Goal or no goal (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter robbiekeane
- Start date
At no point was the ball over the line. As I said before goal line technology doesn't just take a random picture at any point and that's what they go off. As soon as the whole ball crosses the line the watch buzzes and its a goal. At no point this happened. You literally cannot argue with the technology unless it's not switched on which has happened once which they admitted straight away
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
So are you saying the technology wasn't switched on? That's the only argument you can have because if it was on then as soon as the ball crosses the line the refs watch buzzes
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
They are never going to admit it doesn’t always get it right as people will lose faith. Same if they had forgotten to turn it on it won’t be admitted again.
The more I have looked at it I think no goal but there are going to be differing views I am sure.
Gosb
Well-Known Member
I can't be bothered to read through this entire thread, so apologies if someone has already made this point, but the diameter of a football is about 9 inches so for the entire ball to be over the entire line the base of the ball has to be over 4 and a half inches over the entire line. This is what often deceives the naked eye when looking at ground level.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Technology fails, for example the stopped vehicle radar system on smart motorways which recently tragically resulted in yet another death on those abominations.
Or the technology was correct and is better than grainy pictures on twitter
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
so the 9 inch ball has to be fully over the 5 inches goalline
a total of 14 inches or 35 CM
apparently 1cm was not over so - 97% in , but not the 3 % that mattered.
Also the line has to be the exact width of the post, as they dont go on the line at all, but the actual posts - so it is possible that the line was faulty rather than the technology
a total of 14 inches or 35 CM
apparently 1cm was not over so - 97% in , but not the 3 % that mattered.
Also the line has to be the exact width of the post, as they dont go on the line at all, but the actual posts - so it is possible that the line was faulty rather than the technology
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting concept and i wonder if i drove a Russian tank to the Polish border and crossed half way over so the gun was in Poland but not the back end, would N.A.T.O take that as an invasion of Poland or not.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
At the time when people were going mad I wasn´t convinced it had gone across the line. That said, I have seen it so many times I am basically drunk off it and now my eyes are playing tricks on me.
The club have a goal cam don´t they? Will be interesting to see if that has picked anything up because the camera is basically in the net. Might give a more clear cut view, but who knows.
Either way, we were absolutely shite and deserved nothing. This is a moot point really.
The club have a goal cam don´t they? Will be interesting to see if that has picked anything up because the camera is basically in the net. Might give a more clear cut view, but who knows.
Either way, we were absolutely shite and deserved nothing. This is a moot point really.
Nick
Administrator
You would think the defender would be in the way.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
They will never be able to prove it be bothered to try, for all we know it may not have been and they have used a stock image.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why would they do that?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No, it doesn’t use the line from what I’ve read of Hawkeye, it basically makes it’s own virtual line where a perfect line would be.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Yeah it's something every team has to have in the league. Everyone coming up from L1 has to have it installed before the first game of the season.
We had it last season at St Andrews and it impacted our budget to have it installed a the arena because our tinpot setup didn't even think of it until it became urgent.
It's frustrated me a couple times this season as players have stopped for a second to appeal before realising technology is there and playing on, we've not pressed opportunities a couple of times this season because of it.
Not only do we have it, apparently it cost us more than £10,000 just to “connect the power” for it
Supporters forum 30/9/21
Coventry City Supporters Forum Agenda for Meeting on the 30th of September 2021 @ 5.00pm at the Sky Blue Tavern 1 - Apologies Laura Smith Kevin Heffernan Dave Eyles Neil Beasley Jim Brown 2 - Attendees Colin Henderson - Chair (CH) Pete Griffiths - Vice-Chair (PG) Dave Boddy (DB) Tynan...
www.skybluestalk.co.uk
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I'm hoping that means lay the cables in the post and install the cameras on the roof and not just turn it onNot only do we have it, apparently it cost us more than £10,000 just to “connect the power” for it
Supporters forum 30/9/21
Coventry City Supporters Forum Agenda for Meeting on the 30th of September 2021 @ 5.00pm at the Sky Blue Tavern 1 - Apologies Laura Smith Kevin Heffernan Dave Eyles Neil Beasley Jim Brown 2 - Attendees Colin Henderson - Chair (CH) Pete Griffiths - Vice-Chair (PG) Dave Boddy (DB) Tynan...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
O drivels job is to put the switch on - he fell asleep after a special brew too many - hence his salty response
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
There is a video from along the line
There is a hawkeye image
They check the watch before the game starts
It has failed before and they investigated why and admitted to it
There is fuck all to suggest anything went wrong last night apart form this desire to feel hard done by.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
well they won’t really they’d lose faith it tbe images were made up
the fact there are such wildly conflicting views shows it was extremely marginal. I’m sure the LWB system in cricket isn’t always right - it can’t predict to a millimetre where a ball would hit or not.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
The cricket one is fairly quick so you see it accept it and move on, this one is produced after the game so allows for conspiracy if it had happened and then flashed on the scoreboard everybody would say wow that’s close and move on.
I just want to say to all those who insist it was actually in - don’t give up now, not when you’re so close. They may come at you with incontrovertible evidence that it didn’t cross the line, but have faith - you’re still only three, maybe four more grainy screenshots of the same iFollow video away from blowing this whole thing wide open.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
it allows for conspiracy if you want it to. I don’t believe the technology wasn’t working - it was absurdly marginal but that’s that really
lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
The more I see it real speed the more it looks a goal. On the night (in line with 6yd box) a clear and obvious goal. When it’s slowed down I still think it’s over the line but not so convinced. But it’s clear from the still and technology it isn’t. It’s an optical illusion with moving ball and sliding player (especially when he throws his head back) giving impression of ball over line and rolling backwards towards goal line. No goal and the tech worked.
Not the reason we lost but if it had travelled a quarter inch further and fully crossed the line I would have been confident we would have at least snatched the draw. Coupled to the penalty shout on Tavares we could have got a vital point.
But to be fair Hull fully deserved the three points; they were busy, controlled the midfield, quick in tackle and the front player (without really looking good) proved to be a handful and got the better, in the tussles, of our defence. Put that with our performance of wasted possession, tired and leggy, woeful passing and a couple of howlers from Moore and Hyam alongside Hamers non marking (lost wandering ) at a corner it’s no wonder we came crashing down to earth after last Saturdays victory.
Not the reason we lost but if it had travelled a quarter inch further and fully crossed the line I would have been confident we would have at least snatched the draw. Coupled to the penalty shout on Tavares we could have got a vital point.
But to be fair Hull fully deserved the three points; they were busy, controlled the midfield, quick in tackle and the front player (without really looking good) proved to be a handful and got the better, in the tussles, of our defence. Put that with our performance of wasted possession, tired and leggy, woeful passing and a couple of howlers from Moore and Hyam alongside Hamers non marking (lost wandering ) at a corner it’s no wonder we came crashing down to earth after last Saturdays victory.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
You do notice that they (understandly) aren't as rigourous with things like throw-ins or even the goalline for corners/goalkicks. Seen plenty where the ball is not that far over the line and it been ruled out of play. On some throw-ins the ball has even been touching the line still and been called out of play.
ccfc922
Well-Known Member
As others have said, is it possible that white line from their player skidding has effected the system?
Are the cameras/sensors only set up for the goal line?
skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
i think established the goal line is irrelevant, they are set up in line with the posts (which should be aligned - but maybe margin of error)
GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee
Well-Known Member
Ah yes cuz this angle is so much better than the technology or angle from side on where it clearly isn’t full ball over the line. How are we this far in and people still not accepting it didn’t go in?! People really do believe what they want to believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
