France vs Honduras 20:00 RTE2/BBC1

Diabhal Beag

Although he killed 50,000 Irish people by handling that ball that time, it's good to see Henry has eyes.

Turtyturd

Lineker still debating it.

Cienciano

CountyHurler wrote: »

Why is Ronnie Whelan so grumpy during this world cup?

NEver mind that, why does one of the most respected media organisations in the world insist on using Robbie fúcking Savage?

Dempsey

rob316 wrote: »

Glt is correct all the time. The same system has been used in tennis for years to see whether a smaller and faster ball was in or out. No one every says it was wrong. The technology was tested in full you look ridiculous suggesting it didn't work in this instance.

GoalControl is being used, not HawkEye

The blind faith with technology that requires regular calibration amuses me.

Nib

Jonathan Pearce and Martin Keown dissecting France's second goal.

Neeson

CountyHurler wrote: »

Why is Ronnie Whelan so grumpy during this world cup?

He always is. I think he has erectile dysfunction. He campaigned along with george hook a few years ago.

Cienciano

"I remember '62, the Battle of Santiago". Robbie Savage was born in 1974

efb

@paulsinha: Henry, Lineker , Savage. Snog, Gary , a void.

rob316

Dempsey wrote: »

GoalControl is being used, not HawkEye

The blind faith with technology that requires regular calibration amuses me.

Better than blind faith in humans. BBC have an angle that shows it clearly crossed the line either way.

transylman

There was a top down view of the second goal that made it look pretty iffy, but it was only show once.

Fifa conspiracy?

Pullerhair

Just saw slow motion from the side of the goal looking across the goal. The whole ball never crossed the line. The technology is either faulty or calibrated wrong.

Paul Tergat

Pullerhair wrote: »

Just saw slow motion from the side of the goal looking across the goal. The whole ball never crossed the line. The technology is either faulty or calibrated wrong.

Aye I'd say your eyesight is better than the technology there.

Ridiculous its even being quesstioned

Pullerhair

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Aye I'd say your eyesight is better than the technology there.

Ridiculous its even being quesstioned

Yea it is actually.

bad2dabone

It. Was. A. Goal.

Paul Tergat

Pullerhair wrote: »

Yea it is actually.

Errrr... sure

Pullerhair

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Errrr... sure

It was a strawman.

Kenjataimu

Pullerhair wrote: »

Just saw slow motion from the side of the goal looking across the goal. The whole ball never crossed the line. The technology is either faulty or calibrated wrong.

A link would be handy?

Pullerhair

Proco Jr. wrote: »

A link would be handy?

I'll email the BBC now and ask for a link.

Kenjataimu

Pullerhair wrote: »

I'll email the BBC now and ask for a link.

Can you get them to send it in GIF form as its easier to post on here.

Cheers

Adamocovic

Pullerhair wrote: »

I'll email the BBC now and ask for a link.

If you're talking about the one I saw it wasn't exactly level with the side as you could still see the back post and goal line, that is the one the BBC had, if you see it again if it was level both posts would have been lined up that is probably why some people think it didn't cross the line, I just about crossed the line but it still counts. People are just looking for a controversial story.

Hammer Archer

Pullerhair wrote: »

Just saw slow motion from the side of the goal looking across the goal. The whole ball never crossed the line. The technology is either faulty or calibrated wrong.

That view was from a slight angle and not in line with the posts meaning it only seemed like the ball wasn't over the line.
Look up parallax.

Pullerhair

Hammer Archer wrote: »

That view was from a slight angle and not in line with the posts meaning it only seemed like the ball wasn't over the line.
Look up parallax.

The view I saw was in line with the post so that you couldn't see the other post. There was no point in time where the whole ball could be seen.

Hammer Archer

Pullerhair wrote: »

The view I saw was in line with the post so that you couldn't see the other post. There was no point in time where the whole ball could be seen.

This was on the BBC? I watched the match and post match on BBC and the only view I saw that corresponds to what you're talking about is the one at a slight angle. This was the one that Lineker got animated about when it was shown in studio. The angle is extremely slight, but because the ball was only slightly over the line, it still makes it seem that all the ball isn't over the line.

rob316

Pullerhair wrote: »

The view I saw was in line with the post so that you couldn't see the other post. There was no point in time where the whole ball could be seen.

Exactly you couldn't see it which is why the sensors are there to confirm what we can't see. It might.of crossed by a mm it doesn't matter it crossed it.

murpho999

Latest goal line technology graphic is just in.

Kenjataimu

Found these

Adamocovic

Proco Jr. wrote: »

Found these

That was the view I and some other were talking about that caused confusion to people, but the line crossed (barely) the line.

Adamocovic

This is the reason GLT was brought in to clear up decisions that were difficult to decide whether or not it had crossed the line. Even with the technology people are going to have their minds set and refuse to change but at least the GLT gives us an answer from a technical standpoint. And for people complaining about calibration I would imagine they would have the technology calibrated seeing as this is the biggest sporting event in the world, and it was a close call which may be why people are doubting it.

Kirby

It was a goal. The ball was over the line. You can see it from the replays and the system worked.

There is no controversy here.

The_Kew_Tour

It was a goal.

But, if you want to put it in line with JFK, 9/11 and moon landings then go ahead;)

764dak

I wasn't impressed with France. The French probably would have only won by 1 goal or draw if it wasn't for Palacios silly challenge. Honduras should have used 3 central defenders and 2 wingbacks like the Netherlands, Costa Rica and Argentina instead of using a back 4. The game was Honduras' largest ever World Cup defeat.

greendom

France must be delighted they got out of there with no major injuries or suspensions. Very impressed with the movement and passing of the French team.

The Honduras display was shameful, and were lucky not to be down to 8 or 9 men.

Pogba should have gone too even though the provocation was intense.

pickarooney

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I love the replies <goes off to find that tweet>

They need to calibrate it with a better class of fool.

bren_mc

Pullerhair wrote: »

Just saw slow motion from the side of the goal looking across the goal. The whole ball never crossed the line. The technology is either faulty or calibrated wrong.

I'm guessing this is the angle that you're talking about. I've seen it on a few sites but unfortunately I can't find anywhere where they have the clip that it was taken from.

irelandrover

bren_mc wrote: »

I'm guessing this is the angle that you're talking about. I've seen it on a few sites but unfortunately I can't find anywhere where they have the clip that it was taken from.

The keepers glove is in the way to see clearly there

bren_mc

irelandrover wrote: »

The keepers glove is in the way to see clearly there

glove or no glove, i think if you could see the frames after this (or maybe before - wherever the ball is at its furthest point over the line), it would settle the argument.

greendom

Not sure why there is so much debate about this.

A It was a goal

B It had no impact on the game, it was won with or without it being awarded

C Much more attention should be given to the underhand tactics of Honduras. The constant fouling and attempts to cause damage was despicable and they got away with murder. Hopefully the next match the ref will be a lot tougher with them.

If he is I imagine we could see a record number of reds/yellows. I can't imagine Ecuador will lie supinely and allow them to foul constantly without giving back something in return.

764dak

greendom wrote: »

The constant fouling

Honduras' challenges were rough and bad but they only committed 1 more foul than France. People make it sound like they played like any of the teams in Germany vs Cameroon (2002) or Netherlands vs Portugal (2006).

Seaneh

They only committed 1 more foul than france because the ref chose to play advantage a lot during the game. They were lucky to end the game with 10 men, 3 or 4 of their players could have picked up yellows a lot easier than the ref gave them out.

greendom

764dak wrote: »

Honduras' challenges were rough and bad but they only committed 1 more foul than France. People make it sound like they played like any of the teams in Germany vs Cameroon (2002) or Netherlands vs Portugal (2006).

Equally as bad if not worse. It was a disgraceful performance. The French may have committed the same number of fouls but many of the Honduan ones were on another level.

764dak

greendom wrote: »

Equally as bad if not worse. It was a disgraceful performance. The French may have committed the same number of fouls but many of the Honduan ones were on another level.

I already said their fouls were bad but I was just referring to the number of them seem exaggerated.

On another note: can you imagine what Pele or Maradona went through back in their days?

Seaneh

764dak wrote: »

On another note: can you imagine what Pele or Maradona went through back in their days?

Irrelevant, the game has progressed, the rules have changed and players are (rightly) more protected now.

greendom

764dak wrote: »

I already said their fouls were bad but I was just referring to the number of them seem exaggerated.

On another note: can you imagine what Pele or Maradona went through back in their days?

Absolutely, thank God football has cleaned up its act since then.