Last I’m saying on it-he didn’t miss it and would have seen where the ball was (near the goal line). The assistant didn’t miss it either and again would have seen the ball near the goal line. They were not 100% sure the ball had crossed the goal line therefore can’t award a goal.[/QUOTE]
Any thoughts on the Partick Thistle 'ghost' goal I linked to and asked you about?
Last I’m saying on it-he didn’t miss it and would have seen where the ball was (near the goal line). The assistant didn’t miss it either and again would have seen the ball near the goal line. They were not 100% sure the ball had crossed the goal line therefore can’t award a goal.
Any thoughts on the Partick Thistle 'ghost' goal I linked to and asked you about?[/QUOTE]
You are right of course but it really isn’t good enough to say they can only give what they see with their eyes. There a lot of non verbal ways to communicate and there are a lot of non visual ways of seeing to make a correct decision. For me it’s clearly very close. Does the player on the ground look like he’s saved it. What’s the keepers reaction as he goes to help the guy up? What’s the players reaction who kicks the ball away pissed off. What of the players who are close to it from city’s reaction? If they had had a chat they may have made a decision that was correct cause they could have discussed these things. There’s nothing in the laws of the game that says you can only give what you physically see. Now if after discussing all that they decide that they don’t have enough evidence then so be it but they made a really bad decision and they got it wrong. They need to do better
Last I’m saying on it-he didn’t miss it and would have seen where the ball was (near the goal line). The assistant didn’t miss it either and again would have seen the ball near the goal line. They were not 100% sure the ball had crossed the goal line therefore can’t award a goal.