Paris
Well-known member
I didn't notice this the other night:
[video]https://vine.co/v/MxBLtbXX5P0[/video]
[video]https://vine.co/v/MxBLtbXX5P0[/video]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Apologies if this has already been posted....
- Thread starter Paris
- Start date
Machiavelli
Well-known member
It's been edited. Even if the ball crossed the line, it wouldn't have been a goal, because that movement is neither related to Vlaar's original strike, nor the goalie's save.
yes it is... its not like the wind blew it in. the backspin caused by the ball is directly affected by Romero's hand. if the ball hits the bar, bounces outside the goal and then backspins into the net the goal counts as the ball is still in play
Machiavelli
Well-known member
If that's the case, then why not show the video which includes the shot or, at the very least, the save. Then this claim will have more credibility.
Here's more of it.
He touched it a second time, so wouldn't count.
If he hadn't and it rolled in, it might have counted. A penalty is over when the referee decides it is.
Like this one did:
John Bumlick
Banned
the full replay also appears to show that as the ball spins and loops back towards goal, despite him ducking to avoid it, it brushes Vlaar's shoulder i.e. a second touch from the taker and no goal even if had crossed the line.
its a vine. they can only fit a certain amount into the video. there are longer videos on youtube I believe
