Goal or no goal? You decide...

[raymondbriggs]

That picture is far less conclusive than the one showing the whole ball over the line.

Amazing logic it must be a goal because the other perspective that gives strength to the illusion of a goal is the worst one to use so lets go with the most illogical option just to prove a preconception.
lets not let the obvious evidence spoil our prejudice.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

As for the earlier angle that Ninja Elephant refers to....

From the diagonal camera angle from above, as shown by the yellow, you can see quite a lot of grass between the goal line and the ball.

However, the ball is still not far enough to the right to count legitimately as a goal.

 

[symyjym]

I've drawn a line that puts the ball beyond it.

 

[symyjym]

As for the earlier angle that Ninja Elephant refers to....

From the diagonal camera angle from above, as shown by the yellow, you can see quite a lot of grass between the goal line and the ball.

However, the ball is still not far enough to the right to count legitimately as a goal.

As I pointed out earlier Forestieri thought it was this much over the line.

 

[timco]

I voted no goal as this is what the officials decided and who am I to argue with these experts!

 

[Eddie Bee]

I voted no goal as this is what the officials decided and who am I to argue with these experts!

Andy Naylor says it should have been a goal...that's good enough for me. A goal it should have been!

 

[Icy Gull]

Andy Naylor says it should have been a goal...that's good enough for me. A goal it should have been!

The photo in yesterday's Argus would bear that out too. No idea how to post it from the Argus site though.

 

[Eddie Bee]

Has Naylor been on our site, has he not checked our 'in line' evidence. I thought that he read NSC!

 

[Buzzer]

It was a goal, fact.

For the benefit of everyone else Ravids is a Palace troll masquerading as a Brighton fan. He was outed some time ago but still keeps up this pretense.

 

[Janbha]

View attachment 48094

This just proves men are full of shit , nothing more .

 

[pasty]

I wonder how many no voters would be voting yes if it were us, not Watford that were not awarded the goal

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

As yet nobody has provided a true "goal line" photo - even the second side on photo in this thread isn't precisely inline. Given the narrowness of the decision it needs to be an exact photo.

Given that the crossbar is 8 foot above the goal line and the photo shows the crossbar exactly on top of [covering] the goal line what makes you suggest that the camera that produced this image "isn't precisely in line"?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

The goalline, by (football) law, is the same width as the goalframe (post and cross bar). Therfore the goalframe is a true reflection of the goalline.

People may argue that the side on view is perhaps a frame or two after Greer has touched it. However I think there is enough there to show that the ball didnt cross the line.

The tv angle showing grass between ball and line proves nothing in the slightest so isn't even worth considering.

Either way, if it did sneak over, it would LITERALLY be a matter of milimetres if so. Certainly not anywhere near as "clear" as the first angle suggested.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I wonder how many no voters would be voting yes if it were us, not Watford that were not awarded the goal

I think people would have the same opinion personally. If the ball did cross the line I would have absolutely no problem arguing that it did.

However, it didnt (in my view)

 

[Icy Gull]

the line.

The tv angle showing grass between ball and line proves nothing in the slightest so isn't even worth considering.

.

Have a look at the photo in yesterday's online Argus, if that doesn't make you doubt your certainty then nothing will.

You could always go down the route a few NSCers have and suggest that anyone who thinks it was a goal is stupid ( but have a look at that photo first please)

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/albion/10768785.Crofts_saves_point___but_there_s_controversy/

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

It was across the line but it wasn't a goal because it wasn't awarded. Simples.

 

[Acker79]

That photo shows the ball is near the line. It shows the base of the ball is over the line, but you can not tell how much of the rest is over. If you can I would like to know how.

Distance from the base of the ball would be slightly less than the radius of the ball. If the amount of viewable grass is equal to or more than that you can say it is over.

 

[TheJasperCo]

Jeez Louise, this is all becoming a bit A Level Physics for my liking.

Goes to show how even photographic evidence still doesn't conclusively put this matter to bed.

 

[Notters]

It was across the line but it wasn't a goal because it wasn't awarded. Simples.

You're about the 17th person to say that bh it's irrelevant to the debate.

 

[Acker79]

And is it? Because it does not look clearly more. If you want to use that method, which would have a larger error than the side on view, than fine but it still looks bloody close.

I don't know. I don't think you could do it from the picture in the Argus. But the middle one in the first post might be able to help.

Goal lines must be no wider than 5 inches.
Balls have to have a circumference no less than 27in no more than 28in.

Radius = (cirumference / pi) /2 = 4.297in - 4.456in

The very centre of the ball has to be 4.3-4.6inches over the line. Because of the nature of circles and spheres, means we won't see that centre point on the ground. Even looing at bozza's picture there is clearly a significant part of the top of the ball we can't see.

We'd need
the match ball - to measure how much of the ball is hidden from sight.
an accurate measurement of the width of the goal line - to provide a perspective/ratio for the picture.

With those two things we could determine if the ball was over the line using the picture.