Chelsea /Tottenham

[HibsMax]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but yesterday I caught the highlights of the Chelsea / Spurs game and I saw Chelsea's first goal that was given. The replays showed me that the ball was clearly over the line i.e., the ball was in contact with the green grass beyond the white line but the commentators kept on saying the ref got it wrong because the whole ball was not across the whole line. I don't know the exact rules about that but it seemed to me (rightly or wrongly) that if the ball is over the line enough so that the bottom of the ball is past the line, it should be a goal. Perhaps I'm jaded by years of NFL where all that has to happen is the ball needs to break the plane i.e., touch the line.

Does anyone care enough to have an opinion on this? :D

[Sir David Gray]

Sorry if this has been discussed already but yesterday I caught the highlights of the Chelsea / Spurs game and I saw Chelsea's first goal that was given. The replays showed me that the ball was clearly over the line i.e., the ball was in contact with the green grass beyond the white line but the commentators kept on saying the ref got it wrong because the whole ball was not across the whole line. I don't know the exact rules about that but it seemed to me (rightly or wrongly) that if the ball is over the line enough so that the bottom of the ball is past the line, it should be a goal. Perhaps I'm jaded by years of NFL where all that has to happen is the ball needs to break the plane i.e., touch the line.

Does anyone care enough to have an opinion on this? :D

If any part of the ball is in touch with the goal-line, a goal must not be awarded.

The entire ball must have crossed the line.

[HibbyAndy]

From where the linesman was he cant possibly give that as a goal, Id be inclined to agree with Redknapp in the sense that the linesman 'guessed'...And im not sure i agree with your sentiments Ala 'Clearly' Over the line..Also Kalou was offside for the 2nd goal.Chelsea were extremely fortunate yesterday.

[HibsMax]

From where the linesman was he cant possibly give that as a goal, Id be inclined to agree with Redknapp in the sense that the linesman 'guessed'...And im not sure i agree with your sentiments Ala 'Clearly' Over the line..Also Kalou was offside for the 2nd goal.Chelsea were extremely fortunate yesterday.

To clarify my earlier comment, the bottom of the ball was squished between the goalie's hand and the green grass behind the line BUT the entire ball was not over the entire line. So going by what Falkirk said above, I agree that it should not have been a goal. I'm not arguing that it should be a goal by the way. It just strikes me as weird that the ball can be over the line enough to be in contact with the grass beyond the white line but it's not a goal.....but those are the rules. :)

I also agree that there is no way the linesman could have got that decision right from his position.

EDIT : I don't know what replays anyone else saw but I saw lots (probably the same as you guys got). If the game is on TV again I will try and snap a pic of the freeze frame that shows what I am talking about above.

[HibsMax]

This photo is as good as anything I could take myself. (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2011/writers/peter_berlin/04/30/epl.notes/gomes-chelsea-436.jpg)

[Dashing Bob S]

It was a bad call, but look on the bright side. If it proves to deny Man U the league flag, Sralek's face will be a picture.

[HibbyAndy]

It was a bad call, but look on the bright side. If it proves to deny Man U the league flag, Sralek's face will be a picture.

True.

[hibsbollah]

I dont know if anyone else noticed this, but the bbc freezeframe shot, that was used as the definitive final point the ball stopped rolling, was actually taken slighly BEFORE the ball stopped moving. I don't know how far the ball had to roll but the freezeframe made it look more definitive than it actually was.

A bawhair decision if ever there was one, and an impossible decision for the linesman.

[hibsbollah]

This photo is as good as anything I could take myself. (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2011/writers/peter_berlin/04/30/epl.notes/gomes-chelsea-436.jpg)

Again, that photo proves or disproves nothing without knowing when the ball's forward motion ceased. I agree, great photo though.

[Sir David Gray]

This photo is as good as anything I could take myself. (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2011/writers/peter_berlin/04/30/epl.notes/gomes-chelsea-436.jpg)

It was a very close call but it's possible for a photograph to give a distorted view of what someone is supposed to be looking at.

I think that's what's happened in that picture.

I'm not disputing that 90-95% of that ball was over the line but that's still not enough for a goal to be awarded.

When will FIFA come into the 21st century? That decision could have been reviewed and overturned within a minute.

[HH81]

I still think if manure scored that goal in 99th min next week falkirkhibee would make am argument for it to stand.

[CallumLaidlaw]

To clarify my earlier comment, the bottom of the ball was squished between the goalie's hand and the green grass behind the line BUT the entire ball was not over the entire line. So going by what Falkirk said above, I agree that it should not have been a goal. I'm not arguing that it should be a goal by the way. It just strikes me as weird that the ball can be over the line enough to be in contact with the grass beyond the white line but it's not a goal.....but those are the rules. :)

I also agree that there is no way the linesman could have got that decision right from his position.

EDIT : I don't know what replays anyone else saw but I saw lots (probably the same as you guys got). If the game is on TV again I will try and snap a pic of the freeze frame that shows what I am talking about above.

I know what your saying but I think the rule is "fully over the line" for the following reason -
Imagine if the keeper dropped a cross mid air, then pulled it back. the ball wouldnt have the grass and line to see that the base of the ball had crossed the line.

The goal shouldnt have counted, but at least Redknapp was sympathetic to the linesman. Goodness knows why we dont have goal-line technology yet

[HibsMax]

Again, that photo proves or disproves nothing without knowing when the ball's forward motion ceased. I agree, great photo though.

Correct, all it "proves" is that the ball was in contact with the grass behind the goal line (which I appreciate is NOT enough for it to be ruled a goal).

[hibsbollah]

The goal shouldnt have counted, but at least Redknapp was sympathetic to the linesman. Goodness knows why we dont have goal-line technology yet

FIFA/UEFA are very clear why not(watching the idiot pundits on MOTD you wouldnt have known this though). Its because they believe football should be the great universal sport, and a schools game on a lumpy park or african field is played within the same parameters and rules as the world cup final.

I dont know if i agree with this or not, i can see both sides to the argument(as well as a few others), but the powers that be have certainly been consistent.

[Sir David Gray]

FIFA/UEFA are very clear why not(watching the idiot pundits on MOTD you wouldnt have known this though). Its because they believe football should be the great universal sport, and a schools game on a lumpy park or african field is played within the same parameters and rules as the world cup final.

I dont know if i agree with this or not, i can see both sides to the argument(as well as a few others), but the powers that be have certainly been consistent.

Their stance on this matter is complete and utter nonsense.

There is literally millions upon millions of pounds riding on the results of matches in the professional game nowadays that just isn't there in sunday league matches or kids' matches in Africa.

Sports like rugby, tennis and cricket all have some degree of video technology in the professional game and people who play those sports for leisure or semi-professionally do not have that same luxury. It works there absolutely fine.

What makes football think that it should be any different?

[hibsbollah]

Their stance on this matter is complete and utter nonsense.

There is literally millions upon millions of pounds riding on the results of matches in the professional game nowadays that just isn't there in sunday league matches or kids' matches in Africa.

Sports like rugby, tennis and cricket all have some degree of video technology in the professional game and people who play those sports for leisure or semi-professionally do not have that same luxury. It works there absolutely fine.

What makes football think that it should be any different?

Because theres more money at the top level is completely immaterial to the argument. Its a matter of universality. Sometimes, even in the era of the nauseating crybabies Wenger and Ferguson, you need to take the rough with the smooth and just get on with it.

[Kaiser1962]

[QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;2791555]Their stance on this matter is complete and utter nonsense.QUOTE]

While their stance may appear to be out of date their rules (Law 5) are that the referee's decision is final and all clubs that participate are supposed to accept that, those are the grounds, after all, that they have to accept before FIFA allow them to compete.

[Winston Ingram]

I don't even think it's a discussion. Anybody who claims they can see the 'whole ball' in the photo posted or any other angle I'll PM you the number for Dolland & Aitchison.

Being in Scotland there surely isn't anyone who doesn't understand the ball over the line argument after 66. On top of that, not one pundit, Chelsea or even the 'Goalscorer' have claimed it was over the line :rolleyes:

[HibsMax]

I don't even think it's a discussion. Anybody who claims they can see the 'whole ball' in the photo posted or any other angle I'll PM you the number for Dolland & Aitchison.

Being in Scotland there surely isn't anyone who doesn't understand the ball over the line argument after 66. On top of that, not one pundit, Chelsea or even the 'Goalscorer' have claimed it was over the line :rolleyes:

LOL.

I know that I don't think the ball is totally over the line, nor can you see from that photo or any other angle I've seen.

The reason I posted this thread is to get a better idea of what makes a goal a goal.

In response to Hibsbollah (UEFA/FIFA really), the technology absolutely should be in the game at the highest level for the reasons already mentioned. Kids play football without matching strips because they can't afford them but that doesn't mean that professional football players can run around in whatever they choose. Perhaps a silly example but it's the first one that popped into my head.

The sooner they introduce video evidence AND an effective method of utilising it, the better in my opinion. I understand that this technology could be cost prohibitive to some teams but I don't think that means it should be totally ignored.

It's a tough issue for sure and I don't have "the" answer......but I believe there is one out there.

[easty]

FIFA/UEFA are very clear why not(watching the idiot pundits on MOTD you wouldnt have known this though). Its because they believe football should be the great universal sport, and a schools game on a lumpy park or african field is played within the same parameters and rules as the world cup final.

I dont know if i agree with this or not, i can see both sides to the argument(as well as a few others), but the powers that be have certainly been consistent.

Champions League games have officials on the goal lines, they don't have that in any league games, as far as I'm aware. So Fifa/Uefa can't be that concerned that the parameters are the same for everyone from the grass roots up.

[Forthview]

The Enlish refs and assistants seem determined to keep the title in london given the amount of disgraceful decisions they have been awarding Chelsea lately.
I said to a work colleague that Man Utd would beat Chelsea in the champions league because neither ties would have english refs to help Chelsea. Both ties were won easily by Man Utd without controversy if I recall correctly.
The last 3 league matches between the 2 clubs have been won by Chelsea as a result of some 'unusual' decisions by the officials.
Clear evidence that it isnt Man Utd that get all the breaks as many people claim.

[easty]

The Enlish refs and assistants seem determined to keep the title in london given the amount of disgraceful decisions they have been awarding Chelsea lately.
I said to a work colleague that Man Utd would beat Chelsea in the champions league because neither ties would have english refs to help Chelsea. Both ties were won easily by Man Utd without controversy if I recall correctly.
The last 3 league matches between the 2 clubs have been won by Chelsea as a result of some 'unusual' decisions by the officials.
Clear evidence that it isnt Man Utd that get all the breaks as many people claim.

Man Utd are top of the league.....they're not being too hard done by. Ahead of Chelsea in the league, so not that surprising that they beat them in the Champions League, regardless of referees.

Vidic punched the ball away from Van Persies head today, no foul.:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Champions League games have officials on the goal lines, they don't have that in any league games, as far as I'm aware. So Fifa/Uefa can't be that concerned that the parameters are the same for everyone from the grass roots up.

True, although introducing video replays to adjudicate on major decisions would represent a bigger leap away from the normal parameters than having an extra official, clearly.

[Forthview]

The thread was and is about the unusualy high amount of unusual decisions in Chelsea'a favour recently. Arsenal and Man Utd get their fair share too although you wouldnt think so with Ferguson and Wenger continually whining.
:rolleyes:

[HibsMax]

The thread was and is about the unusualy high amount of unusual decisions in Chelsea'a favour recently. Arsenal and Man Utd get their fair share too although you wouldnt think so with Ferguson and Wenger continually whining.
:rolleyes:

Actually, it was kinda about how close to a goal was that? :wink:

Rules aside, in my mind that is a goal. When did football become a game of millimetres?

"Ref!! He was offside by a nipple!"

[jacomo]

FIFA/UEFA are very clear why not(watching the idiot pundits on MOTD you wouldnt have known this though). Its because they believe football should be the great universal sport, and a schools game on a lumpy park or african field is played within the same parameters and rules as the world cup final.

I dont know if i agree with this or not, i can see both sides to the argument(as well as a few others), but the powers that be have certainly been consistent.

This is a compelling argument, but I haven't heard FIFA express it. They seem to use the "referee is absolute boss" line instead.

Unfortunately, endless TV replays of wrong decisions serve to undermine referee authority.

[The_Sauz]

[QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;2791555]Their stance on this matter is complete and utter nonsense.QUOTE]

While their stance may appear to be out of date their rules (Law 5) are that the Old Firms decision is final and all clubs that participate are supposed to accept that, those are the grounds, after all, that they have to accept before SFA allow them to compete.
Fixed that for you :wink:

[hibsbollah]

This is a compelling argument, but I haven't heard FIFA express it. They seem to use the "referee is absolute boss" line instead.

Unfortunately, endless TV replays of wrong decisions serve to undermine referee authority.

im sure ive read platini and blatter make this case, although since i cant find a link i may be talking out of my hole :-)

[jacomo]

im sure ive read platini and blatter make this case, although since i cant find a link i may be talking out of my hole :-)

:greengrin