comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You typed your response after the pictures from above the ball were published in the thread.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not how the game works but batter on.
Ask Stewart Greacen, he'll tell you.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Looking from the above image, it appears that it didn't. At the end of the day, the Germans only have themselves to blame for being in that position going into the final game. A final game they made hard work of.
Spain are now in England's half of the draw, incidentally. France or England v Spain or Portugal in the quarters and semis looks pretty tasty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As ever, just assuming you get past Senegal
As ever, a Scotsman assuming someone is English for making assumptions about England.
comment by Genius of Nielsen (U9059)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuuush, he’s being testing out the wine since AM.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
As ever, a Scotsman assuming someone is English for making assumptions about England.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TRue
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 18 minutes ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I think the ball didn't cross the line but they(England) would have won anyhow.
Der Spiegel calling it the biggest football debacle in 84 years
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 18 minutes ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I think the ball didn't cross the line but they(England) would have won anyhow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they wooden
All 4 gols score bie England in 66 finale shuddabeen unallud ffs
Offside, free kick tooked b4 ref sed sow, ball not over line m score when a full scail riot by hooligans on fealed when play shuddabean stop
"I have seen a photo that must have been tampered with, it cannot be that this photo is real. It has to be manipulated," said Spain boss Luis Enrique.
"I felt that something fishy was going on when the VAR took as much time as it did to decide... I have nothing to say.
I trust FIFA will charge him for bringing the game into disrepute? Let's be clear he is not accusing the opposition of cheating but the authorities - the fan equivalent of a banner saying F**k FIFA, right?
comment by Igòr; League 1, you’ve being Warne-D 🐏🤍🖤 (U22200)
posted 9 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Genius of Nielsen (U9059)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuuush, he’s being testing out the wine since AM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last line is a Shanks quote I think.
The lines before are fact.
* Linesman
INteresting stat.
Japan became only the third team in World Cup history to be losing at half-time and come back to win two matches at the same tournament, after Brazil in 1938 and West Germany in 1970.
Bitter Spanish...
"I have seen a photo that must have been tampered with, it cannot be that this photo is real. It has to be manipulated," said Spain boss Luis Enrique.
"I felt that something fishy was going on when the VAR took as much time as it did to decide..."
He then said
" I have nothing to say " Yes you do, you just said it, you called it a fix you loser!.
The Spanish have UEFA in their pockets but not FIFA
Was the ball stationary when the photo was taken?
Of course it crossed the line ffs..........but well played Japan,
I'm glad they weren't in our group !
Who cares, it sent the Krauts out
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
Was the ball stationary when the photo was taken?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it wasn't. But as we discussed last night, all recording and measurement systems have an intrinsic error dependent on the equipment that we have accepted as accurate enough for the purposes.
FWIW, the tech boffins will be able to triangulate the precise (with the above proviso) position of the ball with respect to the line. Depending on the answer they may choose not to publicise it but, as with the 1966 footage, it will be possible for others to attempt it as well. Perhaps not with the same accuracy .
Sign in if you want to comment
Did the ball cross the line?
Page 3 of 3
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You typed your response after the pictures from above the ball were published in the thread.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not how the game works but batter on.
posted on 1/12/22
Ask Stewart Greacen, he'll tell you.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
posted on 1/12/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
Looking from the above image, it appears that it didn't. At the end of the day, the Germans only have themselves to blame for being in that position going into the final game. A final game they made hard work of.
Spain are now in England's half of the draw, incidentally. France or England v Spain or Portugal in the quarters and semis looks pretty tasty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As ever, just assuming you get past Senegal
posted on 1/12/22
As ever, a Scotsman assuming someone is English for making assumptions about England.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Genius of Nielsen (U9059)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuuush, he’s being testing out the wine since AM.
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
As ever, a Scotsman assuming someone is English for making assumptions about England.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TRue
posted on 1/12/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 18 minutes ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I think the ball didn't cross the line but they(England) would have won anyhow.
posted on 1/12/22
Der Spiegel calling it the biggest football debacle in 84 years
posted on 1/12/22
posted on 1/12/22
No
posted on 2/12/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 18 minutes ago
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!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I think the ball didn't cross the line but they(England) would have won anyhow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they wooden
All 4 gols score bie England in 66 finale shuddabeen unallud ffs
Offside, free kick tooked b4 ref sed sow, ball not over line m score when a full scail riot by hooligans on fealed when play shuddabean stop
posted on 2/12/22
"I have seen a photo that must have been tampered with, it cannot be that this photo is real. It has to be manipulated," said Spain boss Luis Enrique.
"I felt that something fishy was going on when the VAR took as much time as it did to decide... I have nothing to say.
I trust FIFA will charge him for bringing the game into disrepute? Let's be clear he is not accusing the opposition of cheating but the authorities - the fan equivalent of a banner saying F**k FIFA, right?
posted on 2/12/22
comment by Igòr; League 1, you’ve being Warne-D 🐏🤍🖤 (U22200)
posted 9 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by Genius of Nielsen (U9059)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What and how?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuuush, he’s being testing out the wine since AM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last line is a Shanks quote I think.
The lines before are fact.
* Linesman
posted on 2/12/22
INteresting stat.
Japan became only the third team in World Cup history to be losing at half-time and come back to win two matches at the same tournament, after Brazil in 1938 and West Germany in 1970.
posted on 2/12/22
Bitter Spanish...
"I have seen a photo that must have been tampered with, it cannot be that this photo is real. It has to be manipulated," said Spain boss Luis Enrique.
"I felt that something fishy was going on when the VAR took as much time as it did to decide..."
He then said
" I have nothing to say " Yes you do, you just said it, you called it a fix you loser!.
posted on 2/12/22
The Spanish have UEFA in their pockets but not FIFA
posted on 2/12/22
Was the ball stationary when the photo was taken?
posted on 2/12/22
Of course it crossed the line ffs..........but well played Japan,
I'm glad they weren't in our group !
posted on 2/12/22
Who cares, it sent the Krauts out
posted on 2/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
Was the ball stationary when the photo was taken?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it wasn't. But as we discussed last night, all recording and measurement systems have an intrinsic error dependent on the equipment that we have accepted as accurate enough for the purposes.
FWIW, the tech boffins will be able to triangulate the precise (with the above proviso) position of the ball with respect to the line. Depending on the answer they may choose not to publicise it but, as with the 1966 footage, it will be possible for others to attempt it as well. Perhaps not with the same accuracy .
Page 3 of 3