-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Kelle Roos joins on an emergency loan (ball over the line?)
- Thread starter Argy1e
- Start date
Quite the opposite actually. It proves nothing as you couldn't possibly tell from that angle.r4h4al":2ris836m said:PL2 3DQ":2ris836m said:On Matchday Moments there's a camera in the corner of the goal that shows our second goal but there's no footage from this camera for the ghost goal. That camera would have given us a good angle of the ball over the line.
Maybe it's better for the club not to show this definite footage of the ball over the line, all other camera angles leave it open to interpretation.
I think the Matchday Moments footage prove it didn't cross the line.
Argy1e":21gc9bi8 said:Quite the opposite actually. It proves nothing as you couldn't possibly tell from that angle.r4h4al":21gc9bi8 said:PL2 3DQ":21gc9bi8 said:On Matchday Moments there's a camera in the corner of the goal that shows our second goal but there's no footage from this camera for the ghost goal. That camera would have given us a good angle of the ball over the line.
Maybe it's better for the club not to show this definite footage of the ball over the line, all other camera angles leave it open to interpretation.
I think the Matchday Moments footage prove it didn't cross the line.
I could tell.
Keepitgreen":3hpm7c9v said:
I’m not sure how you can be so sure of something that happened in a millisecond, when other people have slowed down a good angled replay from the official highlights 20-30 times and come to the conclusion that the whole ball is ‘probably’ not over.
As you say though, it’s academic really as the ref couldn’t see it and thus couldn’t give a goal, so a bad decision hasn’t been made.
P
pilgrim errant
Guest
Match day Moments gives good evidence that the whole of the ball did not cross the whole of the line - freeze and see that Roos’s arm is behind the ball and not sufficiently beyond the line for the whole circumference to have crossed it. Evidence - mind you - not proof. The Herald was way out of line with it’s headline suggesting that it was a mistake by the officials and that it had crossed the line - thus maligning referee and assistant for not giving it. They should hang their heads in shame!
It was the linesman who made the decision - the ref looked over to him and he made a very animated 'no goal' signal. However, as I looked down at the point of the incident from Block 8, the lino was still in motion towards the touchline (understandably as he would have been monitoring the line of defence for offside). I can't see how he, or any linesman in such a situation can make that call reliably - not criticising, just saying it isn't possible.
Id be interested to hear from anyone who had a seat looking right down the goal line, only they would be able to see if the ball was over or not. All other angles could be misleading including the lino's if he wasn't looking down the line. If he wasn't sure it was over then he made the right call not giving a goal.
Ha ha - look at the vote results: In - 8 votes, Out - 8 votes, Don't know - 2 votes.
Sounds like the ref & lino correctly made the only call they could in that case :thumbup:
Sounds like the ref & lino correctly made the only call they could in that case :thumbup:
Not in. The ball bounces off the post and then on the goal line. It is the angle from the TV camera that gives the impression it has crossed because when the ball bounces up you can see green grass between the ball and the goal line.
Good decision.
Good decision.
Aaron D.":vfe5a7gj said:
Even then they are recounting a nano second from over two days ago.
At the time, a lot of people were saying it was WAY over... well we know that wasn’t the case, at least.
Biggs":2dihvbjm said:
True, but in that nanosecond you know. Everyone at an angle can't be sure when it's close to going over. That's why I sit in exactly that spot when I go to HP. Unfortunately I live in France so I don't go very often.
I voted in cos I sit in line and (at the time) called it (well) over.
I can't see how you can be undecided about whether you 'think' it was in or not? :think:
I can't see how you can be undecided about whether you 'think' it was in or not? :think: