Goal line technology needs a review! (France game)

Fair enough the technology indicated a goal and it was given. The problem was the simulation shown to the crowd showed the ball touching the line at the far post saying no goal which almost caused a riot then it pans down the line and shows the goal the other end!

Cmon boffins how hard can it be to simply show where the ball crosses the line ffs!

It worked perfectly fine.

The first part of the shot wasn't a goal & it showed that it was not a goal... The second part of the goal, where it came off the keeper, was & it showed that.

If anything it cleared any doubt up.

Fair enough the technology indicated a goal and it was given. The problem was the simulation shown to the crowd showed the ball touching the line at the far post saying no goal which almost caused a riot then it pans down the line and shows the goal the other end!

Cmon boffins how hard can it be to simply show where the ball crosses the line ffs!

No it didnt the "No Goal" was the first incident when Benzema struck post, the keeper then fumbled and it showed "Goal"

Worked fine

It worked perfectly fine.

The first part of the shot wasn't a goal & it showed that it was not a goal... The second part of the goal, where it came off the keeper, was & it showed that.

If anything it cleared any doubt up.

Totally agree, technology is fine, its the fans and pearce who are dull as f**k

Fair enough the technology indicated a goal and it was given. The problem was the simulation shown to the crowd showed the ball touching the line at the far post saying no goal which almost caused a riot then it pans down the line and shows the goal the other end!

Cmon boffins how hard can it be to simply show where the ball crosses the line ffs!

think you find technology worked as clearly ball went over the line in mid air so buzzer went for ref, but by using line as marker it showed different prospective to fans it was that close

It worked perfectly fine.

The first part of the shot wasn't a goal & it showed that it was not a goal... The second part of the goal, where it came off the keeper, was & it showed that.

If anything it cleared any doubt up.

totally agree, it showed where it wasnt a goal and then showed where it was, big fuss over nothing

It's this shit German system!


Hawkeye would have worked fine!

The ref blew for a goal immediately, its the dull fans and coach who dont have a clue

It worked perfectly fine.

The first part of the shot wasn't a goal & it showed that it was not a goal... The second part of the goal, where it came off the keeper, was & it showed that.

If anything it cleared any doubt up.

This

It's works perfectly fine it's just showing where the goal came from how hard can it be to understand

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

which i assume is the point the OP was making.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

I disagree

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

Correct as it established that it wasnt a Benzema goal but an OG by the keeper

Spot on Chuckles, also credits the goal to the rightful person.

I disagree

You've already said.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

Correct as it established that it wasnt a Benzema goal but an OG by the keeper

Spot on. This is exactly why both moments were shown.

Vorsprung Durch Technik.

Nothing wrong with it.

It's simple an if anybody couldn't understand what it showed then there a idiot.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

Correct as it established that it wasnt a Benzema goal but an OG by the keeper

Spot on. This is exactly why both moments were shown.

Maybe they should show all the other moments where it isn't a goal

All they need to show is when the ball actually crosses the line. It's pretty easy to work out then that it hadn't crossed the line earlier in the move rather than raising fans/players hopes by showing where it was "no goal" first.

Nothing wrong with it.

It's simple an if anybody couldn't understand what it showed then there a idiot.

like Jonathan Pierce

Maybe they should show all the other moments where it isn't a goal

All they need to show is when the ball actually crosses the line. It's pretty easy to work out then that it hadn't crossed the line earlier in the move rather than raising fans/players hopes by showing where it was "no goal" first.

Oh, you fell into the same trap that Jonathan Pearce fell into then?

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

actually nj is right idea of technology is to show goal or no goal, credit can be given later as the premiers jubious goal panel does, all it did tonight was cause confusion when no need to.
and dont say it didnt as clearly it showed 2 scenarios to the crowd which one was they to believe?? also ref looked confused or wouldnt have gone to 4th official to clarify situation

Last edited by pembroke allan on Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

idea of technology is to show goal or no goal,

Which it did, quite clearly, to those with any sort of intelligence.

idea of technology is to show goal or no goal,

Which it did, quite clearly, to those with any sort of intelligence.

baz dont edit my response put in full version please dont edit it to make you look right when you are not!

idea of technology is to show goal or no goal,

Which it did, quite clearly, to those with any sort of intelligence.

Easy for us at home who've had half a dozen replays anwyays.

But at the CCS if that exact situation happened at a goal on the other side of the stadium which you didn't have a very good view of originally then it would be well confusing.

There was absolutely no need for the part where it was "No Goal" to be shown in this instance.

I think there was. It cleared up which "moment" the goal was awarded for.

actually nj is right idea of technology is to show goal or no goal, credit can be given later as the premiers jubious goal panel does, all it did tonight was cause confusion when no need to.
and dont say it didnt as clearly it showed 2 scenarios to the crowd which one was they to believe?? also ref looked confused or wouldnt have gone to 4th official to clarify situation

baz this is what i said not edited version you quoted me from

It was all in the same move, therefore they were right to show everything

baz dont edit my response put in full version please dont edit it to make you look right when you are not!

Haven't edited anything, taken a quote from your original post. what a Wally.