Goal or no goal (1 Viewer)

[MalcSB]

View attachment 24177View attachment 24178

But that is after the ball has crossed the line, hit the grounded players back and is rolling back towards the line and so is the wrong point to make a decision. You can see how far over the line the grounded player is.

 

---

[David O'Day]

Exactly what I expected.

This certainty from a dodgy screenshot at an askew angle from miles away because you can see a bit of grass is bizarre.

that's after it hit there player though

 

[pusbccfc]

View attachment 24177View attachment 24178

Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.

 

[Liquid Gold]

that's after it hit there player though

you think it's more likely to have been a goal before it hit the player who knocked the ball back towards the penalty sport or something?

Just take a loss and move on.

 

[MalcSB]

Yeah just shown on quest. No pen on Tavares for me but the one on Gyokeres first half was debatable

How is being grabbed round the neck and hauled down debatable?

 

[David O'Day]

It’s rolling forwards but heavily spinning slowing it down. That’s the closest it got to being over the line I’m afraid

it's not though

 

[Liquid Gold]

Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.

Which is that the technology is working.

 

[MalcSB]

It’s rolling forwards but heavily spinning slowing it down. That’s the closest it got to being over the line I’m afraid

No it isn’t.

 

[SeaSeeEffCee]

Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.

There is nothing to suggest the technology hasn’t worked. It just a conspiracy theory that does nothing but deflect from our own awful performance.

 

[David O'Day]

you think it's more likely to have been a goal before it hit the player who knocked the ball back towards the penalty sport or something?

Just take a loss and move on.

yes because it hit their player who was over the line and then rolled backwards

 

[hill83]

yes because it hit their player who was over the line and then rolled backwards

That 'rolling backwards' is the ball bouncing down.

 

[Liquid Gold]

there is plenty to criticise this ref on that I will back to the hilt.

Tavares' pen was about as clear as any I've ever seen. Focus on that not something which isn't a mistake.

 

[David O'Day]

There’s literally a still of it from a camera directly in line with the post. That isn’t Hawkeye or ‘technology’ that’s literally the best angle in the ground.

a still of it after it hits their player and roles ba

 

[pusbccfc]

There’s literally a still of it from a camera directly in line with the post. That isn’t Hawkeye or ‘technology’ that’s literally the best angle in the ground.

It's a virtual image.

 

[David O'Day]

That 'rolling backwards' is the ball bouncing down.

wow

 

[pusbccfc]

There is nothing to suggest the technology hasn’t worked. It just a conspiracy theory that does nothing but deflect from our own awful performance.

There is. Video footage.

Like you say, it's meaningless.

 

[Johhny Blue]

Those stills don’t prove that it was in. Live I was sure the ref was going to give it. When it wasn’t given I begrudgingly accepted that it hadn’t crossed the line.
Ignoring the ball and seeing how far the defender is from the line seems that the ball should be over when it hits him.
I wonder if the watch was checked post game or if we’ll ever know.
Bottom line. We lost and it’s lucky it wouldn’t have been an equalizer or winner.
I decided I’m not sure enough either way to vote but gut feeling is it didn’t cross the line.

 

[pusbccfc]

Which is that the technology is working.

We'll never know because they won't show us the tests before or after the game.

 

[David O'Day]

There is. Video footage.

Like you say, it's meaningless.

we deserved to lose but that was a goal. end of

 

[Liquid Gold]

wow

Instead of the quite simple solution that the technology works and you've misinterpreted a grainy twitter video you're going to say that the EFL has purposefully doctored an image to save face on an unimportant Cov v Hull game when the goal wouldn't have changed the result?

 

[pusbccfc]

Hawkeye is. The second is a still from a video taken by a camera in the perfect position. Watch quest to see it for yourself

I've seen it. It's a virtual image. Hence why the foot isn't in the shot.

 

[rexo87]

There's only once where the technology hasn't worked. It worked today unfortunately for us and it wasn't over the line by millimeteres. Stop letting us nearly scoring a goal off their player's backside deflect away from our poor performance.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

Instead of the quite simple solution that the technology works and you've misinterpreted a grainy twitter video you're going to say that the EFL has purposefully doctored an image to save face on an unimportant Cov v Hull game when the goal wouldn't have changed the result?

the "still" is after it hits their player

are you people thick?

 

[rexo87]

we deserved to lose but that was a goal. end of

The technology proved it wasn't a goal. End of

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

There's only once where the technology hasn't worked. It worked today unfortunately for us and it wasn't over the line by millimeteres. Stop letting us nearly scoring a goal off their player's backside deflect away from our poor performance.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

And that one time they held their hands up and admitted it. Why would they lie for this?

This is properly bizarre now.

 

[David O'Day]

you are just wow

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.

Donald? Is that you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rexo87]

the "still" is after it hits their player

are you people thick?

There's fucking technology with a yes or no answer you fucking twat

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

The technology proved it wasn't a goal. End of

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

it's been pointed out why you are wrong still if you want to be a lego eater

 

[Liquid Gold]

it's been pointed out why you are wrong still if you want to be a lego eater

So you reckon the EFL has chosen to only screenshot after the ball goes back in contact with the line.

Why?

 

[Adge]

Nobody can say it’s a “definite goal”. The angle of the picture isn’t the best and really it needs to be from the side or from the top looking down (from the cross bar). I’ll be interested to see the results of “Hawk eye” in the next day or so that seems to be doing the rounds.

 

[rexo87]

it's been pointed out why you are wrong still if you want to be a lego eater

Where has it been pointed out that I'm wrong? The technology gives a scientific yes or no answer to a goal. The answer is no as the whole ball has not crossed the line. Its very simple

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

There's fucking technology with a yes or no answer you fucking twat

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

it's a flawed picture you halfwitted lesta twat

 

[rexo87]

Nobody can say it’s a “definite goal”. The angle of the picture isn’t the best and really it needs to be from the side or from the top looking down (from the cross bar). I’ll be interested to see the results of “Hawk eye” in the next day or so that seems to be doing the rounds.

The results of hawkeye are above on this thread from the side

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah just shown on quest. No pen on Tavares for me but the one on Gyokeres first half was debatable

How was the Tavares one not? I thought the Hyam one was as well.