Brighton v Watford

Status
Not open for further replies.
steven

steven

Striker
Just me or is it not entirely obvious that that ball crossed the line at all? It's a bit of a bugbear that one of the easiest things to understand about football - that the whole ball has to cross the line - just gets ignored in favour of wrong bollocks when you can see a bit of the ball behind the line. Everyone seems to be ignoring the side-on pic showing this:

Logon or register to see this image


and going for the one showing this:

Logon or register to see this image


Which isn't conclusive by a long way to anyone who halfway knows the rules, and is much less useful. Given that HawkEye is accurate only to 4mm (I took that from the first source I could find), it's not really obvious that the decision would have been right if they'd had technology in place.
 


There's about 3-4 inches of turf between the line and the ball? How is that not a goal?
 
The Situation said:
The second picture clearly shows it's a goal IMO. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree in all honesty.
Click to expand...

The second picture shows absolutely fuck-all.[DOUBLEPOST=1383063579][/DOUBLEPOST]
West Winger said:
There's about 3-4 inches of turf between the line and the ball? How is that not a goal?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether there's turf between the base of the ball and the line, what matters is that the whole ball crosses it.
 
Thats a goal IMO. I dare bet if you could remove the goal posts from the first pic it would show it was over the line as well
 
L18SFC said:
Thats a goal IMO. I dare bet if you could remove the goal posts from the first pic it would show it was over the line as well
Click to expand...

Eh, the camera is in line with the goal line. The goalposts are the thickness of the line. The fact that you can't see a gap between the ball and the posts is kind of the point.
 
my ex housemate is a watford fan, and was at the game last night. he said that nobody in their end could understand why it was disallowed because it was so blatently over the line. watching on the box, it looked a clear goal to me and if safc were on the receiving end of a decision like that, id be raging. oh wait, we normally are.
 
Is the OP
A) blind?
B) on drugs?
C) pissed?
D) all of the above?

both are clearly showing all of the ball over the line.... and the 2nd picture is clear as day, its a good few inches over, you can see it's over the line (unless you're spatial awareness skills are shit)
 
agree with the op. just cos the base of the ball is over the line, doesnt mean the rest of it is. how wide is a ball? 10 inches?? that means the centre of the bottom of the ball has to be at least 5 inches over the inside edge of the line. always grated on me that. THE WHOLE OF THE BALL HAS TO BE OVER THE LINE, not just a part of it
 
steven said:
But you're just guessing. There's no way we can tell. Yet almost everyone in the media is wanking on like it was Lampard's v Germany.
Click to expand...
How is that not a goal? the fact that you can see the space between the goal line and the ball is an obvious giveaway...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top