You clearly didn't read the post. If you want an opinion to what it "probably" was then sure, probably a goal. But a picture from an angle is always misleading to a surprising degree, so it certainly isn't definite. To repeat, I've seen pictures that made it appear even more "definite" that a ball was over the line when it was actually not a goal. Frankly, looking at the two shots, I think the wider one is taken with to ball probably not over the line, while the blurrier shot is probably a goal. Again "probably" in both cases. As to the referee's apology, maybe the referee got his view of those shots wrong. Maybe he felt it was more "politic" to apologise than to not (especially as the worth of the apology on the scoreboard is actually zero and costs the referee virutally nothing in the eyes of those who matter - so I question what the "wishful thinkers" got out of it). J
What in the actual fu%& does that have to do with if the ball crossed the line or not? Do you know the amount of times one can apply that lack of logic to almost anything? Would you like me to give you a thousand examples of why that was a completely idiotic comment?
I read the post, I'm just dismissing it. What separates the 2 shots isn't resolution or angle. What separates the shots is something called time. You see, the shot in which his left foot is making contact with the ball is after the other shot in which his foot is still straight out. This isn't a big deal, the game ended in a draw and I believe in the end it probably won't matter. I just find it fascinating that some people here would like to deny reality when essentially every commentator and pundit that has spoke about it has agreed it was a goal. So when you say you've seen more deceptive images of balls that looked past the line but weren't actually, I'm calling that b.s and implying you are just saying that but don't have any actual examples.
Be my guest. I'll be satisfied with only five reasons. Won't change the fact that a 2-0 lead in injury time is more likely to produce three points than a 2-2. The reality is that the play happened so fast it was impossible for the ref's assistant, you or I to be absolute 100% certain that the ball had crossed the line. Still images from various angles can produce differing conclusions. The only way we would know for absolute certain whether the ball had or had not crossed the line is from an angle totally in line with the goal line, of which one has yet to be produced. Until then, there's is no "reality" other than the result finished 2-2. I realize that as a Portuguese you have a vested interest but wearing rose-colored glasses doesn't increase the focus of the angles we have seen.
Ha - I first thought this was directed at you, rather than by you. To be fair, most people are actually skating over the real issues because it is too boring and pointless. Anyway. To be 100% clear these are the arguments. 1) Was it a goal? Answer : No - and here's the proof (i was gonna screen shot this but it's not worth the effort) FIFA WCQL (Europe) Serbia 2-2 (0-2) Portugal. 2) Did it cross the line? Answer: Somewhere between quite probably to almost certainly. Given the blurrier screen shot I would be quite surprised if it didn't - but I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. 3) Should the referee have given it? Answer: I don't see how he could. He seemed to be in the correct position for a referee which would mean the defender was sliding along the ground in between him and the ball, so there is no possible way he could have seen both the ball and the line - so I don't see how he could have been convinced that the ball had crossed the line. In fact, he more of the ball he could see, the less definitive the screen shots are that it was a goal. The AR was also in a reasonable position given that they would have been rushing back towards the goal line and would very likely have had the goalpost in the way of their view. Even ignoring those issues for the officials, assume you are right and the ball was over by about 10cm. It would have travelled "over the line" for around 30cm (assuming a roughly 45 degree angle of entry/exit) and if it were going about 20km/h (a very conservative estimate given how fast it can go when kicked) it would only have been "a goal" for about 1/20th of a second. How any human could be sure that they saw a goal given that length of time is pretty questionable. 4) Who is to blame? Whoever decided not to use the technology that helps decide such incredibly close calls (and that scumbag "fate", obviously) but not the match officials. Just like the John Terry v Ukraine example from whenever or some goal between England and West Germany that I hear rumours about, I would love to know what Goal Line Technology(TM) would have said had it been available. J
I don't blame the referee, he's a human being and like you said, with the play being as fast as it is and without being certain he made a mistake that most everyone probably would have made. I'm simply saying that with the images available it's pretty obvious it crossed the line. A optical illusion can only go so far, and it was far enough over the line where there really isn't, or shouldn't be any debate. 17 - 0, 2-2, Portugal vs Serbia or France vs Macau, none of that matters. It was a goal, so the bias is more likely in denying it rather than just saying it was a goal.
Your right....fu&k the pundits, fu$k the commentators, fu%k the Portuguese supporters here and lastly fu&k the photo evidence.
The ball was rolling in it was not going in at 30 miles and hour. It was so over the line there would of been day light between post and ball linesman would of seen it unless he had his eyes closed or he was on is mobile phone
It has pretty much everything to do with it. If the incident only meant 2-nil instead of 3-nil, then only Ronaldo would still be crying about it two days later. But since Portugal blew a 2-goal lead it makes it a much more important call and that's why we are discussing it. That said, two days is probably more than enough whinging. I didn't see multiple threads on BigSoccer being derailed by the Dutch when a similar incident happened in their match against Turkey.
There's a lot to gain. First, there's stability, unless fans like the tournament changing formats and shifting intermittently between two, three, or four years. Say what you will about the Gold Cup, but even Concacaf hasn't managed that level of disorganization. Secondly, it's hypocritical to say that adding teams lessens the quality when Conmebol has added Asian teams for the last two tournaments. Obviously this wasn't a sporting decision but a financial one. And Conmebol actually wanted to add six teams but couldn't even finding willing participants. So who's propping up who? Adding Concacaf teams would bring in more viewers and add more legitimacy to the tournament than adding Asian teams. Third, you're vastly overstating the quality or prestige of the tournament when someone like Neymar decides on the Olympics over the Copa. Would a top player in Europe choose the Olympics over a UEFA Euro? Obviously the best players want to play in the biggest tournaments, and the top S. American players know they deserve better than playing on a very limited regional stage.
I thought we were discussing whether or not the ball crossed the line, not the importance of the goal? Sorry, I guess I have to learn to read between the lines.
Let's be honest. If Portugal were still leading 2-0 or even 2-1 and this same shot on goal took place, do you seriously believe you and the others who had a vested interest in that result would still be here discussing with such vigor this 'goal/no goal' controversy? You all wouldn't have cared: There may bee a few posts about it but it would have been swept under the rug since three points were achieved. Instead, the "reality" is that two points were dropped and this incident may have played a significant part in that.. Will this prevent Portugal from qualifying? It shouldn't. But if they're going into the final FIFA dates without having secured their ticket to Qatar this incident will be brought up. I wouldn't be surprised if it's continuously brought up from now until Portugal have qualified. And imagine the replies if Portugal somehow fail to qualify. So yes, the importance of the incident, for now, is playing a very key role on why people are still here discussing it.
You're right, it probably wouldn't even be discussed if it didn't cost Portugal the game. However, the only reason I posted anything here was because a couple of members said it was debatable. One even went as far as to say it was Portuguese bias. So my point was/is that when it's that obvious it requires bias to suggest it wasn't a goal, not the other way around. That's it.....moving on.
Romania 0-1 Germany Germany had a good performance. They had some nice quick passing through midfield. Romania started the game bravely but after conceding they switched to a more cautious approach. Germany had it fully under controle until the last five minutes when they allowed Romania two chances to equalize which they couldn't convert. It's early but Romania looks to me as the favourite for 2nd place in this group. Armenia 2-0 Iceland Iceland again with a very old line-up and not so many ideas upfront. Armenia was without Mikhitaryan, Iceland without Sigurdsson. Armenia sit back and waited for counters. Their two goals weren't even clear cut chances. They had a good day and worked very well as a team. Iceland needs to inject fresh blood into the squad as soon as possible. After Iceland's U21 got eliminated in the on-going EUROs they decided to send four players to the A squad for the upcoming Liechtenstein game. Bulgaria 0-2 Italy Bulgaria were improved compared to their poor showing against the Swiss. They fought hard but the gulf in class was very evident. Italy had one of their weaker performances under Mancini but it was still enough to seal the points. The 1st goal came from a penalty that was very harsh to say the least. In the last 10 minutes Locatelli curled the ball in to put the game to bed. Israel 1-1 Scotland These two teams know each other now like the back of their hand as they played each other very often over the last years. Israel had more of the game in the 1st half and took the lead with a nice long-range goal. Scotland fought back in the 2nd half to equalize after Israel had lost the ball in midfield. Looking at the game the draw was a very fair result. Ukraine 1-1 Finland This was not a particular entertaining game to watch. Finland were defensive and gave the ball away to Ukraine who weren't able to creat much of a threat for the large strechtes of the game. The absence of Tsygankov, Konoplyanka and Yarmolenko was felt as they lacked tempo and ideas to trouble Finland's defense. The goal from Ukraine did come from nothing. However it didn't last long as center back Mykolenko made a huge blunder that left him with no other option than causing a penalty. Pukki scored the penalty and Finland took away an away point. As expected Ukraine, Finland and Bosnia are taking points off each other which enables France to be for now on top of the group despite of a not so strong start to their campaign. Kosovo 0-3 Sweden Kosovo tried to play offensive football as they always do. They had some chances but finishing and decision making in the final third weren't good enough. Sweden took advantage of an error of Kosovo's goalkeeper. Having the lead they found even easier spaces to get through Kosovo's weak midfield. In the 2nd half Kosovo wasn't able to pose much of a threat. Sweden won comfortably in the end. Albania 0-2 England Albania with a spirited performance. They had a good chance to take the lead. England was nevertheless the dominating side. Kane found the back of the net with an header. England didn't allowed Albania any further chances and kept control over the game and scored eventually the 2nd after a mistake by Djimsiti. Georgia 1-2 Spain Georgia was surprisingly leading at halftime. Spain didn't look much better for much of the game compared to the 1st matchday. Georgia was a very tough opponent as they sit back and defended well but they were also pushing forward very quickly when they won the ball. Luis Enriques' selections are at least debatable. A guy like Pedro Porro whom I never heard of was the rightback. He was at fault for Georgia's 1st goal. A strike from Dani Olmo from outisde of the box in injury time brought Spain the very important win. Spain must turn it around. If they continue like this they'll have no chance in my opinion to top this group as I don't see Sweden dropping points easily.
If it was as obvious as you believe we wouldn't have needed still images for proof. This isn't anything like Lampard v Germany in 2010.
FWIW (@Nani_17 may have already mentioned this here), the ref has apologized to Portugal, so I think we can close the book on this matter.
And yet, it almost seems like less stink was made of that call than this one. Even though they were robbed in that single instance, the English generally acknowledged that they didn't deserve to advance. Applying context. Imagine that...
Were you around in 2010? The English press savaging FIFA over that missed goal forced their hand into introducing goal-line technology into international tournaments far earlier than they would've liked.