Jump to content

World Cup - Qatar 2022


G.E.C.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Helicopter Sundae said:

The simplest way to understand this controversy is to think of the situation in tennis...Hawkeye shows a virtual image of the overhead view of exactly where the ball landed and if any part of the ball touches any part of the line, even if it is 99.9% outside of the line, IT IS IN.

There is a photo, taken in line with the goal line, which perfectly shows that a small amount of the ball was still in play.

Tennis is a poor comparison. As you say the ball is in if the ball touches the line but out if it doesn't. That's different to football which is where some people are getting their knickers in a twist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jamie0202 said:

Tennis is a poor comparison. As you say the ball is in if the ball touches the line but out if it doesn't. That's different to football which is where some people are getting their knickers in a twist. 

Helicopter Sundae's description of the ball needing to touch the like isn't true, but otherwise he's right, at least on the Hawkeye era. In tennis, as in football, if any of the ball overhangs the line in anyway, it's in, even if the part that touches the court is all the way over the line, because Hawkeye will show it as in. 

In the days before Hawkeye, when players and umpires used marks left by the ball, only the part that touches the court would decide whether it was in or not 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I stupid, or is it completely irrelevant whether the ball is going out of play when a foul in the box is committed against the attacker? It's a penalty if you foul a player who never had the ball in the first place, so why not one who has just lost possession? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JamieD said:

Am I stupid, or is it completely irrelevant whether the ball is going out of play when a foul in the box is committed against the attacker? It's a penalty if you foul a player who never had the ball in the first place, so why not one who has just lost possession? 

Appears to be a weird unwritten.

See it happen all the time where the striker gets his shot away but the defender or keeper then takes him out and nothing is given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JamieD said:

Am I stupid, or is it completely irrelevant whether the ball is going out of play when a foul in the box is committed against the attacker? It's a penalty if you foul a player who never had the ball in the first place, so why not one who has just lost possession? 

Yeah, this was what I was saying the other night in the Argentina game. If that was given as a penalty then the types of fouls you are talking about should also be penalties but they are not routinely given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 21 September 2024 16:30 Until 18:30
      0  
      Rangers v Dundee
      Ibrox Stadium
      Premier Sports Cup
×
×
  • Create New...