Originally Posted by mikeyddd:
“I don't think it was a goal either”
“I don't think it was a goal either”
It was a goal. The technology is far more precise than any human.
France vs Honduras - BBC One 8pm KO
13 of 18
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.
Originally Posted by mikeyddd:
“I don't think it was a goal either”
“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.
Originally Posted by Gort:
“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.”
“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.
Jonathan Pearce got so over-excited there, he made the situation appear more dramatic than it actually was.
Originally Posted by Gort:
“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.”
“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.
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.
Originally Posted by LostFool:
“The technology worked perfectly. It's just the commentators don't seem to understand it.”
“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.
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.
Now Pearce can't see side netting.
Originally Posted by LostFool:
“The technology worked perfectly. It's just the commentators don't seem to understand it.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Gort:
“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.”
“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
Originally Posted by Sick Bullet:
“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.”
“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.
13 of 18
