Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:53 pm  

You could make a great "spot the ball" competition from this attempted DG. If could be here, there, any f@@king where?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:59 pm  

Dally wrote:

You could make a great "spot the ball" competition from this attempted DG. If could be here, there, any f@@king where?

How would that be a great one? It would be the worst spot the ball comp in history.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:15 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I see the point you are trying to make, but unfortunately your perspective lines on your first image are hopelessly inaccurate, and as you base your case on them, your conclusions are fatally flawed.

Also you don't need to struggle with the difficulties of perspective from that camera, when the direct shot shows you that the ball set off inside the post and stayed on that line, eliminating the need for perspective drawings. Simply put, the ball could not have kept to a very clear inside line as we all saw it do AND gone outside that line.

Exactly!

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:20 pm  

Fully wrote:

The ball didn't stay on that line. It swerves to the left of the post (i.e. over the post/wide).

.

It doesn't. From the angle behind brough you see it curling in and being to the right of the 'fantastic' of the fantastic media sign, it's quite far inside the the left hand post when it hits the stand

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:54 pm  

It curls out. It's the angle of the footage that suggests otherwise.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:13 pm  

Just had another look at it tonight. IMO I think that if the posts were higher it would've hit it. Then it's a guess as to would it bounce out or bounce through.

No one (and I mean no one) truly honestly knows if it was a correct or wrong decision. But their's enough there to say it's an acceptable decision not to give it,

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:09 am  

I know it was a wrong decision and here's the proof.

1. Here is a composite view, made from a series of shots from the camera behind the posts. As the ball went way over the posts, I have added a green extended post.

I do not think there is any doubt, at all, that the ball is at all times within the posts, it doesn't deviate, it doesn't swerve away from the posts, it is a drop goal.



I should add that the camera is very slightly to the left of the ball's trajectory. The ball travels in a parabola. This means that viewed from the camera, it will appear to travel in a very tight parabola from left to right, which explains the very slight impression of a "drift" to the left - but that is an optical artefact, and not an actual drift.

2. With regard to the footage from the other direction, I have frozen and enlarged the moment where the ball hit the glass on the boxes behind the post, just underneath the sign that says "FANTASTIC MEDIA STAND".

The green arrow in the zoomed in section shows the ball hitting the glass.



The green arrow on the lower image is the shot posted a couple of pages back. The ball is not on this shot, (because the BBC cut the shot before the ball landed) but the green arrow points to the spot the ball struck, as evidenced by the previous image.

The ball did not drift to the left. It actually landed almost centrally behind the posts, the blue section of seats where it lands is 16 seats wide, and the ball landed in the 10th seat as viewed from L to R on the image. Here is an image of the ball landing, with a very enlarged spot showing teh position of the ball, indicated by the arrows I have added.



Whilst this may look blurry, if you view the footage (which is on iPlayer) you will be in no doubt at all that that is the ball.

I rest my case.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:26 am  

That first picture with the extended green posts.....how do you know the ball has reached the goal line? Is that final ball shown 2m before the posts, level, 2m past it?

You don't honestly know.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:32 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I rest my case.

Is that all your own work?

Just to check, the composite picture is of the ball rising and falling, yes? If it was just rising then it could have been heading wide. But if it is including the rise and fall of the ball that pretty much proves it,

If that is an accurate portrayal of where the ball landed, it is an even clearer example of it being a very wrong decision.

Just to check, was the ball visible at all times, or is there a posibility that the ball hit the roof and that caused it bounce back to the middle even though it was wide? I know that stand is the stand with the highest roof, it's the cinema end of the stadium so I doubt it hit the roof but you need to check these things.

If the ball didn't hit the roof and did actually land on the glass there it's pretty much cast iron proof the referee screwed up.

Top work.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:42 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Is that all your own work?

Just to check, the composite picture is of the ball rising and falling, yes? If it was just rising then it could have been heading wide. But if it is including the rise and fall of the ball that pretty much proves it,

If that is an accurate portrayal of where the ball landed, it is an even clearer example of it being a very wrong decision.

Just to check, was the ball visible at all times, or is there a posibility that the ball hit the roof and that caused it bounce back to the middle even though it was wide? I know that stand is the stand with the highest roof, it's the cinema end of the stadium so I doubt it hit the roof but you need to check these things.

If the ball didn't hit the roof and did actually land on the glass there it's pretty much cast iron proof the referee screwed up.

Top work.

Sadly all my own work.

The ball is rising all the time.

The ball was visible at all relevant times and there is no doubt at all where it hit.

BTW you can actually see the cameraman in the image behind the posts, and if you watch the iPlayer recording, and see how close to the camera the ball gets, and then cross-reference that image in your mind to where I have shown the ball hit the glass, both are also consistent.