goal line technology my arse

[mungos beans]

Ive rewound it half a dozen times and the ball is clearly over. Goal difference could cost us.

[Logicalman]

Ive rewound it half a dozen times and the ball is clearly over. Goal difference could cost us.

Seriously, are you 100% sure? I mean, I would prefer to be guided by the technology, after all the testing it needed to go through than some half-decent video feed. The technology showed the back edge of the ball was half-way across the line itself, not clear of it.

[epsomraver]

Ive rewound it half a dozen times and the ball is clearly over. Goal difference could cost us.

Match of the day showed that the whole of the ball did NOT cross the whole of the line to be a goal, sorry.

[PaulJ123]

in real time, the ball looks to be a lot further over compared to what the goal line tech showed I thought.

Didn't matter in the end but I'm still not sold on this technology

[mungos beans]

Football first. The whole match and sorry but match is wrong. Rewind it and slow motion it you see clearly it was in

[Slaphead in Qatar]

Definately a goal. Ball bulged the side netting. Technology is not always correct as has been shown in cricket.

[Bassey the warrior]

Ive rewound it half a dozen times and the ball is clearly over. Goal difference could cost us.

Just seen it and it clearly isn't. In fact during the game they showed this quite clearly.

[RoyTund]

The whole of the ball has to cross the line;  it could cause the side netting to bulge without being 100%, fully, over the line. 

[Lighthouse]

As in tennis the replay can often show a distorted view dependant on the camera angle. The tech shows an exaggerated replay to show the ball. Clearly as a Fulham fan the ball was well in and we deserved the goal. The truth is it wasn't but how unlucky were we to come so close?

[leonffc]

Definately a goal. Ball bulged the side netting.

I saw that but I think it was a players (Sidwell?) head

[ToodlesMcToot]

The technology they use has been vetted for years in professional tennis. If it says that the ball did not fully cross the line, I'm not going to question it when my version of events is solely informed by that 3 second scrum. I really did not see anything that would cause me to dispute the ruling.

[RidgeRider]

in real time, the ball looks to be a lot further over compared to what the goal line tech showed I thought.

Didn't matter in the end but I'm still not sold on this technology

I saw the same, the goal line technology did not work in this case, it did not capture the ball when it was at its furthest point in the net. It was over the line. No technology needed.

[alexbishop]

i think the key is when the technology captures the ball. Normally it would capture it when it hits the floor and then that is the measure of whether it is over the line or not. In this case, the ball did not touch the floor so if it captures the ball too soon or too late, it can give the impression the ball was not over the line, when for a split second before/after it may well have been. The video camera clearly shows the ball inside the post, bulged into the side netting - that has to have been over the line...

[PokerMatt]

The technology hasn't been designed to show when the ball hits the floor as per tennis. That would be silly as the ball quite often doesn't bounce until after hitting the back of the net. It's not a photo, but a detection of the furthest point once the ball is between the posts and near the line.

There are (seven?) cameras set up top, left and right of the posts which can detect the ball when it is at its furthest point over the line. It did look in, but I'm reluctant to criticise the tech as it was so close.

[mungos beans]

Thanks ridge rider its as clear as day on football first.

[PokerMatt]

in real time, the ball looks to be a lot further over compared to what the goal line tech showed I thought.

Didn't matter in the end but I'm still not sold on this technology

I saw the same, the goal line technology did not work in this case, it did not capture the ball when it was at its furthest point in the net. It was over the line. No technology needed.

This is worrying if true. I read that the tech with so many cameras is able to eliminate players and obstructions from view so can easily spot the ball at its furthest point.

[Rupert]

For years the FA and FIFA objected to using technology as it was only 97% accurate, roughly the same figure as referees manage unaided (yes, really, 97%) and they saw no benefit to bringing it in.

Maybe they were right?

[St Eve]

From my unbiased eyes it was clearly a goal

[west kowloon white]

If MOTD team say it wasn't a goal then it wasn't a goal,get real.

[EJL]

If MOTD team say it wasn't a goal then it wasn't a goal,get real.

Whatever Robbie Savage and Alan Shearer have to say has no relevance at all. They're both clowns who are out of their depth as pundits.