Goal or no goal? You decide...

[symyjym]

I think you have this wrong. The red line is marking the goal line not the goal post.
The fact that the goal line is covered by the post and cross bar also proves the camera was bang in line.

Yep I see what your saying.

 

[Acker79]

You can only draw the line, from the painted line, to the painted line on the pitch. That will always be accurate. Using the goal post and crossbar as reference doesn’t tell us anything, if that was the original intention.

The goal posts and cross bar should be the same width as the goal line. If you're looking from the side, the goal post is the most accurate representation. From the side and above the goal posts and goal line should line up so you shouldn't see the goal line.

 

[symyjym]

The goal posts and cross bar should be the same width as the goal line. If you're looking from the side, the goal post is the most accurate representation. From the side and above the goal posts and goal line should line up so you shouldn't see the goal line. That you can see the goal line and the post in that picture shows the angle is not exactly side on.

Yep

 

[Bozza]

I've gone from 'Goal' based on the first pictures from in front of the goal, to 'non-goal' based on the goal-line picture on this thread to 'probably a goal' based on this picture, and the difference in angle between the post and the goal-line



But it's certainly not conclusive.

 

[Gwylan]

I've gone from 'Goal' based on the first pictures from in front of the goal, to 'non-goal' based on the goal-line picture on this thread to 'probably a goal' based on this picture

But that's the point of my earlier question. If you were a ref and thought "it's probably a goal but can't be sure", would you give it or not?

 

[Bozza]

But that's the point of my earlier question. If you were a ref and thought "it's probably a goal but can't be sure", would you give it or not?

No - you have to be sure, right?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've gone from 'Goal' based on the first pictures from in front of the goal, to 'non-goal' based on the goal-line picture on this thread to 'probably a goal' based on this picture, and the difference in angle between the post and the goal-line

View attachment 48170

But it's certainly not conclusive.

That is pretty conclusive really. In perspective the near post should obscure the whole line as it's closest to the camera and therefore should be bigger than everything behind it, and yet you can see some of the goal line in front of it, that in turn means that the rear of the goal line is actually well forward of the back line of the near post (it can't be in line due to perspective and we can see part of the line in front of the post). Very probably more than likely should have been given as a goal.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Ok - now you guys (yes, I'm talking to you, Bozza and you, Bold Seagull) are doing my head in.

I voted "Goal" originally. Then went to "probable Goal", based on looking more carefully at the side on view, and then ended up at "no goal" based on a further frame being shown in the Sky footage.

Now you're trying to persuade me it's "probable goal" after all. Leave me alone, already!

I think my final say on this matter is that it's either a goal or it isn't, and I'm now officially beyond caring!

 

[symyjym]

Ok - now you guys (yes, I'm talking to you, Bozza and you, Bold Seagull) are doing my head in.

I voted "Goal" originally. Then went to "probable Goal", based on looking more carefully at the side on view, and then ended up at "no goal" based on a further frame being shown in the Sky footage.

Now you're trying to persuade me it's "probable goal" after all. Leave me alone, already!

I think my final say on this matter is that it's either a goal or it isn't, and I'm now officially beyond caring!

Yep, either way it makes up for the wicked deflected goal on 4 mins, and we certainly deserved the draw. If it had of counted it could have been considered a Greer own goal? but that's another debate altogether.

 

[symyjym]

Are you sure it was a deflection? Have you got any stills of the incident we can have a look at?

It took him two attempts to clear it, I will leave that there

 

[Bold Seagull]

Loving that glaring contradiction.
However, it is not pretty conclusive. If you want to argue that the camera is not in line this is valid, but, you can not say that it means the ball is over the line. To work this out you would need to know the elevation, horizontal distance and angle of the camera to the goal line. I would bet that none of us have this information, and certainly not to an accurate enough precision, in order to determine if that shot has the ball over or not.
It is inconclusive at best. Therefore, the only result a referee or us can make is: NO GOAL.

I'm actually worried you are genuinely taking this thread seriously!

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Not sure if posted, .

Ridiculously close though.

 

[symyjym]

Not sure if posted, View attachment 48177.

Ridiculously close though.

I've taken the liberty of zooming in further:

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's a goal.

 

[Marshy]

@NorthStandChat: For the geometrically challenged - why #watfordfc's non-goal vs #BHAFC may have been correct - http://t.co/WEGMP70tAg (via @JamieCutteridge)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Great, the basketball and carpet footage again....300 posts after the first time!!!

 

[Laridae]

Been a really interesting thread this, bit of a roller coaster of goal, no-goal, goal. I for one never knew there was so much difference between viewing angles.

As has been said, I think it comes down to the fact the ref/lino can't - and will not - give a goal unless he is 100% convinced it is a goal. From their view-points there is no way they can say the ball was over the line so they made the right call - hey, we're still debating it 5 days later so that backs up the refs decision at the time.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this thread being bounced when we see a Premier League match where, from the main TV camera it looks like a clear goal, but then Hawk-Eye shows that it wasn't.

It's been educational!

 

[c0lz]

@NorthStandChat: For the geometrically challenged - why #watfordfc's non-goal vs #BHAFC may have been correct - http://t.co/WEGMP70tAg (via @JamieCutteridge)

I had a play around with this and turned it on it side and tried to get it more central taking out the unnecessary clips

Quality not as good as i converted it to gif.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Opening of tonights FLS...''Watford denied a clear goal'' hmmm

 

[brightn'ove]

Opening of tonights FLS...''Watford denied a clear goal'' hmmm

Yes very clear, hence why this thread is only 2 pages long ... Wait...