For those who can’t see the double touch..

Heam44 said:
Have you seen the post match analysis from the EFL highlights on quest?
Click to expand...

You seem to be asking this question a lot, not sure why, as it clarifies nothing. We all see the same thing but our eyes, ears and brains interpret things differently. It happens in all walks of life, not just football. You may be right, you may be wrong, we will never know with 100% clarity. I would even doubt Tav is 100% certain himself. The refs decision is the only one that counts anyway, everything else is marmite.

Bring on the Rams. One thing for sure, our next penalty taker won’t need a bowel cleanse for a while on stepping forward.
 
coluka said:
You seem to be asking this question a lot, not sure why, as it clarifies nothing. We all see the same thing but our eyes, ears and brains interpret things differently. It happens in all walks of life, not just football. You may be right, you may be wrong, we will never know with 100% clarity. I would even doubt Tav is 100% certain himself. The refs decision is the only one that counts anyway, everything else is marmite.

Bring on the Rams. One thing for sure, our next penalty taker won’t need a bowel cleanse for a while on stepping forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have, because I feel the slow motion replay from directly behind Tav shows it clearly.

Have you seen watched it?
 
Heam44 said:
Yeah I have, because I feel the slow motion replay from directly behind Tav shows it clearly.

Have you seen watched it?
Click to expand...

😂
For the avoidance of doubt though, my first line in my previous post provides the answer for anyone still wondering
 
My conclusion is that it was a double touch. The broadcast footage does not provide conclusive evidence - it's too low a framerate. I can't see a double touch; it looks like a single touch to me.

The assistant ref watched the kick in real time, and had the benefit of being able to clearly hear the sound of the impact(s). He was in a far better position to make the call, and the fact that he did immediately suggests he was 100% positive that the ball hit the other leg. I think we need to trust his judgement.

The decision is not in the spirit of the rule really, is it? It is the rule however, and as Coluka says, a re-take would be fairer. He slipped!
 
coluka said:
😂
For the avoidance of doubt though, my first line in my previous post provides the answer for anyone still wondering
Click to expand...

The first line of your previous post?

The one which reads:

“You seem to be asking this question a lot, not sure why”

Of course I’m sure your referring to the part which states “as it clarifies nothing”, just so you know, that’s the 2nd line of your post, which may be due to me being on a phone as opposed to a PC anyway but I thought I’d provide a reply as cringe worthy as yours. Enough of that now.

I read the part where you stated “as it clarifies nothing” however I was unsure if that meant that you’d seen it and felt that it wasn’t clear enough or if you were echoing scrotes line of thinking who is talking about conclusive evidence and burdens of proof as if he wants me to obtain forensic evidence from Tavs right boot or something and therefore meant that no footage would provide conclusive proof.

But if you have seen the EFL highlights post match analysis on quest and still aren’t sure of the 2nd touch, that’s cool, I thought it showed it clearly but obviously some disagree.
 
Surely this 'two touch' rule was never intended for cases like this. It was meant to avoid something deliberately deceptive by the penalty taker (I would imagine). What would the referee have given if the keeper had just saved, or he's missed. Still a free kick?

Along with VAR, handballs, etc. the interpretation of the rules is taking the game we love in a terrible direction.
 
Estonboy said:
What would the referee have given if the keeper had just saved, or he's missed. Still a free kick?
Click to expand...
Fulham's missed penalty was also ruled a double touch. He skied it out of play, and a free kick was given. Not a goal kick.

As you say though, I doubt the rule was intended for cases such as this. It is a grey area however given that Tavernier possibly gained an advantage in that the ball looped the other way rather than the way the keeper dived. We do however allow non-intentional backpasses to be picked up, and again an unintended advantage is gained there.
 
dan_ashcroft said:
Fulham's missed penalty was also ruled a double touch. He skied it out of play, and a free kick was given. Not a goal kick.

As you say though, I doubt the rule was intended for cases such as this. It is a grey area however given that Tavernier possibly gained an advantage in that the ball looped the other way rather than the way the keeper dived. We do however allow non-intentional backpasses to be picked up, and again an unintended advantage is gained there.
Click to expand...
That was pretty clear though, as was Zenden's at Cardiff. I have yet to see any evidence that gives more than 50/50 whether Tav touched it twice or not. The referee didn't even know, yet a linesman who was further away did, apparently.
 
Odd that this super sense referee spotted a "double touch" that even with the benefit of slo mo replays is still inconclusive. I can clearly see the Zenden@Cardiff double touch but not this one, so don't give me the bias thing. BUT he failed to notice that two Norwich players were two paces inside the area as the ball was "double-touched" and Krull was at least a yard from his line both of which SHOULD have warranted a re-take as they happen BEFORE Tav kicks the ball. Also, to point out that the penalty is a punishment for a foul in the area and that surely any benefit of doubt should go to the team sinned against? To me, it was the action of a referee showing off. What a clever boy I am spotting that double touch. So wrapped up in observing the minutiae that he neglected the spirit of the game and failed to spot two clear infringements.

And with that I'm done.
 
Heam44 said:
The first line of your previous post?

The one which reads:

“You seem to be asking this question a lot, not sure why”

Of course I’m sure your referring to the part which states “as it clarifies nothing”, just so you know, that’s the 2nd line of your post, which may be due to me being on a phone as opposed to a PC anyway but I thought I’d provide a reply as cringe worthy as yours. Enough of that now.

I read the part where you stated “as it clarifies nothing” however I was unsure if that meant that you’d seen it and felt that it wasn’t clear enough or if you were echoing scrotes line of thinking who is talking about conclusive evidence and burdens of proof as if he wants me to obtain forensic evidence from Tavs right boot or something and therefore meant that no footage would provide conclusive proof.

But if you have seen the EFL highlights post match analysis on quest and still aren’t sure of the 2nd touch, that’s cool, I thought it showed it clearly but obviously some disagree.
Click to expand...

Of course I saw it, I would not have written “it clarifies nothing” if I hadn’t, how could I, it would be stupid otherwise? Your constant repetition on this question made me assume you were being humorous in reply, hence my emoji laughing face on my reply to you, clearly you were deadly serious though.

Anyway, you seem to realise exactly what I meant, going by your “cringeworthy” statement. My comment was meant for any reader and not just you alone, in case of further doubt and misunderstanding. Not sure why you were so sensitive about it, but if it offended, which seemingly it did, apologies, as it was certainly not meant to have. I have stated my belief but equally made it very clear I may be wrong as right. I have stated the evidence is not conclusive, just our own interpretation of it forms what we think we saw and can not see where the referee team were so sure in real time to favour Norwich.
 
coluka said:
Of course I saw it, I would not have written “it clarifies nothing” if I hadn’t, how could I, it would be stupid otherwise? Your constant repetition on this question made me assume you were being humorous in reply, hence my emoji laughing face on my reply to you, clearly you were deadly serious though.

Anyway, you seem to realise exactly what I meant, going by your “cringeworthy” statement. My comment was meant for any reader and not just you alone, in case of further doubt and misunderstanding. Not sure why you were so sensitive about it, but if it offended, which seemingly it did, apologies, as it was certainly not meant to have. I have stated my belief but equally made it very clear I may be wrong as right. I have stated the evidence is not conclusive, just our own interpretation of it forms what we think we saw and can not see where the referee team were so sure in real time to favour Norwich.
Click to expand...

Apologies Col, I misinterpreted your previous reply, I thought the emoji and “for the avoidance of doubt” stuff was because you felt that I had missed the part where you stated “it clarifies nothing”, as I said in my previous reply, I had read that and thought that it probably meant you’d seen it however I asked the question again (seriously) as I wasn’t sure if you meant that you hadn’t seen it but that it did not matter as no footage could provide conclusive evidence, as the issue had seemingly became much more important than it is with Scrote talking about ‘burdens of proof’ and frame by frame analysis etc.

In hindsight I wish I hadn’t created the thread, I created it because it was obvious that from reading the forum that the majority of posters felt that Tav had only touched it once, whereas I felt the sky footage from behind the goal clearly showed that it was two touches, and that if other posters viewed the footage they would agree and therefore not feel as if we were unjustly punished.

Having saw the slow motion replay of incident on the EFL highlights on quest (the angle from directly behind Tav) I felt that it was beyond any doubt that he touched it twice, due to the ball raising up slightly a millisecond after he strikes it as if it’s rolled over his right foot, and also swerving / spinning and heading centrally as opposed to the keepers left which is the direction I think the initial shot was aimed based on Tavs shape when striking the ball. Hence why I keep directing people to that footage.

Since then I’ve spent almost 2 days discussing it, been called a troll, and now I felt that I was being criticised for directing people to the EFL highlights. I’m half expecting a court summons from scrote to testify on behalf of the referee.
 
Heam44 said:
Have you seen the post match analysis from the EFL highlights on quest?
Click to expand...

Yes. And listened to the comments made. None of which proves anything. As I've already stated multiple times - if it's "clear" then a simple frame by frame would show it. The two slow-mos on this thread don't show a double touch.
 
Element of doubt - GOAL

It’s that simple.

The amount of people contacting me today (non Boro fans) saying how was that not a goal and you must be fuming

This includes Sunlun fans and a villa fan.

It was a joke of a decision.
 
Scrote said:
Yes. And listened to the comments made. None of which proves anything. As I've already stated multiple times - if it's "clear" then a simple frame by frame would show it. The two slow-mos on this thread don't show a double touch.
Click to expand...


The two slow mo’s on the this thread don’t have a clear enough picture. The picture is really poor.

I thought the EFL post match slow-mo proved it to be clear.

Obviously you disagree.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Element of doubt - GOAL

It’s that simple.

The amount of people contacting me today (non Boro fans) saying how was that not a goal and you must be fuming

This includes Sunlun fans and a villa fan.

It was a joke of a decision.
Click to expand...

I didn’t think there was an element of doubt though.

Thought it was clear and obvious (after viewing the replays).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top