Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:38 pm  

As I said, I'm not getting involved in this. The actual debate on this matter left about 10 pages back, it's now just 2 sets digging their heels in refusing to give leeway to the other,

The yellow path fully posted doesn't look totally infeasible from my first look on the matter. Therefore it cannot immediately dismissed. That's all I'm saying.

Given brough is standing ~3metres to the left of the left hand post - and the ball supposedly hits the glass to just the left hand side of the middle ~2metres inside the left hand post - over a space of ~35metres - a travel path of inflexion, or an S bend travel path is credible and possible.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:40 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

As I said, I'm not getting involved in this.

The yellow path fully posted doesn't look totally infeasible from my first look on the matter. Therefore it cannot immediately dismissed. That's all I'm saying.

It doesnt look infeasible to me either. But there are a billion different paths which feasibly a ball could follow. It did only follow one and that wasnt it.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But the S shape we are looking at here which would be necessary wouldn’t be slight, it would be pretty pronounced.

It would be (from Brough’s POV)the ball drifting from left to right, then making a pretty sharp right to left, then taking another pretty sharp turn and a more pronounced drift left to right. This would have also needed to happen at exactly the right time so that the ball curved over the top of the post then back in again after the post.

No - it really wouldn't.

The ball goes up at a certain angle but drifts to a more upward/left trajectory but still moving slightly right taking it over the post.

It still moves right after the posts as it curves and comes back down, hence why it smashes into a window in the middle of the posts. This happens because it moves x distance -> whilst it moves x distance ^ forward.

Really isn't hard to understand.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:44 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It doesnt look infeasible to me either. But there are a billion different paths which feasibly a ball could follow. It did only follow one and that wasnt it.

That's not what my original point was - I have neither the technology nor the desire to add to the numerous photo evidence already on this thread - the path in question posted couldn't be dismissed for the reasons originally given - whether his, or yours or anyone else's plot points were correct I have no idea.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:46 pm  

Fully wrote:

No - it really wouldn't.

The ball goes up at a certain angle but drifts to a more upward/left trajectory but still moving slightly right taking it over the post.

It still moves right after the posts as it curves and comes back down, hence why it smashes into a window in the middle of the posts. This happens because it moves x distance -> whilst it moves x distance ^ forward.

Really isn't hard to understand.

Im sorry but a ball cannot take a left trajectory whilst still moving slightly right. Thats just nonsense.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:47 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

That's not what my original point was - I have neither the technology nor the desire to add to the numerous photo evidence already on this thread - the path in question posted couldn't be dismissed for the reasons originally given - whether his, or yours or anyone else's plot points were correct I have no idea.

You not knowing does not give credence to it. That way lies people believing in sky fairies.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You not knowing does not give credence to it. That way lies people believing in sky fairies.

I'm not saying it should.

People dismissing theories for incorrect reasons leads to fairies and monsters

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Ever helpful, here's a ground plan, I've drawn (very) approximate lines for glass boxes, dead ball line, and Brough's position but it does look as if the glass box is appreciably closer to the dead ball line than Brough's kicking position. Certainly it is not further back and I actually think Brough kicked from a little bit further back than I have sketched..

If the point where the ball struck the "Fantastic" was closer to the posts (not dead ball line) than Brough was when he kicked it, then I stick with what I saw at the time - it was clearly, without doubt a goal.

As to Bentham's positioning - why do people think it was perfect? From my experience looking up from so close it is the worst place to judge from. Should have gone to the VR. No excuse.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Im sorry but a ball cannot take a left trajectory whilst still moving slightly right. Thats just nonsense.

Sorry - let me make this simple with the aid of lines in a pee poor paint drawing.



Let's assume that the straight line is the route that Brough was aiming (the positioning is off but as an example it works).

The ball en-route drifts to the left carrying it over the top of the post. The ball is still moving in a right direction but has moved left.

Not hard to understand.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:05 pm  

Seems like we have a variant of Schrodinger's Cat here - it was both in and out simultaneously!