Search results

Yep you're correct mate. And if I was playing and that was a shot by one of my team I'd be the first to appeal to the ref/lino believe me - and it would prob be given. It's one of those rules where it will never be carried out correctly every time unless you had technology on the whole perimeter...

Nope - completely different. Tennis rule is if a part of the actual ball itself touches any of the line - hence the oval shape on hawk-eye - that's the ball in motion and the shape it makes when bouncing. Football is the whole of the physical ball itself - nothing to do with anything actually...

I think it was possibly you on the Watford 'no goal (correct decision) thread that was arguing it was clearly a goal? From an arial / side on view, the WHOLE of the ball (ie not just the bit touching the ground) has to be over the WHOLE of the white line. If there's 1mm of leather and paint...

No... No it really wasn't. The angle makes it inconclusive but as a guess I'd say it was in still.

Made me laugh - Are linos meant to stand there for penaltys these days - I've only ever noticed it for pen shoot-outs?!

It's my pet hate of football that. I reckon 90% of 'close call' throw ins are incorrectly given - ie the whole of the ball hasn't crossed the whole of the line. That said if there was a hawk-eye type thing on every line it would cause a lot of problems as players also perceive a ball as 'out of...