Goal line technology....

[Pavilionaire]

It's reassuring to see modern technology providing definitive confirmation, so many thanks to Twitter for showing that Richard Keys IS STILL a ****.

 

[Chucky_78]

Is that actually his account? You'd have thought he might have been verified.....

 

[perseus]

Just seen the shambles in the France Honduras match, shocking and amusing.

Straightforward enough. Shambles in the BBC studio. Sack them all.

 

[halbpro]

Getting it wrong isn't even misunderstanding the technology, it's an inability to follow a simple sequence of events. We saw that it bounced of the post/bar and then the keeper fumbled it somewhat, so even if it is perhaps odd that they showed both, it doesn't exactly take a genius to piece together what's happening.

I do agree that showing a non-goal before a goal in the stadium is a bit daft though, it's just going to rile people up, even if it is briefly. Commentators, however, should do better.

 

[Gritt23]

[tweet]478267916140294145[/tweet]

Genuine account?

To be absolute fair, he has a point, it is not FOOL proof, as it has still confused the fools. Pearce and Keys are still unable top understand what has happened.

Thank goodness for technology, as we can all clearly see the dangers of human error, even when sat there watching a tv screen.

 

[Puppet Master]

I don't think it was over you know, we can't be sure.





















What?

 

[keaton]

To be absolute fair, he has a point, it is not FOOL proof, as it has still confused the fools. Pearce and Keys are still unable top understand what has happened.

Thank goodness for technology, as we can all clearly see the dangers of human error, even when sat there watching a tv screen.

Ah but now the claim can be made that it can be used a fool-detector

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The entirety of the ball had crossed the line by a few millimetres. it would be nice to know retrospectively that Sky were also a bunch of fools in the Albion v Watford match by claiming it had gone in.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

It's probably a design fault in the system to show both shots, was it necessary to show the first one if the second showed a goal had been scored.

I believe the Hawkeye system only alerts the referee to a goal when one has been scored so it wouldn't have been activated by the shot against the post?

It was absolutely necessary to show both shots. It showed conclusively that the first effort was not a goal but that the keeper subsequently took it over the line. There are millions of pounds worth of 'next goalscorer' betting money hanging on those two decisions.

All thats needed now is some way of detecting intellegent life in Jonathan Pierce's head.

 

[Pavilionaire]

To be fair, crowds waiting for technology to reveal a try / wicket / touchdown etc have been around for years and yet I cannot remember one instance of TWO verdicts being given by the technology in a single review.

I think FIFA are the ones at fault here. Is there any need to give a verdict on the first point where the ball hits the post and rebounds to the goalkeeper? By definition, if the ball hits the post it can't therefore be completely over the line at the point of impact. There were a number of instances in previous matches in the tournament where the goalline technology confirmed the ball had crossed the line, as if bulging and billowing nets weren't concrete proof enough. I suppose we should have seen this coming.

 

[keaton]

To be fair, crowds waiting for technology to reveal a try / wicket / touchdown etc have been around for years and yet I cannot remember one instance of TWO verdicts being given by the technology in a single review.

I think FIFA are the ones at fault here. Is there any need to give a verdict on the first point where the ball hits the post and rebounds to the goalkeeper? By definition, if the ball hits the post it can't therefore be completely over the line at the point of impact. There were a number of instances in previous matches in the tournament where the goalline technology confirmed the ball had crossed the line, as if bulging and billowing nets weren't concrete proof enough. I suppose we should have seen this coming.

In cricket two verdicts are often given in a review

 

[Pavilionaire]

In cricket two verdicts are often given in a review

Oh come on, at the end in cricket it always clearly says OUT or NOT OUT - the crowd have never been left in any doubt, unlike the France match.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Oh come on, at the end in cricket it always clearly says OUT or NOT OUT - the crowd have never been left in any doubt, unlike the France match.

Umpires decision can mean either result (ie, if the umpire originally said out then its out or if he said not out then the batsman survives) this is after a review where the replay shows that less than half the ball is making contact with an outside of an outer stump.

 

[Hillian1]

Pearce still doesn't get it.

"After the horrible mix up the other night"

Seems it's just him that doesn't understand.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Umpires decision can mean either result (ie, if the umpire originally said out then its out or if he said not out then the batsman survives) this is after a review where the replay shows that less than half the ball is making contact with an outside of an outer stump.

I know that but once the 3rd umpire has adjudicated a clear outcome results for the viewers.