Camera angles have always been deceptive, that's why they went with goalline technology as opposed to a fourth official watching replays.

But the first replay is irrelevant, everyone with eyes could see that was no goal.

to me, BY THE TELEVISION PICTURES, it didn't fully cross the line!
by the tech it DID!

it's millimetres though

and good that they show ALL the moments of doubt .....

There was no controversy . They showed both so we could see if it was a goal by Benzema or an own goal.
Seemed pretty clear to me.

It made sense eventually, it was Pearce going into Robot Wars mode that made it seem chaotic.

Terrible pundit.

Am I the only one who doesn't think it went over?

We need in-ear technology to prevent commentators making a right Doyle of themselves in clear cut situations.

The angle of the camera can make things look a lot different. It's like in tennis with hawkeye- sometimes you'd swear a ball was on the line, then hawkeye shows it's 5 inches out! It's the angle the reply shows that can be confusing.

Agreed, but the initial verdict from GLT shouldn't have shown, hence the confusion.

and who cares how many "replays" of instances there are, the one that matters is the one that counts!

The last replay showed that the keeper pushed it in.

I don't see why the commentators were acting as if*there is some great controversy over the goal line tech. It was pretty obvious what was going on to anyone watching.

What an idiot.

Bottom line, GLT works, and France are 2-0 up.

I remember his commentary on that show. He was usually at least 5 minutes behind everyone else with what he was saying. He's really not the sharpest tool in the box

You can continue with 7 - if one more goes, the match should be abandoned - I THINK one of the Sheffield teams went down to 7 a few years back.

It's a silly rule, because all you then need to do if you are down to 7 is deliberately get another one sent off (to your advantage).

Unless they have changed things ...

The French doing very well not to get unsettled in the face of all this Honduras provocation.

Again, the goal line technology worked fine but was displayed badly in that instance, because you followed the giving of the goal with a graphic that said 'No Goal' - the replay should have only started from the point where the keeper split the ball and it crossed the line.

Indeed.

At this rate Honduras will be lucky to be able to field a full team for their final group match!

I don't think it was a goal either

She looked like she had the plague

I think they will be changing the software very soon...

---------
Prior to goal-line technology, imagine if the referee in a situation like that had first said "no goal" and then a second or two later said "Goal!"

They wouldn't be doing that again for sure.

Because while a computer may see such a thing as two events an actual human being would never do so. So any confusion was quite understandable.

You're right, that replay didn't convince me at the time that the whole ball had crossed the line. Then what made it worse was that the technology showed a graphic with the ball easily behind the line with a lot of space to spare, more so than it seemed in that replay. I believe it's a goal, but it was damn closer than that technology showed.

Absolutely, it's bewildering that the obvious 'NO GOAL' part was displayed at all.