Goal or no goal? You decide...

[Bold Seagull]

I know there's not much point in prolonging this much longer but I thought the two pictures on the Argus letter page today that someone sent in are interesting. Both were the same shot taken from different angles and would seem to suggest that its now more likely that the officials were correct and its not a goal.


View attachment 48162


The second shot shows that the ball hasn't crossed the line completely although the first looks certain that it had. Anyway if there is any doubt then the ref is right to disallow.

The trouble is with all these shots of sticks in gardens or rugs or door thresholds, is that they are taken from 2m away at approx. 1.5m high with probably a conventional 28mm lens or similar. All these do is show that in some instances, a ball can appear to look over the line, but sometimes isn't. None of these go anyway to demonstrating that a shot of Greer, zoomed in from the halfway line, most likely at a 10m+ elevated position, with a foreshortening of the shot, successfully cleared the ball without it fully crossing.

That shot from above isn't even vertically over the line, it's vertically over the centre of the ball - move that camera position 100mm to the left so it's over the centre of the line, and that ball is going to look in!

 

[Bozza]

I think we've exhausted this one now - can someone now round up all the various pictures in circulation and start a new poll. Thanks.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

The trouble is with all these shots of sticks in gardens or rugs or door thresholds, is that they are taken from 2m away at approx. 1.5m high with probably a conventional 28mm lens or similar. All these do is show that in some instances, a ball can appear to look over the line, but sometimes isn't. None of these go anyway to demonstrating that a shot of Greer, zoomed in from the halfway line, most likely at a 10m+ elevated position, with a foreshortening of the shot, successfully cleared the ball without it fully crossing.

That shot from above isn't even vertically over the line, it's vertically over the centre of the ball - move that camera position 100mm to the left so it's over the centre of the line, and that ball is going to look in!

The reconstructions don't 'prove' it was not over the line on Monday, but serve to show how a diagonal shot from up high can be deceptive. That's all.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I wonder if the Watford fans' forum is exhausting this subject to death.

 

[Gwylan]

... if there is any doubt then the ref is right to disallow.

That's what I thought but I checked through the laws and guidance for refs and didn't see that mentioned. It seems an obvious omission to me. If the defence does get the benefit of the doubt, it shouldn't be a goal; if the attacking side does, then it should be. But I can't find anywhere that says what the situation is

 

[Bozza]

That's what I thought but I checked through the laws and guidance for refs and didn't see that mentioned. It seems an obvious omission to me. If the defence does get the benefit of the doubt, it shouldn't be a goal; if the attacking side does, then it should be. But I can't find anywhere that says what the situation is

But the goal wasn't disallowed, as it was never given.

It was simply the case that none of the officials believed the ball had crossed the line so they didn't give a goal. You don't need a special rule for that.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I thought this one was exhausted?

 

[Gwylan]

It was simply the case that none of the officials believed the ball had crossed the line so they didn't give a goal. You don't need a special rule for that.

Disallowed was the wrong word but my question is still valid one. If the officials believe it HAD crossed the line but aren't absolutely sure, is it a goal? In cricket, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt but there's nothing mentioned in football.

 

[symyjym]

I wonder if the Watford fans' forum is exhausting this subject to death.

This image below, I really did find on the Watford forum (obviously the last one I said I found there I spoofed in photoshop)



I am not sure why they felt they felt the need to use two drawn lines instead of one. Both are obviously not straight.

It can be seen here wfcforum

 

[Acker79]

This image below, I really did find on the Watford forum (obviously the last one I said I found there I spoofed in photoshop)

View attachment 48166

I am not sure why they felt they felt the need to use two drawn lines instead of one. Both are obviously not straight.

It can be seen here wfcforum

There's two lines because one is the post, the other is the crossbar. However, they've gone a little high on the post. You can see the corner of the net, it shouldn't be too hard for them.

 

[Bozza]

Disallowed was the wrong word but my question is still valid one. If the officials believe it HAD crossed the line but aren't absolutely sure, is it a goal? In cricket, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt but there's nothing mentioned in football.

There's still no need to reference benefit of the doubt.

'A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal.'

If the officials don't believe that has happened, they don't award a goal. Simple.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

That's what I thought but I checked through the laws and guidance for refs and didn't see that mentioned. It seems an obvious omission to me. If the defence does get the benefit of the doubt, it shouldn't be a goal; if the attacking side does, then it should be. But I can't find anywhere that says what the situation is

There was a crackdown on the benefit of doubt going to the defending side after the World Cup in 1990 when it was argued that the laws of the game were biased to the defending side... Not sure if this was a casualty of this.

 

[symyjym]

There's two lines because one is the post, the other is the crossbar.

No it's not, the red red line exceeds the height of the post, you can see where the side netting ends?

 

[Acker79]

No it's not, the red red line exceeds the height of the post, you can see where the side netting ends?

I edited. They obviously went a little too far, but I'm sure that was the intent.

 

[symyjym]

I think we've exhausted this one now - can someone now round up all the various pictures in circulation and start a new poll. Thanks.

You are correct, a new poll should be started on this, I know that many have changed their minds since making their vote.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

There was a crackdown on the benefit of doubt going to the defending side after the World Cup in 1990 when it was argued that the laws of the game were biased to the defending side... Not sure if this was a casualty of this.

The only time I've ever heard the phrase 'benefit of the doubt' used in regards to the rules of football, is on offside - that the benefit of any doubt should go to the attacking side.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

This image below, I really did find on the Watford forum (obviously the last one I said I found there I spoofed in photoshop)

View attachment 48166

I am not sure why they felt they felt the need to use two drawn lines instead of one. Both are obviously not straight.

It can be seen here wfcforum

In order to get the entire ball over their red line, they've made that line narrower than the true crossbar (and thus the goal-line). I'm embarrassed for them, that they went to the trouble, to be honest.

 

[symyjym]

I edited. They obviously went a little too far, but I'm sure that was the intent.

You can only draw the line, from the painted line, to the painted line on the pitch. That will always be accurate. Using the goal post and crossbar as reference doesn’t tell us anything, if that was the original intention.

 

[symyjym]

In order to get the entire ball over their red line, they've made that line narrower than the true crossbar (and thus the goal-line). I'm embarrassed for them, that they went to the trouble, to be honest.

From what I can make out on the wfc forum, generally I don't think they feel cheated and they seem to agree that the officials couldn't award the goal.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

No it's not, the red red line exceeds the height of the post, you can see where the side netting ends?

I think you have this wrong. The red line is marking the goal line not the goal post.
The fact that the goal line is covered by the post and cross bar also proves the camera was bang in line.