Goal or no goal? You decide...

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Although I was not there, I was under the impression it was raining during the course of the match.

Towards the end, yes. I'm pretty sure there hadn't been any rain when our keeper got taken out in the first half by a player who Andy Naylor reckons should have received a second yellow card for wearing gloves in October!

 

[Eggmundo]

The ball had deflated at that point, a fully inflated ball would not have completely crossed the line.

 

[Triggaaar]

To be pedantic, it wasn't a goal.

When I first saw the replay, I thought - definitely not - the goal line camera showed it wasn't. But on closer inspection, it seems the post was bent, and actually the ball probably had crossed the line, but you couldn't see it because the post was in the way.

Photos in the OP don't really help.

 

[pasty]

I've yet to see any tv relays at all as I've just got back from the game, but still stand by my immediate thought at the match that it was CLEARLY a goal. Even from my seat in block G of WSU I could see it was in. If I was a Watford fan I would be googling fuming.


*opinion possibly may change when tv replays are viewed*

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

No goal. The whole ball didn't cross the line. The commentatotrs should know better and are just trying to save face.

This

 

[BensGrandad]

From my seat in Lower West it looked definite goal.

 

[OzMike]

46 say no goal, they should go to Specsavers.

 

[Rich Suvner]

View attachment 48066

Credit to @IsaacWBA on Twitter. Can people see why this isn't black and white?!

brilliant

 

[Paddy B]

I believe it was a goal. I feel that amount of grass visible is greater than half the diameter (radius) of the ball.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes, I can see the god damn grass in between the ball and the line.

From the side or above is bull, as the cross bar makes it look like it isn't when in actual fact it is.

I really hope that this comment is a wind up

You can go to any football pitch in the country and place the ball so that some of the ball is behind the line but not all of it and you would be able to see grass between the ball and the goal line however the rules stae that the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line which doesn't appear to be the case from the side on photo (which also happens to be the best one to judge something like this on)

So to me its extremely close but no goal (don't forget they have to be certain that it completely crosses the line which they weren't so thats why they didn't award it)

 

[Ravids]

I really hope that this comment is a wind up

You can go to any football pitch in the country and place the ball so that some of the ball is behind the line but not all of it and you would be able to see grass between the ball and the goal line however the rules stae that the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line which doesn't appear to be the case from the side on photo (which also happens to be the best one to judge something like this on)

So to me its extremely close but no goal (don't forget they have to be certain that it completely crosses the line which they weren't so thats why they didn't award it)

 

[champion7]

I was standing pitchside about 20 foot from the goal and it definitely crossed the line.

 

[perseus]

Obvious

It is hard to understand some comments on this thread.

It was obviously not a goal because Hill is blind and then Watford would be 2-0 up.

As for crossing the goal line it appears that it did. However, the telephoto lens gives an optical illusion and it is "not guilty". You can't give a goal based on that evidence. Absolutely no way.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

View attachment 48061

View attachment 48062

Watford should have had a player sent off for GBH on the big pole so all even to be honest, unless the injury gives him some niggles in the furure then we are right in the shit

 

[BadFish]

Ref didn't give it so it is a no goal - end of story the referees decision is final (even if incorrect). The sooner we understand this concept and drill it into players on every level of the game the better the game will be.

 

[Jesus Gul]

Never a goal.

Regards

M. Neuer
Bavaria

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Goal.

If roles were reversed, we would have gone mad.

 

[rcf0712]

No goal, clearly it should have been but it wasn't because the officials didn't see and award it, simples.

 

[trueblue]

Looked a clear goal from the WSU - well over the line. However, if the side on view here was taken at exactly the right moment then it wasn't a goal... So I'm going with 'no goal'. Especially as the player was lucky to still be on the pitch anyway. Can't see how a linesman could ever make that call accurately in real time but he must have had enough doubt not to flag I suppose.

Will be very interesting to see the reaction in the PL when we get one of these situations with the papers all screaming goal and printing their misleading photo. They'll all be slating the technology for getting it 'wrong'.

 

[sams dad]

Ref didn't give it so it is a no goal - end of story the referees decision is final (even if incorrect). The sooner we understand this concept and drill it into players on every level of the game the better the game will be.

No goal, clearly it should have been but it wasn't because the officials didn't see and award it, simples.

This, it wasn't given therefore it wasn't a goal.