reddevon Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Sky News did a piece on the six o'clock sports report about the trials going on with goal-line technology. They included clips of the Lampard "goal" and one earlier this week when a header was deamed to have crossed the line when it clearly didn't. At the end of the piece they showed the infamous Palace "goal" at Ashton Gate and l intimated that the ball had missed the goal and come back off the stantion, which is what it looked like on the clip. So much was wriiten on here about the reason for no - goal but I don't remember anyone suggesting the ball didn't go into the net. Did they, or is my memory failing me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I believe as the ultimate decision maker on the pitch the ref's have a duty to stop play, and ask a cameraman to replay the event, thus ensuring the decision is accurate and fair. The ball is in the court of the ref's, they have to use common sense and take the initiative, even if its just to save the face of the governing body's. The ref association should be the ones protesting for GLT, bcuase they are the ones who get the 5h1t when it goes tits up. Who would honestly complain if a Ref took a moment out during a big decision in a big game to get a quick looksie at a TV monitor, I mean CMON!! We know we have to tread careful when changing these sacred rules. but the debate has procrastinated long enough, trial it in the Championship, Series A, and a few South American leagues, JUST to trial all the suggestions people have offered... we make no decision, just observe the findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tales From The Front Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Sky News did a piece on the six o'clock sports report about the trials going on with goal-line technology. They included clips of the Lampard "goal" and one earlier this week when a header was deamed to have crossed the line when it clearly didn't. At the end of the piece they showed the infamous Palace "goal" at Ashton Gate and l intimated that the ball had missed the goal and come back off the stantion, which is what it looked like on the clip. So much was wriiten on here about the reason for no - goal but I don't remember anyone suggesting the ball didn't go into the net. Did they, or is my memory failing me? Chris Skudder got it totally wrong, they showed a still picture of the ball clearly at the back of the goal, then poor ol Chris reads exactly what they have put on the auto que, as he goes on to say the ball hit the stantion....WRONG!!! I was in the Dolman (as always) that day and I hoestly couldn't tell that it was a goal at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonphil Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Chris Skudder got it totally wrong, they showed a still picture of the ball clearly at the back of the goal, then poor ol Chris reads exactly what they have put on the auto que, as he goes on to say the ball hit the stantion....WRONG!!! I was in the Dolman (as always) that day and I hoestly couldn't tell that it was a goal at the time. I was sat in the front of the Williams and I heard it hit the stantion at the back of the goal and looked around and thought - he's not given that..Warnock's going to go mental.. The rest as they say is History!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Robin Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Well overdue technology that should be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Well overdue technology that should be used. Its easy to sit and say that, but as I understood it, there isnt actually a fail safe method of technology that was correct 100% of the time... other than the ref stopping playing to look at multiple replays (which isnt goal line technology) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Everyone seems to forget IT WAS OFFSIDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Everyone seems to forget IT WAS OFFSIDE Thats true, there was never a goal to dissallow, but palace fans etc ignore that simple fact. I suppose technically the term "dissallowed goal" is fairly redundant. Surely if for example someone is offside, but puts the ball in the net, it was not a goal in the first place? You dont ever say dissallowed goal kick if they miss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Everyone seems to forget IT WAS OFFSIDE Who cares, just ask yourself would you prefer this unpredictable eliment with a big grey area that we have now, or a tighter line whth GLT and all the associated paraphernalia? ...or is it really just a big conspiracy to break up games to goto add breaks and play games overseas? ... Could shift a lot of trucks, burgers and beer? I'd invest ..out of curiosity and greed, well mostly greed i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I saw this article earlier about pearce being against it My link Looks like they might have a trial next season in the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Everyone seems to forget IT WAS OFFSIDE I'm sorry, but I don't think people forget that it was offside. I think it just wasn't offside. First of all it's a goal kick, so no-one can be offside, then it is flicked on by a Palace striker, to Freddie Sears, who CLEARLY isn't offside. Look for proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red Planet Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I was there, sat in my STH seat in Block A, Dolman. About as good a place at AG as any to judge whether the ball crossed the line. It certainly did, from the header it bounced straight back off the horizonal stanchion holding down the net at the back of the goal. The headed ball was powerful and the travel of the ball in and out of the net happened in a split second. Of course we need goal line technology in football. Just consider what Hawkeye has done to improve line calls in tennis. FIFA have their head in the sand on this issue for some reason. Must be something to do with that idiot Seff Blatter. The sooner that goon is gone from FIFA the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I'm sorry, but I don't think people forget that it was offside. I think it just wasn't offside. First of all it's a goal kick, so no-one can be offside, then it is flicked on by a Palace striker, to Freddie Sears, who CLEARLY isn't offside. Look for proof. Might want to take a look at the video yourself. Never seen a goal kick taken that high up the pitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 I was there, sat in my STH seat in Block A, Dolman. About as good a place at AG as any to judge whether the ball crossed the line. It certainly did, from the header it bounced straight back off the horizonal stanchion holding down the net at the back of the goal. The headed ball was powerful and the travel of the ball in and out of the net happened in a split second. Of course we need goal line technology in football. Just consider what Hawkeye has done to improve line calls in tennis. FIFA have their head in the sand on this issue for some reason. Must be something to do with that idiot Seff Blatter. The sooner that goon is gone from FIFA the better. It wasnt a header, it was a shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Might want to take a look at the video yourself. Never seen a goal kick taken that high up the pitch That is true. Was the big guy who flicked it on offside then? It doesn't look like he would have been from the video, but still, can't tell I suppose. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcusX Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 That is true. Was the big guy who flicked it on offside then? It doesn't look like he would have been from the video, but still, can't tell I suppose. My bad. I cant remember at what stage, but Im pretty sure I remember the linesman having his flag up? And the official "story" being that it wasnt given because of offside? Could be totalyl wrong and just read too much rubbish on here mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledinwatford Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 To my knowledge the officials have never fully explained their decision that day. I had a near perfect view at the back of the Atyeo looking down on the goal - the ball not only crossed the line but hit the metal pole holding down the net at the back of the goal. It was a freak that the ball's trajectory hit the pole in a the exact position causing the ball to rebound in exactly the reverse direction. If the referee didn't see this, you have to wonder what on earth he was looking at? The fact is that the linesman had his flag raised for some reason. If he thought it was a corner he would have been pointing his flag at the corner, if he thought it was a goalkick he would have been pointing it at the goal. If he thought it eas a valid goal then I believe the correct action would be to point at the centre circle and make his way to the half way line. Therefore we have to assume that he flagged for an infringement. In this case goal line technology would have been irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Therefore we have to assume that he flagged for an infringement. In this case goal line technology would have been irrelevant. Exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I believe as the ultimate decision maker on the pitch the ref's have a duty to stop play, and ask a cameraman to replay the event, thus ensuring the decision is accurate and fair. The ball is in the court of the ref's, they have to use common sense and take the initiative, even if its just to save the face of the governing body's. The ref association should be the ones protesting for GLT, bcuase they are the ones who get the 5h1t when it goes tits up. Who would honestly complain if a Ref took a moment out during a big decision in a big game to get a quick looksie at a TV monitor, I mean CMON!! We know we have to tread careful when changing these sacred rules. but the debate has procrastinated long enough, trial it in the Championship, Series A, and a few South American leagues, JUST to trial all the suggestions people have offered... we make no decision, just observe the findings. Confederations Cup Final 2009 should be enough to show what a bad idea that would be for referees in the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Hucker Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 When I was a kid, we fixed sellotape across the back of our subbuteo goals to catch the ball when it flew into the goal and prevent disputes. Worked a treat. I believe that all of the money, which is proposed to be spent on goal line technology, can be saved by sticking a 'kin big strip of tape exactly one football width behind the goal line. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonbcfc17 Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 Just remember being stood there at the back of the dolman looking around at everyone thinking what? I thought it was in and so did everyone around me.It was honestly weird,but when you looked across to see the Palace fans stood quiet it felt weirder,the whole ground just fell on deff ears!Then the massive wind up cheer when it wasn't given. Just to rub it in Nicky went and scored in the 90th minute. P.s,it was disallowed for a high foot on Mccombe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashtonbcfc17 Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 My bad,a push on Skuse.He clearly grabs his shirt to push him away to a ball which wasn't even 50/50 as it was going to the keeper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 My bad,a push on Skuse.He clearly grabs his shirt to push him away to a ball which wasn't even 50/50 as it was going to the keeper! I must have watched that video 15 times in a row and still don't see how that's what happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted November 25, 2011 Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I was there, sat in my STH seat in Block A, Dolman. About as good a place at AG as any to judge whether the ball crossed the line. It certainly did, from the header it bounced straight back off the horizonal stanchion holding down the net at the back of the goal. The headed ball was powerful and the travel of the ball in and out of the net happened in a split second. Of course we need goal line technology in football. Just consider what Hawkeye has done to improve line calls in tennis. FIFA have their head in the sand on this issue for some reason. Must be something to do with that idiot Seff Blatter. The sooner that goon is gone from FIFA the better. It can't give you that good a view of the situation if you think that it was a header! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.