Don't really care if it was in or not, we won, and even if it was over, we've been long overdue a bit of luck!
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Kelle Roos joins on an emergency loan (ball over the line?)
- Thread starter Argy1e
- Start date
You can genuinely say that you can tell from that that the ball wasn't over the line? Where were you sat in the ground? I was pretty much in line with the goal line and the ball was well over the line.Biggs":3gno17zd said:Just posting this again on a new page as it's not immediately distinguishable from the earlier pic with the ball in the air. This one is the last frame before Roos touches it, with the ball on the ground...
We seem to be getting our knickers in a twist over something which is now of no consequence. The result is done and dusted. Three points are in the bag. The ref's decision was final. Let's move on, swiftly.
esmer":3e4z43cl said:You can genuinely say that you can tell from that that the ball wasn't over the line? Where were you sat in the ground? I was pretty much in line with the goal line and the ball was well over the line.Biggs":3e4z43cl said:Just posting this again on a new page as it's not immediately distinguishable from the earlier pic with the ball in the air. This one is the last frame before Roos touches it, with the ball on the ground...
If you look at my previous post, I actually said that pic is the strongest evidence so far that the ball was OVER. Though if you pushed me on it, I’d say that it’s likely a bit of the ball was just on the line.
I’m failing to understand the relevance of where I was sat when we’re dealing with photographic evidence. There is no conceivable justification for you to say it was well over when presented with that pic.
And I get the points about it being irrelevant, but it’s a fun piece of detective work in a thread dedicated to the subject and it would be nice to know we won the three points fair and square.
Keepitgreen
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
♣️ PACSA Member
♣️ Senior Greens
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🚑 Steve Hooper
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Biggs, you be the detective, I'll be the witness. I was there, I saw it, real time, I'll give you a statement that you can present with your file. The ball was over. Case closed.Biggs":2vhn2km5 said:esmer":2vhn2km5 said:You can genuinely say that you can tell from that that the ball wasn't over the line? Where were you sat in the ground? I was pretty much in line with the goal line and the ball was well over the line.Biggs":2vhn2km5 said:Just posting this again on a new page as it's not immediately distinguishable from the earlier pic with the ball in the air. This one is the last frame before Roos touches it, with the ball on the ground...
If you look at my previous post, I actually said that pic is the strongest evidence so far that the ball was OVER. Though if you pushed me on it, I’d say that it’s likely a bit of the ball was just on the line.
I’m failing to understand the relevance of where I was sat when we’re dealing with photographic evidence. There is no conceivable justification for you to say it was well over when presented with that pic.
And I get the points about it being irrelevant, but it’s a fun piece of detective work in a thread dedicated to the subject and it would be nice to know we won the three points fair and square.
This is very odd. Is it just me??
How can anyone take what they saw from up to 50 yards away in a nanosecond above photographic evidence? Presumably none of you see the need for replays, photo finishes or post-analysis of any kind.
That picture PROVES the ball wasn’t ‘way over’ the line :lol:
How can anyone take what they saw from up to 50 yards away in a nanosecond above photographic evidence? Presumably none of you see the need for replays, photo finishes or post-analysis of any kind.
That picture PROVES the ball wasn’t ‘way over’ the line :lol:
Just to finally clear this up.
My mate works in a Top Secret Government Agency Satellite image processing facility. He wouldn't explain why, but at the time of the incident, a Satellite was over this area and captured some images. He pulled in a few favours and has since privately confirmed that the referee and linesman signalled 'No Goal'.
Hope that helps.
My mate works in a Top Secret Government Agency Satellite image processing facility. He wouldn't explain why, but at the time of the incident, a Satellite was over this area and captured some images. He pulled in a few favours and has since privately confirmed that the referee and linesman signalled 'No Goal'.
Hope that helps.
justanotherfan
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✅ Evergreen
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🍌 Bomber Harris.
🚑 Steve Hooper
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
X Isle":wijom8ia said:I'll trust myself thank you Es...but you're right, WELL over.esmer":wijom8ia said:From that angle you can't possibly tell if it was over the line or not, or by how far. Trust me it was well over.Biggs":wijom8ia said:esmer":wijom8ia said:
I have no idea why I'm wading back into this :lol: :facepalm:, but you can't possibly say this is a full foot over the line. I've made sure I've captured the moment when it's furthest 'over' just as Roos touches it back, though in the video he falls on it rather than scoops it back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrVtobg8Ths
All the retrospective imagery stuff is meaningless. In a flat 2D image you don't get depth perspective, you only get that in the moment itself. We were roughly at the same angle to you but on the opposite side and again, everyone round us knew instinctively it was not just over but WELL over.
What a 2D image does though is debunk the conspiracy theorists. Why the lino didn't give it?, the ball was completely obscured by Roos and the post. Why the lack of Gillingham reaction?, only their #11 was right up with play and he is square on to the ball.
The only confusion in my mind is why so many will quite happily say that black is white here. It was WELL over, we don't lose any points by being honest, so why pretend what we saw with our own eyes didn't happen.
I fully accept it's a moot point, the moment has gone, it's history. But it's never "irrelevant drivel", in any circumstance, to be honest about something that happened. Revisionism is never a path worth taking.
Agree with except as the post is on the line, if it obscured the ball then that would make it on the line surely? From block 11 it looked over.
STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT!!!
The Linesman didn't give a goal, the referee didn't give a goal, so it wasn't a goal.
Whether it was over the line or not is irrelevant.
Whether it was a goal is the important bit.
The linesman AND the referee say NO.
Now stop pontificating and let us all move on PLEASE?
The Linesman didn't give a goal, the referee didn't give a goal, so it wasn't a goal.
Whether it was over the line or not is irrelevant.
Whether it was a goal is the important bit.
The linesman AND the referee say NO.
Now stop pontificating and let us all move on PLEASE?