Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:44 am  

Except for the fact the ball hasn't reached the posts in the first image.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:49 am  

And the balls hits glass, bounces down off a chair and bounces to the left hand side of the posts so I don't know what your last photo is of.

EDIT: It lands next to the O of Foxybingo

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:53 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

That first picture with the extended green posts.....how do you know the ball has reached the goal line?

I don't.

Is that final ball shown 2m before the posts, level, 2m past it?

You don't honestly know.

The evidence is overwhelming

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:58 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't.

The evidence is overwhelming

You don't know, yet the evidence is overwhelming???

Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:02 am  

Fully wrote:

Except for the fact the ball hasn't reached the posts in the first image.

The point of the image is to clearly show that the ball's line was inside the post.

The point of the rest of the images was to clearly show the ball kept on that line and did not "drift left" from Brough's point of view.

Fully wrote:

And the balls hits glass, bounces down off a chair and bounces to the left hand side of the posts so I don't know what your last photo is of.

Maybe you can't read, then? As I explained it, the ball hit the glass and dropped down, the final image simply shows where it landed. I agree that where it may have bounced after it hit the seat would not be helpful. Which is why I didn't bother with that.
Anyway instead of making silly comebacks, now that I've explained it, the footage is there for anyone who wants to check my conclusions.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:04 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

You don't know, yet the evidence is overwhelming???

Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds?

I know how ridiculous you and your attempt to be clever sounds



Run along son, the grown-ups are trying to discuss something seriously.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:05 am  

If the ball is always rising then the first pic doesn't prove anything. As people are pointing out, you don't know when the ball is crossing the goal line so we could be seeing that ball still in front of the posts but heading wide.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:10 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The point of the image is to clearly show that the ball's line was inside the post.

It's inside the post because of the angle of the camera and because you assume that it has reached the line. The ball, as I've pointed out swerves back left (through speed or just the way it was kicked).

FWIW, here's my image of when I think it is over the post.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:14 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

BTW you can actually see the cameraman in the image behind the posts,

It might be a cameraman. But it also might be a man dressed in a Batman costume.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:20 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I know how ridiculous you and your attempt to be clever sounds



Run along son, the grown-ups are trying to discuss something seriously.

No, no attempt to sound clever. It's just there in black & white, you clearly said you didn't know then followed that up by saying the evidence is overwhelming.

How can evidence be overwhelming yet at the same time you don't know? Surely a grown up can explain properly to a key question, or will you resort to childish responses again?

You clearly contradicted yourself and aren't grown up to admit it.