MalcSB
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
that's after it hit there player thoughExactly 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.
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?that's after it hit there player though
How is being grabbed round the neck and hauled down debatable?Yeah just shown on quest. No pen on Tavares for me but the one on Gyokeres first half was debatable
it's not thoughIt’s rolling forwards but heavily spinning slowing it down. That’s the closest it got to being over the line I’m afraid
Which is that the technology is working.Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.
No it isn’t.It’s rolling forwards but heavily spinning slowing it down. That’s the closest it got to being over the line I’m afraid
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.Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.
yes because it hit their player who was over the line and then rolled backwardsyou 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
a still of it after it hits their player and roles baThere’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.
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.
wowThat 'rolling backwards' is the ball bouncing down.
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.
Which is that the technology is working.
we deserved to lose but that was a goal. end ofThere is. Video footage.
Like you say, it's meaningless.
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?
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
the "still" is after it hits their playerInstead 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 technology proved it wasn't a goal. End ofwe deserved to lose but that was a goal. end of
And that one time they held their hands up and admitted it. Why would they lie for this?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
Means nothing if the technology doesn't work. That just shows what the technology shows.
There's fucking technology with a yes or no answer you fucking twatthe "still" is after it hits their player
are you people thick?
it's been pointed out why you are wrong still if you want to be a lego eaterThe technology proved it wasn't a goal. End of
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
So you reckon the EFL has chosen to only screenshot after the ball goes back in contact with the line.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 simpleit's been pointed out why you are wrong still if you want to be a lego eater
it's a flawed picture you halfwitted lesta twatThere's fucking technology with a yes or no answer you fucking twat
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
The results of hawkeye are above on this thread from the sideNobody 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.
Yeah just shown on quest. No pen on Tavares for me but the one on Gyokeres first half was debatable
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?