Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by rcoobc, Apr 15, 2012.
Nowhere near. Looks like at least a quarter of the ball is on the line.
Guys, observe where the white chalkline extends. The ball is clearly over.
The rules of football.
Looks completely over the line to me. It's possible that it's clipping the line but there is not a chance a quarter is on the line.
He couldn't have been. But regardless of the circumstances under which the decision was made, it still stands as a correct one.
Was a clear foul by Terry anyways, so the discussion around whether the ball was in or not should be a moot point.
Look at the chalkline under Ledley King and observe where the ball is.
Also, where are these pictures coming from? They look like they're from TV, yet we never saw anything watching the game. And the getty one, was that just some photographer standing in the crowd? Photographers are usually pitchside.
None of the pictures look like the entire ball is over to me.
No, from my viewing, at that angle, part of the ball looks level. Looking at the gif in the OP, I cannot see how Assou-Ekotto's movements mean the football went completely over the line.
He most likely only saw the videos that we all saw initially when we all called him a spanner. When he looks at those stills I imagine he'll think he got it right after all.
Where do the rules state that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defending team? Why would they even state that? The referee must surely act on what he believes to be most likely.
It's still difficult to tell. That picture does tell us that it was a lot closer than most of us probably originally thought, but it's not conclusive. Since the ball's not on the ground it's incredibly hard to tell whether it's over the line or not.
We'd have a lot of shite referees on this forum. All that photo proves is that the ball wasn't over the line when it was taken.
Fuck sake you lot are analysing that photo too, it shows it's not over the line, it's the perspective of the photo that makes it look like that
Huh clearly over the line? Some people on here having trouble with perspective or do they just don't want to give in after all the laughing and fingerpointing?
I'm with Kevin. Clearly half of us are terrible with spacial awareness. We should conduct some tests to find out.
If you don't have the awareness, then just look at where the blue shorts positioned right ON the line. Then look at how far up the ball is on the same shorts. Over the line. I do not know what alot of people are not seeing here really.
I agree its not "clearly over the line", but at least the decision isn't as terrible as I thought when I made the thread. He may well have got the decision right, he may have got it wrong. Either way it was a tough call.
I'm confused, are we now claiming a photo taken at an angle clearly proves the ball's over the line, using the shorts that are behind it as a reference?
What? Do we need to bring out the plastic cows?
Apparently Terry was offside as well.
Yeah, he's definitely offside, you can see it in the gif in the OP. Extremely difficult call though, I must have watched it at least 10 times and I didn't notice until you said it.
That is rather true.
1) Terry may have fouled everyone trying to head the ball.
2) The ball may not have crossed the line.
3) Terry may have been offside, by being mostly over the goal line when the ball was played.
It really shouldn't have stood.
He didn't immediately blow he's whistle when he saw the incident, probably because he was insecure and with that in mind his call is more of a scandal then if he base his decision on instinct.
Simple rule. If you are unsure let the play move on. Atkinson did the opposite.
We know the edge of the ball is on the red line, somewhere along the width of the goal, either behind or in front of the goal line.
For the ball to be completely over the goal line, that edge of ball must be directly above the position marked by the black X (or further away from us along the goal line).
For that to be the case, the ball would have to be partially inside John Terry's leg (as the black X is). It is not.
I don't get it RK. We see an edge of the ball, the edge of the ball that is at a right angle to the camera, and you've drawn a "vertical" line down from it, which in this case may not be vertical at all. Assuming the edge of the ball is the one we want, and assuming the vertical is vertical, I don't see how it proves anything
Also having just done that myself, I can't see why the line is bent? Is it an affect from the camera, or is it some real life distortion I am unaware of.
That's just a straight line using paint from the image on page 1. Surely the goal line should stay true with the paint image. It bends like anything.
Edit - I was about to say that is probably because football pitches dip in the middle, but they don't they rise in the middle. This is to assist drainage, as well as getting a larger football pitch but having the fans close to the game.
So, err, yeah.
I admit it's not clear, hard to explain.
I'll try to come back with a better attempt.
Try using the plastic cows.
I haven't found a news source yet that is claiming it went in. Which could say something.
Shame skysports don't have highlights
1) I've adjusted the image so the goal posts are vertical, and perpendicular to the ground. The red line is also vertical
2) I've overlayed where the goal line would be if it could be seen.
3) The point where the red line meets the goal line is important. For the ball to be completely over the goal line, the centre of the ball (widthways, as viewed from in front of the goal) must be directly above the the point where the lines meet, or further to the right (away from us in the photo). This is not possible, as it coincides with the ball being in John Terry's leg.
4) The right-hand side illustrates what I'm on about, hopefully.
What a waste of time...
I definitely don't understand, but you seem to have a handle on this!
The goal was incorrectly given!
The red line is just wrongly put. You have to measure the distance between the ball and post first (parallel to the goal line). That's the real distance to the red line on the goal line.
Try that first.
I definitely thought it was a foul by Terry. As Mata strikes the ball, it looks like Assou-Ekotto has fallen back behind the goal-line and as it strikes Terry is behind everyone else I think it was offside as well. Does the fact that Terry and King are both partly over the line mean that it is onside though? Add to that the question of whether the ball was over the line or not, I completely agree. It should not have stood.
The red line is a boundary. Where it meets the goal line, it indicates the minimum distance from the left-hand post that the ball must be for it to be completely over the line.
[ "Distance" refers to how far across the width of the goal ]
By using this minimum distance, we can see that it can't really be over the line.
Do a parallelogram with its BLC as the bottom of post and RHC as the edge of the right side of the ball (or wherever it should be in order for it to cross the line completely).
I don't know why we're getting into technical overdrive here. It's relatively primary school. "Picture taken at an angle may misrepresent perspective." We're not through the looking glass or anything here.
I think all the geometric analysis of a photo from an angle just proves one thing... Atkinson couldn't possibly be sure it was over the line.
The blokes a liability and always has been.
Separate names with a comma.