[Football] Who did the bookies pay out on as City's second goalscorer yesterday?

Arthritic Toe · May 19, 2019

Interested to know why the FA changed their mind on the Sterling / Jesus goal yesterday. Although the goal was undoubtedly Jesus's from a 'moral' standpoint, I'd be mightily p**d off if I'd had money on a Sterling hatrick, when the goal-line shot (which was hardly shown on TV) clearly shows it was Sterling's goal.

As usual, the commentators and pundits failed to understand the issues of perspective when looking at the halfway line shot and declared the goal as Jesus's.

I wonder what the FA were looking at to make them change their mind - dont they use the available technology? Maybe the bookies paid out on both 'scorers' (though I doubt it).

Quinney · May 19, 2019

Sky bet had it down as Sterling’s goal straight away. Not sure why there was any confusion as goal line technology should have clarified it immediately.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Brightonfan1983 · May 19, 2019

Arthritic Toe said:
View attachment 109849

That's really odd - as you say, it's obviously Sterling's goal, fact. For a sport hurtling down the VAR slope of certainty faster than you can say "interpretation", and denying an FA Cup Final hat-trick, this feel off-kilter. Perhaps if everyone involved wasn't off on their hols today it'd be more of a hoo ha?

To be continued.... Perhaps.

Greg Bobkin · May 19, 2019

Heard a bit of post-match stuff on Talkshite and they were banging on about Sterling's hat-trick. Cross over to 'Moose' in the tunnel and he says something along the lines of "Although Sterling didn't get a hat-trick today..."

So even one STATION can't make up its mind [emoji2357][emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

dejavuatbtn · May 19, 2019

They said on telly yesterday that the FA gave it to Jesus but I just don’t understand their logic. If Sterling had cleared the ball instead of kicking it goalwards, it would not have counted because it hadn’t crossed the line. VAR is a complete dogsmess.

Bozza · May 19, 2019

Quinney said:
Sky bet had it down as Sterling’s goal straight away. Not sure why there was any confusion as goal line technology should have clarified it immediately.

I was surprised we didn't see a goal-line technology thing, freezing the ball at the moment Sterling connected with it. Seems somewhat strange that wasn't rolled out...

Ninja Elephant · May 19, 2019

Looks already in, to me. Goal poaching is pathetic, Sterling should be ashamed of himself. Stealing a goal from Gabriel Jesus like that is pathetic. He needn't have bothered as it turned out, he would get to scuff in a couple of his own. I know the narrative around Sterling has changed now, and he's some kind of messiah, but he's the same grubby 6 yard box merchant to me that he's always been.

lawros left foot · May 19, 2019

I don’t know if it’s relevant, but, in the first Barcelona v Liverpool CL tie, I had Suarez for first goalscorer. He had a weak shot that I thought was going wide turned in by a Liverpool defender, Van Dyke, I think. The goal was initially given as Suarez, and they immediately payed out, it was then given as an ogie, and they took the money back.

When I next checked my account, a couple of days later, they had paid out again. I still think it was an own goal, but if they are willing to give me the money, who am I to turn it down.

Triggaaar · May 19, 2019

Ninja Elephant said:
View attachment 109852

Looks already in, to me.

The whole ball isn't over the line, so it's not already in. The camera angle you've used hasn't helped you there. See this one:

Arthritic Toe said:
View attachment 109849

Herr Tubthumper · May 19, 2019

Triggaaar said:
The whole ball isn't over the line, so it's not already in. The camera angle you've used hasn't helped you there. See this one:

That second one isn’t conclusive though....as his foot is behind the ball you cannot see if it’s touching the ball at that moment or not. His foot could be a few inches away and prior to any contact.

BHA Haywards Heath · May 19, 2019

I think you're probably right about it being Jesus' goal, but absolutely nothing else. Sterling is very obviously a class player. Just look at his goal tally.

Timbo · May 19, 2019

I got paid out on Sterling, then had it taken back, then paid out again.

Honestly couldn’t believe the BBC hadn’t cleared it up an hour later!

Exile · May 19, 2019

Ninja Elephant said:
View attachment 109852

Looks already in, to me. Goal poaching is pathetic, Sterling should be ashamed of himself. Stealing a goal from Gabriel Jesus like that is pathetic. He needn't have bothered as it turned out, he would get to scuff in a couple of his own. I know the narrative around Sterling has changed now, and he's some kind of messiah, but he's the same grubby 6 yard box merchant to me that he's always been.

Triggaaar said:
The whole ball isn't over the line, so it's not already in. The camera angle you've used hasn't helped you there.

On the contrary [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]. I think it’s clear from the rest of his post, that the angle used absolutely has helped him, (to support his prejudice against the player)

Sheebo · May 19, 2019

Ninja Elephant said:
View attachment 109852

Looks already in, to me. Goal poaching is pathetic, Sterling should be ashamed of himself. Stealing a goal from Gabriel Jesus like that is pathetic. He needn't have bothered as it turned out, he would get to scuff in a couple of his own. I know the narrative around Sterling has changed now, and he's some kind of messiah, but he's the same grubby 6 yard box merchant to me that he's always been.

When will fans of the game learn the rules and learn the science behind camera angles :lol:

It’s like the corner out of the quadrant - it pretty much never is (from an aria view part of the ball only needs to overlap part of the line.

Sheebo · May 19, 2019

Herr Tubthumper said:
That second one isn’t conclusive though....as his foot is behind the ball you cannot see if it’s touching the ball at that moment or not. His foot could be a few inches away and prior to any contact.

Also correct.

Arthritic Toe · May 19, 2019

sheebo said:
Also correct.

It is true, but I think you can use the two angles together to identify the instant of contact and apply it to the goal-line angle. This was the freeze-frame from the tele from the one occasion they did show it.

It always amazes me that people can have a lifetime of seeing things their eyes, but fail to understand the concept of parallax.

Sheebo · May 19, 2019

Arthritic Toe said:
It is true, but I think you can use the two angles together to identify the instant of contact and apply it to the goal-line angle. This was the freeze-frame from the tele from the one occasion they did show it.

It always amazes me that people can have a lifetime of seeing things their eyes, but fail to understand the concept of parallax.

Correct. Just need to check both frames which I’m sure they’d done. And yes, it infuriates me.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Who did the bookies pay out on as City's second goalscorer yesterday?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Tiny member

Silver Seagull

Well-known member

You can change this

Doctor Elephant

Glory hunting since 1969

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Objective but passionate

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page