The commentator on final score and the group of them at the match for BBC said that they have looked at a number of replays and believe that Holtby's effort blocked by Lowton was over the line. I have never trusted goal line technology and this almost certainly proves it doesn't work on a few occasions.
But the important thing is that the two previous goals did count. What a great moral boost for Players and supporters.
Yes I saw the replay where they can 'doctor' it to suit their technology. It was controversial at Wimbledon for many years and who is to say where the line can be drawn on grass accurately to that degree??
I've read that it's unreliable.
Yes Motson said they looked at it few times.It was over line he thinks.
But Holtby should have thumped it in open goal.
Still it all worked out fine.
Could a decision on that be changed? After the game
We had a similar effort disallowed the other week , this technology is not serving us well.
Quote from: Macedo on April 05, 2014, 05:22:33 PM
Yes Motson said they looked at it few times.It was over line he thinks.
But Holtby should have thumped it in open goal.
Still it all worked out fine.
Holtby was staggering a bit after the tackle, when he could have gone down for a pen, but he stayed on his feet, but wasn't able to hit the ball with full power.
It was gutting though -I thought our luck was out again.
But then Hugo!!!!!!!!!! 049:gif
Think we were done here ... but may be biased. Surely both this and the Everton 'goal' could have been given. There was one at Norwich, too, if I'm not mistaken.
So good to see today that we weren't dismayed by this, rather the opposite.
I can't understand the opinion that the naked eye can see it on the replay...we saw what the cameras saw, it looked in but wasn't conclusive as the defenders foot was blocking the view. The goal-line technology showed the tiiiiniest part of the ball touching the line. As tough as it may be to take at the time, goal-line technology is the most accurate thing we have to quickly distinguish whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Considerably better than the human eye imo.
092.gif .....and the thing is, if we did not have technology, chances are the goals would not have been given anyway. The only difference now is that we get to see a 'video' impression of the shot and do not have to just rely on stopping the tape to see how close it was afterwards.
049:gif
To be fair, I was almost in line with it (along with lots of other fans as well obviously) and it didn't look like it had gone in and there wasn't much protest from fans or players - more disbelief really. Obviously we didn't have slo-mo replay and I dare say most of us were already in mid celebration but thankfully it didn't matter in the end!
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:04:03 PM
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
unless the ball is shaped like marrow, the real time picture looks well over
Maybe this is why the Bundesliga chose not to use goal line technology. It's not 100% reliable.
Yeah, that's what I thought - the replay does not correspond to where HawkEye thinks the ball is. Absolutely clear on that first image.
I'm almost certain it would have been allowed last season.
Quote from: Blanco on April 05, 2014, 09:11:53 PM
Maybe this is why the Bundesliga chose not to use goal line technology. It's not 100% reliable.
well to be fair, it does not have to be 100% reliable, just more reliable than a lino
The ball can be over the line in mid air, but due to "splatting" (technical term!) look on the live when it hits the line.
This still doesn't excuse the fact that Holtby BALLSED UP!!! He had the WHOLE GOAL to aim at, and he hit it straight at the defenders legs
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:49:35 PM
This still doesn't excuse the fact that Holtby BALLSED UP!!! He had the WHOLE GOAL to aim at, and he hit it straight at the defenders legs
He didn't hit it straight at the defenders legs, Lowton had to stretch which is what made it such a good block! Should have scored though :P
Is there some law that you have to blame a Fulham player rather than tip your hat to an opponent? Holtby was denied by a great play. Why trash him?
ive seen the replay a few times now and It still looks over. why isn't there a camera on the other side as this would have surely cleared up any doubt
it wouldn't have been counted without the camera. so we've gone from screwed to screwed. it is just frustrating that it appears to happen regularly and counter to our interests.
Quote from: zschwartz on April 05, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
it wouldn't have been counted without the camera. so we've gone from screwed to screwed. it is just frustrating that it appears to happen regularly and counter to our interests.
True. It didn't look over in real time so I don't think the ref would have given it anyway. Goal line technology just made it worse knowing how close it was.
That would def been given as a goal last season.
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:04:03 PM
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
Looking at that image I don't see how any part of the ball can be touching the line. It might have not gone totally "past" the line but it is "over" the line. So how is the rule worded? Just sayin.
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:04:03 PM
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
This looks like a goal to me, based on the picture from the tv camera above. Maybe the actual goal line and the computerized one don't quite match, because looking at it again, this looks like the ball is well beyond it
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
FIFA Rules: 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.
So whether it is touching the ground or not makes no difference. If you accept the image then all of the ball has not crossed the line (annoyingly). If the technology is totally accurate to the 'nth' degree we can argue about ad nauseum but it is certainly better than relying on a linesman who may or may not be totally in line with it or have part of his view obscured. Perhaps the lack of major outcry from the players was that they are already accepting that the screen will decide, so at least one potential boiling point has been removed from the game.
Quote from: the nutflush on April 05, 2014, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:04:03 PM
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
Looking at that image I don't see how any part of the ball can be touching the line. It might have not gone totally "past" the line but it is "over" the line. So how is the rule worded? Just sayin.
The actuall ball does not have to be touching line, the bit that has not go over the line is the edge of the centre of the ball. If they showed a sideways shot of it then that would show its not over.
If the goal line in the computer generated picture had been the corner quadrant the ball would have been moved to be actually touching the line. Double standards.
Good point Grandad
I wonder if FFC are on commission to test this technology this season. Hugo at Norwich. Heitinga v Toon and yesterday. Good job we won all those games otherwise conspiracy theories would abound.
Here's to goal line debates in the next 5 games. And 5 wins....
Sorry to be pedantic Grandad but the FIFA rules state:
The ball must be placed inside the corner arc nearest to the point where the ball crossed the goal line.
So the rule is actually different rather than double standards being applied - I do get your point though.
why doesn't some one get a ball put it where it says it was see what hawkeye says then roll it back the 2mm and see what it says again that or just stick some cameras on the inside of the crossbar. the thing with a football is it full of air and hitting it distorts it shape.
Does the curvature of the ball play a part?
It not a flat disc after all; if no leather is touching the line then surely the ball has rolled beyond the line and is therefore a goal.
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on April 06, 2014, 10:02:43 AM
Does the curvature of the ball play a part?
It not a flat disc after all; if no leather is touching the line then surely the ball has rolled beyond the line and is therefore a goal.
I can only assume from what I've seen that Hawkeye picks up the middle of the ball and generates the circle around it. Certainly when the defender cleared it the ball would have flattened into his foot slightly before reshaping, and in that time from what I've seen it looks very much like there was a gap between ball and line. Yet the Hawkeye generation shows a perfectly round ball.
Even Hawkeye in tennis takes into account the shape of the ball hitting the surface.
I'm guessing they did some pretty thorough testing before choosing this system but no doubt it will improve again with technological advances as time goes on and still far more consistently reliable than the human eye. If players come to just accept it as in tennis, it will have improved the game as well - if we had a robot ref perhaps they wouldn't all want to argue with that either.
Think about it Wimbledon White, if the ball was in the air no part would be touching the line so you can't use touching the line in the equation hence the way the rule is worded (see my earlier post on the rule).
Only The Sun could confuse Lewis Holtby and Keiran Richardson. :doh:
I think the goal line system is brilliant. If it were not in place, this thread would have been 3 times as long and talking about injustice for us against Newcastle and Villa.
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 05, 2014, 09:04:03 PM
Here is the GDS view of things.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkeH-9bCcAAcAHA.jpg:large)
Who is to say that they provide the shot of the ball at its furthest point in the goal? Every ball that crosses the line is at one point in the position where the computer snap shows this ball. The realtime picture looks like it crossed completely. What is stopping them from providing the most palatable version that supports the Hawkeye decision?
I think it would've actually been the opposite as the two goals would've been give to us.
Quote from: F(f)CUK on April 06, 2014, 10:30:42 AM
I think the goal line system is brilliant. If it were not in place, this thread would have been 3 times as long and talking about injustice for us against Newcastle and Villa.
Just a few things, which you can find from simple googling.
- The Hawkeye system has 3.6mm precision, though it can only work if at least 1/4 ball is visible. FIFA only required the precision to be 3cm. So it beats that by nearly an order of magnitude. I'm not sure how they deal with small error, I assume they always give the defence the benefit of the doubt
- The system doesn't work by simply 'picking up the centre of the ball'. It uses camera triangulation to find the exact shape of the ball. I'm not sure why the image they release shows the ball as circular, as it's only the point closest to the line that matters, maybe they don't process the image to show it.
'Even Hawkeye in tennis takes into account the shape of the ball hitting the surface.'
- yes, but you never see a still of the ball hitting/missing the line. You see the imprint it leaves, this is always elongated because of the ball changing shape, but also as the ball will roll slightly on contact with the surface.
- Akf - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, that Hawkeye deliberately chose to not give the goal by ignoring later images of it over the line? The cameras constantly film the goal line and they would use the image of it at it's furthest point. It's not some villa fan sat in an office choosing which point to use...it's an independent, computerised system.
Here's some more information about it- http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/page/sports-officiating/football
I've read the Hawkeye page before, but I struggle with your answer that the cameras pick up the exact shape of the ball even if it has only seen 1/4 of it? Surely if they cannot see the full ball then there's some guesswork involved still?
"- yes, but you never see a still of the ball hitting/missing the line. You see the imprint it leaves, this is always elongated because of the ball changing shape, but also as the ball will roll slightly on contact with the surface."
Not sure how that clears it up? The still image seen above of the ball and the line is still not a photo is it? The tennis ball is always of where the bounce is so the ball is always out of shape, but my point is that even a football changes shape once kicked in the opposite direction so the ball being round in the shot to prove it wasn't in is misleading.
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 10:58:49 AM
Just a few things, which you can find from simple googling.
- The Hawkeye system has 3.6mm precision, though it can only work if at least 1/4 ball is visible. FIFA only required the precision to be 3cm. So it beats that by nearly an order of magnitude. I'm not sure how they deal with small error, I assume they always give the defence the benefit of the doubt
- The system doesn't work by simply 'picking up the centre of the ball'. It uses camera triangulation to find the exact shape of the ball. I'm not sure why the image they release shows the ball as circular, as it's only the point closest to the line that matters, maybe they don't process the image to show it.
'Even Hawkeye in tennis takes into account the shape of the ball hitting the surface.'
- yes, but you never see a still of the ball hitting/missing the line. You see the imprint it leaves, this is always elongated because of the ball changing shape, but also as the ball will roll slightly on contact with the surface.
- Akf - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, that Hawkeye deliberately chose to not give the goal by ignoring later images of it over the line? The cameras constantly film the goal line and they would use the image of it at it's furthest point. It's not some villa fan sat in an office choosing which point to use...it's an independent, computerised system.
Here's some more information about it- http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/page/sports-officiating/football
yep, I think the system is here to stop the lampard vs Germany blunders happening again as opposed to the Geoff hurst type that can still be argued today. if it gives a goal that's a foot over that the lino and ref have missed then its doing its job. my only query is can a ref and lino over rule it if the ball is well over and hawkeye doesn't give it?
Well yes, there will always be some 'guesswork' 'or extrapolation of the ball, but it is not simply taking a centre point and assuming a sphere. The number of cameras means that, especially in this case when a number of cameras would have been able to see the whole ball, they can reconstruct/measure the exact ball shape.
I agree with your point about the ball shape, I'm saying that in tennis replays you see the mark of the ball. Not a squashed ball.
As I said in my post, I don't know why they show the computer generated image of the ball as perfectly spherical. When you watch the live footage they show the video, then an overhead photo, then convert to cartoon without players etc. I don't know why they do it like that, and it is misleading if you are trying to interrogate it that much. All I mean is it is based upon the live videos. Not as some have said of an imaginary ball based upon it's centre point. So the live video images would show the ball shape.
Not sure about that Ben, I'm sure that if they were convinced it was a goal they would have the power to overrule the decision. I.e. If it hits the back of the net they won't be checking their watch to see.
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 11:19:25 AM
Well yes, there will always be some 'guesswork' 'or extrapolation of the ball, but it is not simply taking a centre point and assuming a sphere. The number of cameras means that, especially in this case when a number of cameras would have been able to see the whole ball, they can reconstruct/measure the exact ball shape.
I agree with your point about the ball shape, I'm saying that in tennis replays you see the mark of the ball. Not a squashed ball.
As I said in my post, I don't know why they show the computer generated image of the ball as perfectly spherical. When you watch the live footage they show the video, then an overhead photo, then convert to cartoon without players etc. I don't know why they do it like that, and it is misleading if you are trying to interrogate it that much. All I mean is it is based upon the live videos. Not as some have said of an imaginary ball based upon it's centre point. So the live video images would show the ball shape.
So presumably they make the sphere from where the camera has picked up the ball to be closest to the line? I.e. the camera saw it was 2mm or whatever from going over the line and drew the sphere from that point?
It still doesn't make it clear how they decide the position if only the quarter of the ball that looked most over the line was showing, with the ball potentially misshapen.
I'm just glad it didn't matter in the end! And how incredible is it that the 3 games where we have been 'denied' by the technology, we have ended up winning anyway! I suppose we can be pragmatic about it on that basis and hope at some point, we benefit from what would otherwise have been a goal against us!
I assume they just create the modelled ball shape based on what is available. So if they have all of the ball in view from some cameras, as I imagine it would have been in yesterday's game. So they draw the ball from that - as you said probably not a sphere due to compression.
The cartoon sphere you see is probably just created, as you said, to show the position of the ball relative to the line. I am guessing here, but it's probably just done to speed the process up and to save computing power.
Agreed about if only 1/4 is visible, but they have said that such cases are very rare because only 2 cameras need a view to pick up the position. There would need to be a lot of bodies to prevent much being seen. I'm trying to find some data on ball compression but can't really find anything on how much it deforms.
Quote from: Artful Dodger on April 06, 2014, 11:39:17 AM
I'm just glad it didn't matter in the end! And how incredible is it that the 3 games where we have been 'denied' by the technology, we have ended up winning anyway! I suppose we can be pragmatic about it on that basis and hope at some point, we benefit from what would otherwise have been a goal against us!
One of them was the WBA game I thought? Vydra's late equaliser squirmed over the line and was given on GDS.
Exactly Dodger, it's simply another rule/method of enforcing, which we can't change. And I trust the technology much more than the naked eye, especially the ability of the naked eye in real time. Even with those extra officials in the Europa league they were worse than useless sometimes!
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 11:41:37 AM
Exactly Dodger, it's simply another rule/method of enforcing, which we can't change. And I trust the technology much more than the naked eye, especially the ability of the naked eye in real time. Even with those extra officials in the Europa league they were worse than useless sometimes!
I think the real-time issue is key. Obviously we've stopped it and looked hundreds of times and even if we can't be 100% sure we should I suppose give the benefit of the doubt to the defending team. It's still not clear with the naked eye, but with seven cameras they are probably right.
Yes that is true I think.
Coming back to their 3.6mm error, it would be interesting to see how this is used. If the ball was measured by Hawkeye as 3.5mm over the line (i.e. A goal) it would be in their error margin. Therefore they could potentially give the defending team the benefit and award not goal. Meaning it has to be 3.7mm over the line to be awarded.
I'm NOT saying this happens. But I've no idea how they actually deal with it, knowing there is a very small error. Obviously the times that would happen are minuscule!
The line was too thick.
:005:
Quote from: Fulham1959 on April 06, 2014, 11:58:34 AM
The line was too thick.
:005:
well heres another. the cross bar is hollow, and even if it were a solid bar it would still have some sort of bend in it over that length. is that taken into account
Can I just say at this stage, I am currently doing a dissertation on Goal Line Technology and all this 'oh the ball changed when it hit the players leg so the camera is working on a different point' or 'you do know there is a margin for error' that everyone has come up with has just been GOLD for me
Ben, not sure I understand about the crossbar issue...
And care to explain further Riether Lightning?
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 12:09:56 PM
Ben, not sure I understand about the crossbar issue...
And care to explain further Riether Lightning?
Well the whole premise of it is, 'When the final answer is not the final answer' - we have brought in this technology FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON to end the 'was it over the line' debate. Yet people are STILL debating it
Quote from: PokerMatt on April 06, 2014, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: Artful Dodger on April 06, 2014, 11:39:17 AM
I'm just glad it didn't matter in the end! And how incredible is it that the 3 games where we have been 'denied' by the technology, we have ended up winning anyway! I suppose we can be pragmatic about it on that basis and hope at some point, we benefit from what would otherwise have been a goal against us!
One of them was the WBA game I thought? Vydra's late equaliser squirmed over the line and was given on GDS.
I seem to remember that was well over the line in the scheme of things, so no real doubt about that one. We need one like yesterday not to be given to even it up!
Quote from: Riether Lightning 63 on April 06, 2014, 12:12:10 PM
Well the whole premise of it is, 'When the final answer is not the final answer' - we have brought in this technology FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON to end the 'was it over the line' debate. Yet people are STILL debating it
Haha yes, I agree completely, and fail to understand what some users want. However, discussing how the system works and if there are any limitations helps educate people (myself included), so we can learn about it. It's the same for anything, it is hard to accept if you don't know the process. Just look at climate change and the deniers.
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 12:09:56 PM
Ben, not sure I understand about the crossbar issue...
And care to explain further Riether Lightning?
if you put a laser line from one end of the cross bar to the other, it would not be dead straight. there would be a slight bow in it. easily 4 mm which would add to the inaccuracy of the hawkeye even further. add to this that its also relying on a white line which is hand painted (viva a machine) across an un even surfice which is covered in grass. nothing in the known universe is flat
In real life, and going by the graphic, the ball (being spherical and not a flat disc) would be over the line. In a throw-in situation, a throw would be awarded.
However, I prefer the technology to the human eye.
Quote from: Fulham1959 on April 06, 2014, 12:24:38 PM
In real life, and going by the graphic, the ball (being spherical and not a flat disc) would be over the line. In a throw-in situation, a throw would be awarded.
However, I prefer the technology to the human eye.
and this is it. its just like the cricket. was bought in to stop huge blunders but is now underscrutiny over the smallest of margins that 99.9% of the world could not see anyway. if it had stopped villa equalising we wouldn't be having this conversation.
From a spectator's point of view, I think they should indicate what percentage of the ball is not over the line. In this case, it could not have been more than 2%, maybe. It wouldn't alter the decision but it is readily understandable.
The fact is it should be the same for everyone. We will obviously hear a lot more debate about this technology over the coming years. I'm delighted we can reflect on it where the result doesn't matter.
Quote from: Andy S on April 06, 2014, 12:38:07 PM
The fact is it should be the same for everyone. We will obviously hear a lot more debate about this technology over the coming years. I'm delighted we can reflect on it where the result doesn't matter.
Wait till it happens to one of the big four or Liverpool :dft011: then stand back for the flak about how unreliable it is!
Personally, I am not keen on a reliance on technology. I think back to my playing days and consider how utterly p***ed off I would be to be hanging around in the rain and cold while somebody pored over a replay (and sometimes coming up with the wrong decision anyway).
TV loves this technology business. Not only does it provide drama for the viewer, but it also puts TV into the driving seat. They provide the technology and it creates the idea that whatever is seen on tv must be right. I am not convinced that tv always provides a definitive account of reality as angles and distances can be distorted. For instance, slow-motion replays of tackles always look like bad fouls.
These goal-line pictures, of course, are not reality at all. They are cartoons based on a guess. Superb quality cartoons and fantastically accurate, computer calculated guesses - but cartoons and guesses just the same. The similar technology used in LBW cricket decisions is acknowledged as being of being potentially sufficiently inaccurate that a ball calculated ('guessed') hitting less than half a stump width with less than half the width of the ball is adjudged 'not out'. Is this level of inaccuracy allowed for in the Goal-line technology?
So far it hasn't rattled many cages - it's 'only' Fulham - but ER is quite right. Wait till it happens to Mourinho or Wenger, then we'll see the 'tilt' light come on.
What would I do? Leave it to the ref as 'sole arbiter of fact'. Pay them a shed load. Educate them. Make them accountable (I've no problem with using the technology to show them where they may have gone wrong). Sack 'em if they're not up to standard. Enforce the law regarding player behaviour towards refs. (Rugby provides the answer to this.)
Quote from: epsomraver on April 06, 2014, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: Andy S on April 06, 2014, 12:38:07 PM
The fact is it should be the same for everyone. We will obviously hear a lot more debate about this technology over the coming years. I'm delighted we can reflect on it where the result doesn't matter.
Wait till it happens to one of the big four or Liverpool :dft011: then stand back for the flak about how unreliable it is!
As long as Liverpool are on the receiving end of some rough justice.
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
if you put a laser line from one end of the cross bar to the other, it would not be dead straight. there would be a slight bow in it. easily 4 mm which would add to the inaccuracy of the hawkeye even further. add to this that its also relying on a white line which is hand painted (viva a machine) across an un even surfice which is covered in grass. nothing in the known universe is flat
Yes, but it would bow vertically. The cameras aren't mounted on the crossbar so it shouldn't affect it
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
if you put a laser line from one end of the cross bar to the other, it would not be dead straight. there would be a slight bow in it. easily 4 mm which would add to the inaccuracy of the hawkeye even further. add to this that its also relying on a white line which is hand painted (viva a machine) across an un even surfice which is covered in grass. nothing in the known universe is flat
Yes, but it would bow vertically. The cameras aren't mounted on the crossbar so it shouldn't affect it
not just a verticle bow though. it would also go with the imperfections of the metal used. plus you have to take elasticity and all other scientific equations that I have no clue about into effect aswell. if its bowed at errection to the left or right then even with gravity it will still be bowed to that direction. anyhow it is what it is. the same for everyone and that's why no one ever brings it up.
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 01:31:28 PM
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
if you put a laser line from one end of the cross bar to the other, it would not be dead straight. there would be a slight bow in it. easily 4 mm which would add to the inaccuracy of the hawkeye even further. add to this that its also relying on a white line which is hand painted (viva a machine) across an un even surfice which is covered in grass. nothing in the known universe is flat
Yes, but it would bow vertically. The cameras aren't mounted on the crossbar so it shouldn't affect it
not just a verticle bow though. it would also go with the imperfections of the metal used. plus you have to take elasticity and all other scientific equations that I have no clue about into effect aswell. if its bowed at errection to the left or right then even with gravity it will still be bowed to that direction. anyhow it is what it is. the same for everyone and that's why no one ever brings it up.
What if a players leg or body is in between the laser and the ball. The laser wont see anything
Quote from: sunburywhite on April 06, 2014, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 01:31:28 PM
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
if you put a laser line from one end of the cross bar to the other, it would not be dead straight. there would be a slight bow in it. easily 4 mm which would add to the inaccuracy of the hawkeye even further. add to this that its also relying on a white line which is hand painted (viva a machine) across an un even surfice which is covered in grass. nothing in the known universe is flat
Yes, but it would bow vertically. The cameras aren't mounted on the crossbar so it shouldn't affect it
not just a verticle bow though. it would also go with the imperfections of the metal used. plus you have to take elasticity and all other scientific equations that I have no clue about into effect aswell. if its bowed at errection to the left or right then even with gravity it will still be bowed to that direction. anyhow it is what it is. the same for everyone and that's why no one ever brings it up.
What if a players leg or body is in between the laser and the ball. The laser wont see anything
? the laser was just to prove that the cross bar is not dead straight. nothing to do with goal line technology, apart from to prove it does not have a sound datum to work against in the first place.
The problem is the ball changes shape dependent on contact. For the system to be accurate without dispute it needs to use a template of perfect sphere.
The real question is if the ref and his assistant didn't have the technology yesterday would they have given it as a goal, if they say no they weren't sure there is no argument but if they say yes we would have given it if it was for the tech then there's a argument
Quote from: Neil D on April 06, 2014, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: epsomraver on April 06, 2014, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: Andy S on April 06, 2014, 12:38:07 PM
The fact is it should be the same for everyone. We will obviously hear a lot more debate about this technology over the coming years. I'm delighted we can reflect on it where the result doesn't matter.
Wait till it happens to one of the big four or Liverpool :dft011: then stand back for the flak about how unreliable it is!
As long as Liverpool are on the receiving end of some rough justice.
they'd be gifted 7 penalties to make up for it. but carroll's slap to mignolet is a start.
Quote from: fulhamben on April 06, 2014, 12:23:45 PM
Quote from: ChrisBairdOhh on April 06, 2014, 12:09:56 PM
Ben, not sure I understand about the crossbar issue...
And care to explain further Riether Lightning?p
[/quote, nothing in the known universe is flat
My front tyre was last week! I know, I had to blow it up again by foot-pump!
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on April 06, 2014, 10:02:43 AM
Does the curvature of the ball play a part?
It not a flat disc after all; if no leather is touching the line then surely the ball has rolled beyond the line and is therefore a goal.
That was my point.....no way that any of the ball could actually be touching the line.....
Quote from: gerrys on April 06, 2014, 10:33:39 PM
Quote from: Wimbledon_White on April 06, 2014, 10:02:43 AM
Does the curvature of the ball play a part?
It not a flat disc after all; if no leather is touching the line then surely the ball has rolled beyond the line and is therefore a goal.
And if the ball was still round it would be clear of the line.
That was my point.....no way that any of the ball could actually be touching the line.....
I always thought the diameter of the ball has to be over the line - and the photo shows it was - and that it was definitely a goal. The ball couldn't possibly have been touching the line from that photo.
Just a good job that Hugo scored.
