The Derby goal that wasn't

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Having the misfortune to watch Sly over the Christmas period, I was amazed at (initially) how un-biased Andy Gray was. Although his gtrue colours eventually came out after Phil Neville went. Initially he agreed but w/i 5 mins, it wasn't a red. Despite 2 late knee-high challenges.

 

What really fecked me off was the disallowed goal. They seemed to imply that if that had been given plus the one they scored, then it was 2-2. Despite the fact that everything in the game thereafter would have been different. But the best bit was their proving that the ball wasn't over the line.

 

They froze the replay just as the ball was struck for the cross & it 'looked' not to have crossed the line. The then went on & on about the linesman's position & how could he tell. He was maybe 2 yards from the goal line. They completely ignored the fact that their camera wasn't on the goal line either - it was probably 2 yards the other side of the line.

 

Now here's where physics comes in. The parallax effect. If you look at a watch (not a feckin digital one) from directly above the hands & it's say 12.05, it will look like 12.05. But if you move your head slightly it could look like 12.04 or 12.06. If Sly had moved their camera towards the goal line, that would have had the effect of moving the ball more out of play.

 

Now I don't know for certain whether it was over or not (I suspect it was). But Sly using flawed evidence to 'prove' it wasn't over was just sad.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Coming next week, how to disprove Intelligent design using the Gonzalez effect.

[Falconhoof]

we gave them a good hiding. They know it and we know it.

[Mike E]

Having the misfortune to watch Sly over the Christmas period, I was amazed at (initially) how un-biased Andy Gray was. Although his gtrue colours eventually came out after Phil Neville went. Initially he agreed but w/i 5 mins, it wasn't a red. Despite 2 late knee-high challenges.

 

What really fecked me off was the disallowed goal. They seemed to imply that if that had been given plus the one they scored, then it was 2-2. Despite the fact that everything in the game thereafter would have been different. But the best bit was their proving that the ball wasn't over the line.

 

They froze the replay just as the ball was struck for the cross & it 'looked' not to have crossed the line. The then went on & on about the linesman's position & how could he tell. He was maybe 2 yards from the goal line. They completely ignored the fact that their camera wasn't on the goal line either - it was probably 2 yards the other side of the line.

 

Now here's where physics comes in. The parallax effect. If you look at a watch (not a feckin digital one) from directly above the hands & it's say 12.05, it will look like 12.05. But if you move your head slightly it could look like 12.04 or 12.06. If Sly had moved their camera towards the goal line, that would have had the effect of moving the ball more out of play.

 

Now I don't know for certain whether it was over or not (I suspect it was). But Sly using flawed evidence to 'prove' it wasn't over was just sad.

 

Parallax error aint it. Light can't bend an all that.

 

Hell if Fergie was looking straight at an analogue watch the hands could point to 12.05 and the time read 7mins still to play.

 

if maureen was looking at the watch he'd claim that the hand never crossed the line and it was never 12.05

 

wenger just can't see the watch.

 

neither can Rafa. Montse has taken it.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Mike E

[fred]

Quite appart from the fact that Hyypiä and Reina visibly stopped playing when the whistle went...

[Guest Alpha]

Quite appart from the fact that Hyypiä and Reina visibly stopped playing when the whistle went...

That was the only thing that put me out.

 

Surely a disallowed goal is a goal that is flagged or blown AFTER the ball is in the net?

 

If the ref blows the whistle and half the players stop, putting the ball in the net anyway doesn't deserve being classed as a disallowed goal.

 

Not that it matters.

[fyds]

Parallax error aint it. Light can't bend an all that.

 

Hell if Fergie was looking straight at an analogue watch the hands could point to 12.05 and the time read 7mins still to play.

 

if maureen was looking at the watch he'd claim that the hand never crossed the line and it was never 12.05

 

wenger just can't see the watch.

 

neither can Rafa. Montse has taken it.

 

P.S. Light CAN Bend without refraction - it's bent all the time in space by gravity.

Edited January 11, 2006 by fyds

[WillG]

It wasn't a goal and as a result they're another point closer to The Fizzy Pop Championship

[gazza]

Parallax error aint it. Light can't bend an all that.

 

Hell if Fergie was looking straight at an analogue watch the hands could point to 12.05 and the time read 7mins still to play.

 

if maureen was looking at the watch he'd claim that the hand never crossed the line and it was never 12.05

 

wenger just can't see the watch.

 

neither can Rafa. Montse has taken it.

 

[Vlad JNR]

Another moment of infuriating Gray commentary from that game, for me, was when he was talking about Sissoko. Momo was caught in the plums (i think. he was rolling around for a while afterwards anyhow) and Gray says "For a player who is supposed to be the new Vieira, that is a very un-Vieira like thing to be doing"

Edited January 11, 2006 by Vlad JNR

[Jon]

just proves he never actually watched Vieira play, cos that mardi git used to roll around all the time whenever someone had the audacity to tackle him whether he was caught or not

[psl]

I thought this thread was going to be about the one that cannoned off Don Hutchison's back.