AllWhitebeliever
29 Aug 2006, 05:17 AM
"Best goal NEVER scored" ?? Funny title. Zuras' example from the 1966 WC final from his viewpoint is actually "Scored goal that wasn't a goal" not "Best goal never scored"
Anyway. Backspins are possible to make the ball bounce opposite to the original direction. Let me explain to you Zuras, to save you further embarassment. It's not magic but a bit of physic should help you.
Physic of the round ball allow this to be, plus the fact that the crossbar is also adds to this.
There are two forces applied to the ball being kicked. The first force is the direction of the ball. The second force is the torque force causing the ball to spin. That is why it is possible to get the curving and moving in air. It is a result of the combination of direct force and torque force and the degree to which each force is applied.
When the ball is kicked and connects with the crossbar. A couple of things happens, the top side of the ball strikes the underside of the crossbar produce an equal and opposite reaction and directs the force of the ball downwards to the ground because it is equal and opposite to the underside of the crossbar.
If the ball flat on the crossbar underside it should bounce down into the goal and also in an equal angle in which the ball came from like a wall facing downwards. But that is when the ball hits flat on the underside which is quite possible. The ball strikes a crossbar and the ball momentarily becomes a bit flatter and also mounds around the bar for brief moment and then leaves in a slighty different angle. In doing so, the ball's elastic properties and the crossbar thickness in relative to the ball size, means that the again two forces are in play again. The direct force intitally propels the ball downwards to the ground (faster than gravity force assistance) with a torques force on the ball as well.
If the ball strucks the crossbar a bit further in, then it is not just the top side of the ball that mounds to the bar but some of the topside and some of the backside of the ball. As the ball strucks part of the crossbar and some of the netting (that does nothing significant but to force the ball downwards) a greater torque is added to the ball and usually the harder the ball is kicked with direct force, the more that the equal and opposite force is applied. Since it has come off some of the backside of the ball, it propeals the ball inside the goal over the goal line.
The more interesting part is that the energy applied to the orginal direct force from the kick is transfered into the torque force applied to the ball by the crossbar causing greater torque/spin applied to the backside of the ball. This causes the backspin.
As the backspin of the ball is forced downwards by the direct force off the crossbar. If it has very little backspin then it would be bounce in the goal ground reasonably naturally, but the more torque on the ball to such that the torque force is greater than the direct force, it starts to pop up as a counterforce.
And with signficantly greater torque to the round ball, it starts to act different. The ball contacts the goal area ground, and since the ball has struck the backside of the ball, the direct force propeals the ball into the ground but because brief time of contact of the ball, flats the ball shape and redistibute the energy force again by converting the direct force into torque force furthermore causing the backspin to be applied more.
The ground contact point of the ball is the equal and opposite reaction occurs but since the backspin is moving at such a fast rate that the contact point has moved from the begining of the time of contact to the end of the time of contact. With the contract point is moved by a backspin, the new contact point is on the frontface of the ball and since equal and opposite reaction rule applies still, it is the last action of the ball's contact with the ground that is relevent and so the ground acts to propeal the ball away from the goal.
Thus creating the ball to bounce seemly opposite to the orginal direct force in a backspin because the amount force transfer from direct to torque and the change of the contact point on the ball of which the direct force applies the equal and opposite reaction rule.
Therefore it explains the backspin effect of the round ball that crosses the goal line but bounces away from the goal rather than bounces in. Goals are called when it crosses the line and the best point to see it crosses the line is when it makes contact with the ground.
Conclusion: 100% possible.
BTW, I remembered Kelvin Keegan Goal for Liverpool in which he was flying sideaways in the air and right foot sidevolley a ball at headheight from 20 yards out off a cross then into the top right net. I think it was againest Coverty City or some yellow top team. No one could stop it. But the referee had called offside for some Liverpool player that was nowhere near the ball. I think that it when the offside rule changed so the any player not interferring with play are not offside until they decide to be involved with the play.
Anyway, I hope I explain the physics clearly enough. If there further disagreements about this, then just go and watch more incidents until you see a more obvious one that you see the ball clearly over the line. Zidene's tricky penalty goal at the recent World Cup is an very clear enough example that it was not debatable since it was very well in over the goal line.
-----> [b]Check the goal from the match on the FIFA World Cup website.[b]
Just a thought to keep this thread going....
Anyway it is really a good thread to start. It would be a shame to see it closed because of the trolling. I guess that since in some cases there is a fine line between whether or not it was a goal, it probaby best to roll with the punches and go with the official line whether or not we like to. But it is also a point not for others to bring up known conflicting goals but to bring more conclusive ones that both sides admit afterwards that it should have been.
Hey, some things start on the wrong foot. I would think this could be strictly moderated at this point.
:cool:
Hang loose guys.
Anyway. Backspins are possible to make the ball bounce opposite to the original direction. Let me explain to you Zuras, to save you further embarassment. It's not magic but a bit of physic should help you.
Physic of the round ball allow this to be, plus the fact that the crossbar is also adds to this.
There are two forces applied to the ball being kicked. The first force is the direction of the ball. The second force is the torque force causing the ball to spin. That is why it is possible to get the curving and moving in air. It is a result of the combination of direct force and torque force and the degree to which each force is applied.
When the ball is kicked and connects with the crossbar. A couple of things happens, the top side of the ball strikes the underside of the crossbar produce an equal and opposite reaction and directs the force of the ball downwards to the ground because it is equal and opposite to the underside of the crossbar.
If the ball flat on the crossbar underside it should bounce down into the goal and also in an equal angle in which the ball came from like a wall facing downwards. But that is when the ball hits flat on the underside which is quite possible. The ball strikes a crossbar and the ball momentarily becomes a bit flatter and also mounds around the bar for brief moment and then leaves in a slighty different angle. In doing so, the ball's elastic properties and the crossbar thickness in relative to the ball size, means that the again two forces are in play again. The direct force intitally propels the ball downwards to the ground (faster than gravity force assistance) with a torques force on the ball as well.
If the ball strucks the crossbar a bit further in, then it is not just the top side of the ball that mounds to the bar but some of the topside and some of the backside of the ball. As the ball strucks part of the crossbar and some of the netting (that does nothing significant but to force the ball downwards) a greater torque is added to the ball and usually the harder the ball is kicked with direct force, the more that the equal and opposite force is applied. Since it has come off some of the backside of the ball, it propeals the ball inside the goal over the goal line.
The more interesting part is that the energy applied to the orginal direct force from the kick is transfered into the torque force applied to the ball by the crossbar causing greater torque/spin applied to the backside of the ball. This causes the backspin.
As the backspin of the ball is forced downwards by the direct force off the crossbar. If it has very little backspin then it would be bounce in the goal ground reasonably naturally, but the more torque on the ball to such that the torque force is greater than the direct force, it starts to pop up as a counterforce.
And with signficantly greater torque to the round ball, it starts to act different. The ball contacts the goal area ground, and since the ball has struck the backside of the ball, the direct force propeals the ball into the ground but because brief time of contact of the ball, flats the ball shape and redistibute the energy force again by converting the direct force into torque force furthermore causing the backspin to be applied more.
The ground contact point of the ball is the equal and opposite reaction occurs but since the backspin is moving at such a fast rate that the contact point has moved from the begining of the time of contact to the end of the time of contact. With the contract point is moved by a backspin, the new contact point is on the frontface of the ball and since equal and opposite reaction rule applies still, it is the last action of the ball's contact with the ground that is relevent and so the ground acts to propeal the ball away from the goal.
Thus creating the ball to bounce seemly opposite to the orginal direct force in a backspin because the amount force transfer from direct to torque and the change of the contact point on the ball of which the direct force applies the equal and opposite reaction rule.
Therefore it explains the backspin effect of the round ball that crosses the goal line but bounces away from the goal rather than bounces in. Goals are called when it crosses the line and the best point to see it crosses the line is when it makes contact with the ground.
Conclusion: 100% possible.
BTW, I remembered Kelvin Keegan Goal for Liverpool in which he was flying sideaways in the air and right foot sidevolley a ball at headheight from 20 yards out off a cross then into the top right net. I think it was againest Coverty City or some yellow top team. No one could stop it. But the referee had called offside for some Liverpool player that was nowhere near the ball. I think that it when the offside rule changed so the any player not interferring with play are not offside until they decide to be involved with the play.
Anyway, I hope I explain the physics clearly enough. If there further disagreements about this, then just go and watch more incidents until you see a more obvious one that you see the ball clearly over the line. Zidene's tricky penalty goal at the recent World Cup is an very clear enough example that it was not debatable since it was very well in over the goal line.
-----> [b]Check the goal from the match on the FIFA World Cup website.[b]
Just a thought to keep this thread going....
Anyway it is really a good thread to start. It would be a shame to see it closed because of the trolling. I guess that since in some cases there is a fine line between whether or not it was a goal, it probaby best to roll with the punches and go with the official line whether or not we like to. But it is also a point not for others to bring up known conflicting goals but to bring more conclusive ones that both sides admit afterwards that it should have been.
Hey, some things start on the wrong foot. I would think this could be strictly moderated at this point.
:cool:
Hang loose guys.