DS Forums

 
 

France vs Honduras - BBC One 8pm KO


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-06-2014, 21:19
FrankieFixer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 11,355
I don't think it was a goal either
It was a goal. The technology is far more precise than any human.
FrankieFixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-06-2014, 21:19
jake1981
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Leafy Surrey
Posts: 3,577
On another day Benzema could have had 5
jake1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:19
Ambassador
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wooler, Northumberlandiana
Posts: 21,728
Why can't Keown pronounce Debuchy?

Who the hell is Debutch chi?
Ambassador is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:19
Bizza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,049
Nice to see the goal line tech getting some actual use, shame they confused things with that No Goal/Goal stuff. Just focus on the ball actually crossing the line.
Bizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:20
Bosox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10,702
I don't think it was a goal either
Camera angles can be deceptive. GLT is more trustworthy than estimating the 3D position of the ball based on 2D pictures.
Bosox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:20
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,696
The technology worked perfectly. It's just the commentators don't seem to understand it.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:21
Sick Bullet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Middleton
Posts: 13,833
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.
No it's wasn't, like already stated here the angle of the video camera can make it look closer than it is, just look at tennis.
Sick Bullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:21
Pee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,213
Jonathan Pearce got so over-excited there, he made the situation appear more dramatic than it actually was.
Pee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:21
BigFoot87
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,257
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.
^^^ This.
BigFoot87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:21
ianlawn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 900
The camera on the goal line is going to be better than one nowhere near goal line. Can't believe people think it wasn't a goal.
ianlawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:21
O'Neill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,639
Clear OG, even without technology, the last replay showed clearly.
O'Neill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:22
Belligerence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ghosts Forge
Posts: 38,995
The technology worked perfectly. It's just the commentators don't seem to understand it.
It reviewed both decisions -- nothing more.

Pearce making a mountain of a molehill. Maybe for his benefit it should have shown the goal decision.
Belligerence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:22
Pink Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 8,451
Did some people not see the final replay from the other side of the keeper ?, he clearly pushed it in. Jonathan Pearce keeps saying a controversial 2nd. Let it lie.


Now Pearce can't see side netting.
Pink Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:22
celesti
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,844
The technology worked perfectly. It's just the commentators don't seem to understand it.
Yep, if there's any controversy it's caused by the ineptitude of people rather than technology. Jonathan Pearce is still saying there'll be 'debate', he's an idiot.
celesti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:22
BigFoot87
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,257
3-0........oh.
BigFoot87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
InTheLoop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,297
"3-0 what a good goal"
InTheLoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
mikeyddd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,975
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.
With the camera you see what you see, The GLT systems are based on predictions and are only as good as the technicians doing the calibration etc
mikeyddd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
DUNDEEBOY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 56,295
Pearce watching a different game
DUNDEEBOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
ianlawn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 900
Oh dear another rookie mistake
ianlawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
Sattrega
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kingdom of Arnor
Posts: 78,227
JP really needs to get to specsavers.
Sattrega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:23
Bosox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10,702
Oh dear JP, not your day son. Can't even blame the heat as it's very cool in Porto Alegre.
Bosox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:24
ritchie2yk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,075
Christ how many pre match drinks has this commentator had
ritchie2yk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:24
Gort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,053
No it's wasn't, like already stated here the angle of the video camera can make it look closer than it is, just look at tennis.
I know what you're arguing (camera work is something I'm very well aware of, BTW), but the technology induced image definitely showed too wide a gap than what was on the picture, camera angles and the like included. I do agree, though, that it was a goal, probably by millimetres rather than centimetres.

Hmm... seems that the commentator is also confused.
Gort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:24
Thomas007
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,215
To be fair I thought that was a goal as well.
Thomas007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2014, 21:24
dmuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,954
Seriously, is Pearce drunk?

(although I also thought Sterling's effort went in)
dmuk is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23.