Forrestieri's red card v the disallowed "goal"

[glasfryn]

first time I have seen it and it did look like a goal ......but then shown from the camera looking above the goal and it looks like the whole of the ball did not go over the line
anyway the ref did not give it
he should have been sent off for his challenge on the pole .......but got a yellow and should have got a yellow again for throwing himself over when not even touching in our penalty area

now looked at the extended highlights and have NOT changed my opinion
its all the ball over all of the line

NO GOAL

 

[trueblue]

It wasn't "disallowed". It just wasn't given. Just saying. There is a difference, which also seemed to be lost on Sky's commentators (along with the fact that the whole of the ball has to be over the whole of the line).

 

[Icy Gull]

You can see grass between the goal line and the ball, yet people still think the ball may not have been over the line? I am happy to concede that it should have been a goal. I bet the voting would be close to 100% goal if it had been us who scored it and had it disallowed.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

32 people think it was a red card.

Oh and no. It didnt cross the line as the one true angle (the one on the GOAL LINE) showed.

The angle everyone seems to be using as some sort of proof that it did go over the line is PONTLESS. So what if you can see a gap between the bottom of the ball and the goalline. Balls are ROUND so they go OUT in the middle. If a ball was square then YES, that angle would be proof...but they're not...so it's not.

Obvs.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Post a photo in line with the goal line show the whole ball over the line and I will believe you. I have not seen this yet, no-one seems capable of finding such a picture or video.

Post a photo showing the ball NOT over the line and I'll believe you. So far all I've seen in the "side on" view, in which the post is blocking all the white line and more, so that doesn't count.

Yellow + goal for sure.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You can see grass between the goal line and the ball, yet people still think the ball may not have been over the line? .

Balls are round.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

first time I have seen it and it did look like a goal ......but then shown from the camera looking above the goal and it looks like the whole of the ball did not go over the line
anyway the ref did not give it
he should have been sent off for his challenge on the pole .......but got a yellow and should have got a yellow again for throwing himself over when not even touching in our penalty area

now looked at the extended highlights and have NOT changed my opinion
its all the ball over all of the line

NO GOAL

I think what saved Forestieri from being shown a red card for the foul on Kuszczak was the ref didn't see it as a cynical foul. Later in the game if the ref had followed the letter of the law he should have shown a second yellow to Forestieri for simulation in the penalty area , with both sides finishing 10 a side as Bruno committed a foul which was a 2nd yellow too. I called it "No Goal" last night as not all of the ball had crossed the line from the side view ( I used to get 9 out of 10 photo finishes right at Hove dogs as a youngster )

 

[Icy Gull]

Can you point me to the photo from this angle, I don't think I've seen it.

 

[Icy Gull]

Balls are round.

Some people don't believe their eyes if it doesn't suit their needs.

 

[Coldeanseagull]

Red card? I think so. he had no chance of reaching the ball, maybe no intent to hurt PIG but sliding in as he did could be classed as dangerous. If the goal that wasn't was us, I'd still be grumbling and accusing the assistant ref of being inept but it's done, move on.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Can you point me to the photo from this angle, I don't think I've seen it.

Ill try and find a still of it from last nights footage. It was dead in-line with the posts and the ball never goes full past them from what I could see.

There is an excellently simple 6s video on twitter which is basic but is a bloke showing you how a ball from a flat angle (which looks CLEARLY OVER) is actually not when you move the camera in line with the goal line.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

 

[GingerBeerMan]

You can't even see the goal line, what's the point of this angle?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You can't even see the goal line, what's the point of this angle?

Its in line with the posts. This is me asking a genuine question (not sarcy). Are posts much wider than the goal line? I thought they are pretty much the same to make decisions like this plausable for a linesman standing in line with the goal posts.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Actually, look at the goal line at the bottom of the picturte. Its the exact width of the post.

Therefore that means the goal line (which is hidden) is in line with the goal frame.

Meaning the ball didnt cross the line.,

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

You can't even see the goal line, what's the point of this angle?

That the whole of the ball wasn't over the line

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Its in line with the posts. This is me asking a genuine question (not sarcy). Are posts much wider than the goal line? I thought they are pretty much the same to make decisions like this plausable for a linesman standing in line with the goal posts.

If the camera was perpendicular to the line, it would be easy enough to tell. As it is, the camera is in front of the goal and so the goal posts don't follow the goal line. I've done some lines in photoshop and I still think it's a goal. If people are basing the "it's a goal" on the fact it's not totally over the line of the posts, then that's not very clever.

I'd also be interest to know if the width of a post is the width of a goal line, just out of interest

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

thought he was the best player on the pitch, and yes was definitely a goal.

As much as it pains me to say it ... yes you are right on both counts.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

That the whole of the ball wasn't over the line

Christ it's like educating a bunch of monkey. You can't see the line, how do you know it is/isn't all over the line?

 

[Moosedog]

Forrestieri should have been given a Red card Under law 12 of the game.
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

Any player who lunges at an opponent when challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent, is guilty of serious foul play.

ALternatively, under the same Law - Violent Conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person.

As Kusczak had cleared the ball at the time of the challenge, Forrestieri could be considered as "not challenging for the ball" and so should have received a red card for either Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct.

In this situation, the game and it's eventual outcome would have almost certainly have changed, and the issue regarding whether the ball had crossed the line would not have occured.

Your not a referee then. Violent conduct is striking an opponent, which did not. The referee got it right it was a foul but not serious foul play there was no intent to wipe out the keeper in fact I dont think he made contact with his foot but his arm, I would like you to justify the referee's decision not to sent off Bruno for a second yellow for his foul on Pudil