Goal or no goal? You decide...

[Icy Gull]

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.

OK I'll put it another way. It looks far more likely that it is a goal than it isn't and yet there are quite a few on here who choose to suggest that anyone who thinks that the ball is over the line and therefore a goal is stupid. Hmmmmmm

 

[The Oldman]

Mr Naylor says it's a goal and anyone who says the opposite is wearing rose tinted glasses. So there!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

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/

That's the photo I've seen already. It's the one I believe can be completely ignored as the angle is pointless when debating if the ball is over the line.

The photo side-on which shows the ball not over the line is a far better piece of evidence in my opinion.

Again, a ball is round. Seeing grass between the bottom of the ball and the edge of the line proves nothing at all.

I don't know if it was over. All the evidence I've seen that's worth seeing suggests it wasn't so I'll take that as the basis for my opinion.

 

[wardy wonder land]

Andy Naylor says it should have been a goal.......

that's good enough for me..... NO goal then

 

[halbpro]

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.

Doesn't the side on shot show other markings in the pitch? In principle you can use these to work out the scale of other elements, like the width of lines?

As for the ball, assuming it's symmetrical there is, I believe, enough of the ball visible to project out the other half of the ball, again using other markings to get what the scale is.

 

[sydney]

it was in.

 

[halbpro]

I think you might also need the angle of the picture to the goal line as well.

That's true. There's probably some maths that someone smarter than I can do to work that out. If someone's got the time and cares enough there's probably enough data in the two photos to build a 3D model, although it wouldn't be the easiest task.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

I think you might also need the angle of the picture to the goal line as well.

The side view IS exactly in line with the goal line. If it were not, the crossbar would not be covering the goal line because its 8 foot above the goal line. So long as the goal posts are exactly upright the bar will be exactly above the goal line.

 

[Mellotron]

I think what's happened here is a load of people said IT'S IN on the basis on the first photo we saw, and are now being proud and refusing to back down despite subsequently being PROVED WRONG and made to look DIM by the only photo that actually matters.

It's not far off people continuing to believe the earth is FLAT after it was proved to be ROUND.

 

[wardy wonder land]

................FLAT after it was proved to be ROUND.

do you not mean spherical , as an object can be FLAT & ROUND (check a coin you pocket)

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think what's happened here is a load of people said IT'S IN on the basis on the first photo we saw, and are now being proud and refusing to back down despite subsequently being PROVED WRONG and made to look DIM by the only photo that actually matters.

It's not far off people continuing to believe the earth is FLAT after it was proved to be ROUND.

It was in. No amount of CAPS is going to change THAT.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

It was in. No amount of CAPS is going to change THAT.

Can't argue WITH him. He uses RANDOM capitalized words to MAKE his point.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I want to see this evidence. Either a side or top view, or the angled front view with workings and appropriate errors. Otherwise you can not say that.

No shit Sherlock!

Hence my flippant response to a flippant post on a flippant thread....

 

[Icy Gull]

IIt's not far off people continuing to believe the earth is FLAT after it was proved to be ROUND.

Ridiculous, in fact fecking laughable, comparison, but whatever floats your boat

 

[TheJasperCo]

it was in.

That's what she said.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am so lost. I think I have forgotten what is happening.

In, out? Shake it all about....

 

[Mellotron]

It was in. No amount of CAPS is going to change THAT.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the actual rules of football? This is bizarre.

 

[Mellotron]

Ridiculous, in fact fecking laughable, comparison, but whatever floats your boat

It's been PROVEN to NOT be a GOAL. Yet people still PERSIST.

 

[Shifty89]

***NERD ALERT***

diameter of ball = 277 pixels
so radius = 138.5px

Acker's calculations say ball radius = 4.297 to 4.456 in
therefore 1px = 0.031025 to 0.032173 in

The red line is a line going through the centre of the ball at 90 degrees to the goal line. This line is 169.4px in length.

The centre of the ball is one radius above the ground, yellow line.

The blue line is the all important shortest distance from the centre of the ball to the goal line. This makes a right angled triangle from which we can calculate the length of the blue line using pythagoras' theorem.

distance of centre of ball over goal line = sqrt(169.4^2 - 138.5^2)
= 97.54px

convert to inches = 3.03 to 3.14 inches from the centre of the ball to the goal line.

3.14 < radius of ball 4.297 therefore the whole ball did not cross the whole line by at least approx. 1.157 inches.

NO GOAL!

*All measurements are not guarenteed 100% accurate... obviously.

Alternatively you can be sensible about it and look at the more relevant view from the side and see much clearer that the ball is not in.

Now i will go back to lurking and not posting for fear of having made a mistake.

 

[wardy wonder land]

maths rule !




(no goal)