Score Centre 2019/20

Status
Not open for further replies.

SpiderBee

Surrey Wyvern
Joined
4 Jan 2006
Messages
10,941
Reaction score
60
Location
East Cheam
2 from Gary Neville tonight

"City only started playing when Luis came on".

and

Martin Tyler - "Where's Carragher"?

Neville - "Who cares!"
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
VAR I don't think applies here at all, despite it being clear and obvious to us, as goal line technology takes it. That technology failed but apparently buzzed at half time, too late obviously. So why don't the other officials wear one as back ups because obviously Olivers wasn't synced. Why aren't AR not looking down the line and being the human back up to technology?
Apparently it was nothing to do with the watch. What has happened is that each of the 7 cameras was obscured by players or the posts. So the goal was not detected.
 

badgerbee

Mafeking Avenue........gets you there!!!!
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Messages
14,210
Reaction score
271
Location
Langport, Somerset
He couldn’t have done more to abort any thought of Arsenal activating his contract extension.
Probably the most 'damaging' 25 minutes ever played by an individual!!
Came on in the 24th minute at 0-0........gave a goal away......... gave away a penalty (second goal).......sent off in the 49th minute!!
rofl
 

kevalutonbee

Well-known member
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Messages
17,487
Reaction score
4
Location
In the wrong
Apparently it was nothing to do with the watch. What has happened is that each of the 7 cameras was obscured by players or the posts. So the goal was not detected.
Doesn't seem possible does it but if thats what they say happened?

I think we are going to need more cameras (or officials that can make a decision unaided)
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
Doesn't seem possible does it but if thats what they say happened?

I think we are going to need more cameras (or officials that can make a decision unaided)
They probably did the analysis and decided that adding an 8th camera would make next to no difference. Otherwise they would have added it.
 
OP
Lionel Bart-At

Lionel Bart-At

formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
Joined
14 Apr 2013
Messages
17,853
Reaction score
454
Location
Cranford
Just out of interest, imagine a hypothetical situation where a goalkeeper strayed into his own net with the ball but the ball remained in contact with the goal post throughout, so that at one point it was directly behind the post but still in contact with it. Would this be a goal, or would the ball be deemed to be still in contact with the line and therefore not across the line? Is the goal post said to be an extension of the goal line? (I've no idea). I'm not saying that this is what happened last night at all. Just curious about the hypothetical situation I've imagined.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
Just out of interest, imagine a hypothetical situation where a goalkeeper strayed into his own net with the ball but the ball remained in contact with the goal post throughout, so that at one point it was directly behind the post but still in contact with it. Would this be a goal, or would the ball be deemed to be still in contact with the line and therefore not across the line? Is the goal post said to be an extension of the goal line? (I've no idea). I'm not saying that this is what happened last night at all. Just curious about the hypothetical situation I've imagined.
Good question!
 

RT

The Mobile man
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
4,117
Reaction score
7
Location
Gloucester
Just out of interest, imagine a hypothetical situation where a goalkeeper strayed into his own net with the ball but the ball remained in contact with the goal post throughout, so that at one point it was directly behind the post but still in contact with it. Would this be a goal, or would the ball be deemed to be still in contact with the line and therefore not across the line? Is the goal post said to be an extension of the goal line? (I've no idea). I'm not saying that this is what happened last night at all. Just curious about the hypothetical situation I've imagined.
My guess would be it's a goal, as from the pics I've seen, the post is the same width as the goalline. Therefore it actually blocks the ball getting to the goalline and would mean the ball is over the line. It would have to be 90 degree behind the post vs goalline otherwise it could technically be still on the line due to the curvature of the ball
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
My guess would be it's a goal, as from the pics I've seen, the post is the same width as the goalline. Therefore it actually blocks the ball getting to the goalline and would mean the ball is over the line. It would have to be 90 degree behind the post vs goalline otherwise it could technically be still on the line due to the curvature of the ball
None of that makes much sense to me.

If the post is the same width as the goaline (which is has to be), then if it is touching the post, then it is touching the goal-line. No?
 
OP
Lionel Bart-At

Lionel Bart-At

formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
Joined
14 Apr 2013
Messages
17,853
Reaction score
454
Location
Cranford
None of that makes much sense to me.

If the post is the same width as the goaline (which is has to be), then if it is touching the post, then it is touching the goal-line. No?
OK, I'll come clean... when the ref didn't award the goal last night, I immediately wondered if this might just be what had happened. Looks extremely unlikely, I grant you. And don't even know, as stated above, the "legality" of the scenario. But the thought did pass my mind.
 
OP
Lionel Bart-At

Lionel Bart-At

formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
Joined
14 Apr 2013
Messages
17,853
Reaction score
454
Location
Cranford
Just out of interest, imagine a hypothetical situation where a goalkeeper strayed into his own net with the ball but the ball remained in contact with the goal post throughout, so that at one point it was directly behind the post but still in contact with it. Would this be a goal, or would the ball be deemed to be still in contact with the line and therefore not across the line? Is the goal post said to be an extension of the goal line? (I've no idea). I'm not saying that this is what happened last night at all. Just curious about the hypothetical situation I've imagined.
@ladbroke? @Themepark? @Bobbymadleydeeply? ;) Can you help with this trivial question?
 

ladbroke

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jul 2006
Messages
12,120
Reaction score
60
Location
Arbroath, NE Scotland
It would be a goal.
As you've said, the post is the same width as the line. If it is directly behind the post then at no point can it actually be overlapping the line as a hard, physical, object is stopping it from overlapping.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
It would be a goal.
As you've said, the post is the same width as the line. If it is directly behind the post then at no point can it actually be overlapping the line as a hard, physical, object is stopping it from overlapping.
But it's touching the post, how can it be over the line if it's touching the post. The back of the post is on the same plane as the back of the line. Therefore you cannot claim, by any reasonable argument, that the entire ball is over the line.
 

badgerbee

Mafeking Avenue........gets you there!!!!
Joined
28 Jan 2008
Messages
14,210
Reaction score
271
Location
Langport, Somerset
But it's touching the post, how can it be over the line if it's touching the post. The back of the post is on the same plane as the back of the line. Therefore you cannot claim, by any reasonable argument, that the entire ball is over the line.
What he said lol
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
In law, the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line between the posts and under the crossbar. If it's touching the back of the posts, it's passed through that line between said posts :sorted:
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
In law, the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line between the posts and under the crossbar. If it's touching the back of the posts, it's passed through that line between said posts :sorted:
But it HASN'T crossed the whole of the line. It is still touching the post. The back of the post is the same as the back of the goal line.
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
IFAB said:
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 offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.
But it has lol

It's physically crossed the goal line on the floor.

I didn't write the bloody thing lol lol lol
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
But it has lol
IFAB said:
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 offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.
This hasn't happened. Why can't you understand that. Have a think about it for a second or two.


The bit about it being between the posts is so that a ball going over the goal line next to the corner flag isn't a goal.

The salient bit here is: is it over the line. And it can't be. By simple logic.
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
I won't understand it, because it's incorrect in law lol

Has the ball passed the goal line? Yes
Has the ball gone underneath the crossbar? Yes
Has the ball gone between both posts? Yes

Goal. The key thing you are missing is that, in law, the goal line is the line drawn on the floor. The post is: The post! :idea:

If you want to take it up with The IFAB and put your point to the people that actually write the law. They're fairly responsive with law questions on twitter, and great at settling law debates :sorted:
 

kevalutonbee

Well-known member
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Messages
17,487
Reaction score
4
Location
In the wrong
In other news, Brighton have decided to lodge an appeal against David Luiz's red card last night
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
Has the ball passed the goal line? Yes
Explain your thinking how this can be true if I place the ball on the front of the post and then roll it around to the rear of the post whilst the ball is always in contact with the post.
 

abellbee

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2011
Messages
432
Reaction score
3
Location
walton on thames
This hasn't happened. Why can't you understand that. Have a think about it for a second or two.


The bit about it being between the posts is so that a ball going over the goal line next to the corner flag isn't a goal.

The salient bit here is: is it over the line. And it can't be. By simple logic.
Banana is right, the law says "the whole of the ball must be over the line" how can it be over if part of it is touching.
 
OP
Lionel Bart-At

Lionel Bart-At

formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
Joined
14 Apr 2013
Messages
17,853
Reaction score
454
Location
Cranford
It would be a goal.
As you've said, the post is the same width as the line. If it is directly behind the post then at no point can it actually be overlapping the line as a hard, physical, object is stopping it from overlapping.
Makes sense. Thanks.

To extrapolate... roll that ball ever so slightly round the post from there, and it will now be in an in-play position?
 

TeeJayBee

Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
812
Reaction score
17
Location
Ruislip
Banana is right, the law says "the whole of the ball must be over the line" how can it be over if part of it is touching.
Which to me means there must be some daylight, however thin, between ball and goal line / frame of the goal - so if part is touching, no goal.
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
lol lol lol

Yes @heavywollenbee - that is the case.

The law is an ass, everyone interprets it differently - one referees yellow card challenge is another referees' public b***ock*ing - but in this situation, I'm afraid every match official will say the same thing: Goal.
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
lol lol lol

Yes @heavywollenbee - that is the case.

The law is an ass, everyone interprets it differently - one referees yellow card challenge is another referees' public b***ock*ing - but in this situation, I'm afraid every match official will say the same thing: Goal.
No they won't. The others are sensible.

Ask your friends and see what they say.
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
You really don't have to be childish and be insulting lol

Yes, they will. But I'll humour you and ask away :sorted:
 

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
71,250
Reaction score
1,554
Location
London
Only going by what Bobby Madley is saying in a group im in.
Former referee Keith Hackett's verdict

I was mystified to learn afterwards that none of the seven Hawk-Eye cameras in the ground had a clear view of the incident. I was the head of the PGMOL, the body in charge of the game's officials, when goal-line technology was introduced and we prepared then for just such a scenario: when the ball is behind the goal post and shielded from view by players. That it failed to work last last night suggests something is seriously wrong with the system and, if I was still in charge, I would be demanding a full explanation this morning. The gaffe also exposed a sadly familiar shortcoming with Var protocols, namely, that match referees are not being encouraged to use pitchside monitors. The referee Michael Oliver could easily have cleared up the situation by doing so last night. As it was, Paul Tierney, the Var, should have notified Oliver anyway that a mistake has been made. Instead the PGMOL hid behind the argument that seemed to suggest the Var would intervenes only if OIiver's watch "buzzes" to indicate a goal. Clearly, more flexibility is needed to ensure correct decisions. As it stands, such vague statements are just creating confusion.
 

Themepark

Mostly Harmless
Joined
29 Jan 2003
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
Location
Portsmouth
This is the sort of debate we've been missing for the last 100 days!
This is why football is so wonderful!

Be interested to see if they end up updating the VAR protocol at the end of the season.. everyone saw the ball over the line so the VAR should be able to look at it in that situation IMO.
 

hanwellbee

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2011
Messages
485
Reaction score
21
Surely it is physically impossible for the ball and the post to occupy the same space so the ball must be beyond the post/line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom