"...

At the time I would've understood if the lino had given a goal, I could see green between the ball and the line from the back of the WSU and couldn't see the correct angle, but surely the linesman can only award a goal if he is CERTAIN that the ball crossed the line?