If the earth eas a globe like the roundearthers clame then the curvitchur of the line on the earth wudda purrfectly diesecketed with curvitchure of the ball
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The photos online really don't look like it cross the line at all. Certainly not fully. Tonight's one looked waaaay further over the line, without technology.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually 100% sure it didn't cross the line based on all the images I've seen. Good call by whoever it was in the VAR room.
Graham "I come back to it" Souness can go do one.
comment by Christ We Won (TENΖκ) (U17162)
posted 46 minutes ago
Would rather Spain went out over Germany, facking hate Spanish football, so tedious to watch. But it looked out to me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^
Absolutely.
Spanish football has to be one of the ugliest and most tedious styles out there.
Awful to watch.
Not often I spot something accurate and agreeable on these sites. Well done.
And, yes it was out.
‘I come back to it, where was Paul Pogba in the var room?’
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually 100% sure it didn't cross the line based on all the images I've seen. Good call by whoever it was in the VAR room.
Graham "I come back to it" Souness can go do one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my comment.
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
Did Souness blame Pogba for all of this?
My first instinct was that it was out, but the pictures from a height suggested it was in. Since the on field decision was in, VAR didn't have conclusive evidence to change it.
Don't know what the fuss is about.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the wine threads because as you’ve shown it’s what you do best.
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
Not for me. Looking like the part on the edge of the ball not touching the ground was on the line.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How'd you know I was leaving? I thought that was just on the culer account. FFS need to pay attention
I know who Culer is now anyway.
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/news/2940094/raul-is-culer-the-publicity-campaign-for-the-new-barca-store-in-madrid
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Without seeing a view from above the ball then you can not really determine. But it did look a good 2-3 inches over from behind the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Above?
Ffs when the ball is on the deck it’s a 2D decision. Anywhere on the axis of the goal line is fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Above the ball. What part of that does your child like mind not understand.
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How'd you know I was leaving? I thought that was just on the culer account. FFS need to pay attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm fey
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 34 seconds ago
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was widely accepted nowadays it didn't cross the line. Although they'd have won anyhow.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 34 seconds ago
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was widely accepted nowadays it didn't cross the line. Although they'd have won anyhow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha! So you admit the FA bribed the officials!
Of course it crossed the line. The lines pan had a good view. So we won 4-2 instead of 4-3.
Football is a simple game.
Sign in if you want to comment
Did the ball cross the line?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 1/12/22
If the earth eas a globe like the roundearthers clame then the curvitchur of the line on the earth wudda purrfectly diesecketed with curvitchure of the ball
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
posted on 1/12/22
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The photos online really don't look like it cross the line at all. Certainly not fully. Tonight's one looked waaaay further over the line, without technology.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
posted on 1/12/22
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually 100% sure it didn't cross the line based on all the images I've seen. Good call by whoever it was in the VAR room.
Graham "I come back to it" Souness can go do one.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Christ We Won (TENΖκ) (U17162)
posted 46 minutes ago
Would rather Spain went out over Germany, facking hate Spanish football, so tedious to watch. But it looked out to me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
^^
Absolutely.
Spanish football has to be one of the ugliest and most tedious styles out there.
Awful to watch.
Not often I spot something accurate and agreeable on these sites. Well done.
And, yes it was out.
posted on 1/12/22
‘I come back to it, where was Paul Pogba in the var room?’
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
The correct answer is: you cannot be 100% sure from the angle of the picture and therefore we have to respect the official’s decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually 100% sure it didn't cross the line based on all the images I've seen. Good call by whoever it was in the VAR room.
Graham "I come back to it" Souness can go do one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my comment.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
posted on 1/12/22
Did Souness blame Pogba for all of this?
posted on 1/12/22
My first instinct was that it was out, but the pictures from a height suggested it was in. Since the on field decision was in, VAR didn't have conclusive evidence to change it.
Don't know what the fuss is about.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 8 minutes ago
Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can we think it was anything but a goal? We didn't have today's technology, and the ball was hidden from us. But the linesman, who did have a view, said it was a goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian linesman, 20 odd years after WWII, giving it against Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just paused the video whilst it was on the line. No chance it was over. Like close to 100% that it wasn't over
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a goal, I know because we won 4-2.
You are biased as a bitter little, skirt wearing man, with a knife in your sock to attack sassenachs, sheep's entrails eating, firewater drinking, and finally, for youthful pleasure drinking something made out of girders ffs.
I think that covers it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the wine threads because as you’ve shown it’s what you do best.
posted on 1/12/22
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
posted on 1/12/22
Not for me. Looking like the part on the edge of the ball not touching the ground was on the line.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How'd you know I was leaving? I thought that was just on the culer account. FFS need to pay attention
posted on 1/12/22
I know who Culer is now anyway.
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/news/2940094/raul-is-culer-the-publicity-campaign-for-the-new-barca-store-in-madrid
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Without seeing a view from above the ball then you can not really determine. But it did look a good 2-3 inches over from behind the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Above?
Ffs when the ball is on the deck it’s a 2D decision. Anywhere on the axis of the goal line is fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Above the ball. What part of that does your child like mind not understand.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Stewart Greacen (U1734)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
By the way Barry, don't leave the site, you're one of my favourite posters. Of course names changes are permitted, as are random insults to my, or anyone's English ess. Except Irish. He'd take offence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How'd you know I was leaving? I thought that was just on the culer account. FFS need to pay attention
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm fey
posted on 1/12/22
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 34 seconds ago
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was widely accepted nowadays it didn't cross the line. Although they'd have won anyhow.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 34 seconds ago
"I met Dr. Andrew Zisserman, co-author of the most authoritative book on Multiple View Geometry, at a Computer Vision conference in 2004. When I got a chance, I shook his hand and said, “World Cup Soccer Finals, 1966.” He gave a wide smile. His face lit up. I ended up talking to him for the next 10 minutes about his paper, Goal-directed Video Metrology with Dr. Ian Reid that conclusively proved that Wembley Goal was in fact not a goal! The ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 centimeters taking into account various sources of measurement errors.
The ground is close to a plane and visible in both cameras. Images of a plane seen from two different cameras are related by a transformation called a Homography.
The goal post bars are close to vertical to the ground plane and are visible in both cameras.
The motion blur in the most important pair of frames was negligible.
Given the above information, they proved in the paper that the projection of the ball onto the ground plane ( i.e. the location where the ball landed on the ground ) could be uniquely calculated. After accounting for synchronization error and radial distortion of the lens, they concluded that the ball did not cross the goal line by at least 6 cms.
Another study by Dr. Duncan Gillies of Imperial College London apparently came to the same conclusion."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was widely accepted nowadays it didn't cross the line. Although they'd have won anyhow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha! So you admit the FA bribed the officials!
posted on 1/12/22
Of course it crossed the line. The lines pan had a good view. So we won 4-2 instead of 4-3.
Football is a simple game.
Page 2 of 3