Goal ?
- Thread starter Anubis
- Start date
i've not found it yet anyway so i'll stop looking!
as above then, you simply can't tell from the angle provided
Impossible to say for sure from that angle but I am leaning towards no goal.
There is very little grass between base of ball and the line and that leads me to think that the outer edge of the ball is still overhanging the goal line, thus rendering it still in play.
Anyone who isn't sure, a little experiment you can try at the weekend. Take your ball, place it as close to in play as is practically possible. Walk away say ten yards and you will see a ball that looks very clearly out of play.
There is very little grass between base of ball and the line and that leads me to think that the outer edge of the ball is still overhanging the goal line, thus rendering it still in play.
Anyone who isn't sure, a little experiment you can try at the weekend. Take your ball, place it as close to in play as is practically possible. Walk away say ten yards and you will see a ball that looks very clearly out of play.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Based on the still, I'm in the "no goal" camp as well. At the split second that pic is taken, there's no way that the whole of the ball is over the whole of the line. Not for me.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Mike Dean, is that you??!!
LancsReferee
New Member
Not a goal. Whole of the ball over the whole of the line? Don't think so. Looks like a goal from a distance, but isn't on the basis of that still. Harder to call this in real time without tech to support you though.
Nobody has ever had a problem with GLT. Nobody
Even if, strictly speaking, this is not the automated GLT
Nobody has a problem with it except the fact that it cost six figures to install needs constant training and calibration and it's a World Cup qualifier so in theory it should be used in every stadium. That's just not possible.
With this because the goal line video wasn't released until hours after the game. All that was available afterwards was a grainy still shot from twitter. For Ruth thought they were robbed in many of their fans probably still think they were. But my main point is going back to the first picture in this thread where it's completely useless to try to determine if it was over the line
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
The VAR video, at a minimum, does not provide clear and obvious evidence that the ball completely crossed the line.
In fact, I think the video confirms that the ball did not cross the line, and if the goal had been awarded VAR would have had enough evidence to overturn the decision.
It's the right call. For me, if VAR used similar language as in American football where "call confirmed" means the video evidence backs the call on the field and "call stands" means "we don't have enough evidence to overturn the decision", I'd use "call confirmed" in this case.
I see your point WRT the expense of GLT. This is a perfect (and quite infrequent) example of a binary moment in which VAR has benefitted the game. The kinda thing VAR was sold to us for. I'll leave it at that
I think you are forgetting the first game back after lockdown, where it's failure helped keep Villa in the PL
Nothing's perfect
Let's not pretend that was the fault of GLT though.
Technology fails. Has done since the day it was invented.
There were humans around, with the tools to over rule the technical failure.
The world accepted tech failed. The world did not accept the failure of the match officials to correct a clear and obvious error.
So going back to the OP, where there is the element of doubt, do you give a goal or not?
I'm going with 'no goal'.
I'm going with 'no goal'.