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

zorro_mfc said:
So not at first sight then ??? So surely that implies it wasn’t clear straight away ergo doubt.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is?

Why would it need to be clear straight away? Why wouldn’t you watch a replay, ones that are in slow motion and from different angles?

Of course it wasn’t clear to me straight away, I was watching on a TV that had filmed it from 30 / 40 / 50 metres away.

Also, it may have been clear if I was stood a few metres away, as the officials were.
 
Heam44 said:
Not sure what your point is?

Why would it need to be clear straight away? Why wouldn’t you watch a replay, ones that are in slow motion and from different angles?

Of course it wasn’t clear to me straight away, I was watching on a TV that had filmed it from 30 / 40 / 50 metres away.

Also, it may have been clear if I was stood a few metres away, as the officials were.
Click to expand...

I think his point is the same point I made earlier, elsewhere on this thread, that if it is not clear at full speed, then how can the officials be sure with the naked eye even if fully focused on the strike. However, like I said earlier, there are 3 main potential areas of breach at a penalty.

1. Encroachment by others
2. Striker infringement, via say a double hit or similar
3. Goalkeeper movement off his line.

I would suggest that number 2 Is the least likely statistically to occur, so why would an official focus attention there in the first place and not on the other more likely breaches of rules? It seems an odd thing to do based on the likelihood of a rule breach as an official can only focus accurately on one of them and the penalty only had 2 officials watching on. Anyone know how far away the assistant ref was btw?

Anyway it is irrelevant what you, I, Zorro or anyone else think and ain't worth falling out or agitating over I guess, as the decision is in the past anyway. Let‘s just be sure to make the Rams pay by putting them to the slaughter on Wednesday.

C’MON BORO, let’s take it out on those sheep
 
coluka said:
I think his point is the same point I made earlier, elsewhere on this thread, that if it is not clear at full speed, then how can the officials be sure with the naked eye even if fully focused on the strike. However, like I said earlier, there are 3 main potential areas of breach at a penalty.

1. Encroachment by others
2. Striker infringement, via say a double hit or similar
3. Goalkeeper movement off his line.

I would suggest that number 2 Is the least likely statistically to occur, so why would an official focus attention there in the first place and not on the other more likely breaches of rules? It seems an odd thing to do based on the likelihood of a rule breach as an official can only focus accurately on one of them and the penalty only had 2 officials watching on. Anyone know how far away the assistant ref was btw?

Anyway it is irrelevant what you, I, Zorro or anyone else think and ain't worth falling out or agitating over I guess, as the decision is in the past anyway. Let‘s just be sure to make the Rams pay by putting them to the slaughter on Wednesday.

C’MON BORO, let’s take it out on those sheep
Click to expand...
That’s exactly it col the fact by your own words you say you needed to see it again in slo mo is exactly the point.
 
coluka said:
I think his point is the same point I made earlier, elsewhere on this thread, that if it is not clear at full speed, then how can the officials be sure with the naked eye even if fully focused on the strike. However, like I said earlier, there are 3 main potential areas of breach at a penalty.

1. Encroachment by others
2. Striker infringement, via say a double hit or similar
3. Goalkeeper movement off his line.

I would suggest that number 2 Is the least likely statistically to occur, so why would an official focus attention there in the first place and not on the other more likely breaches of rules? It seems an odd thing to do based on the likelihood of a rule breach as an official can only focus accurately on one of them and the penalty only had 2 officials watching on. Anyone know how far away the assistant ref was btw?

Anyway it is irrelevant what you, I, Zorro or anyone else think and ain't worth falling out or agitating over I guess, as the decision is in the past anyway. Let‘s just be sure to make the Rams pay by putting them to the slaughter on Wednesday.

C’MON BORO, let’s take it out on those sheep
Click to expand...

“how can the officials be sure with the naked eye even if fully focused on the strike.”

Well they obviously have the advantage of actually being there, as opposed to looking at a TV screen whereby the players are a few inches tall and the ball is the size of a penny.

“why would an official focus attention there in the first place and not on the other more likely breaches of rules?”

I don’t know that they did, they always have to look at multiple things, offside for example, the player passing the ball, the defender stepping up, the striker running through, god knows how they do it, but if they get it right (which they did as far as I’m concerned) I’m not really interested in how they have come to the decision.
 
zorro_mfc said:
That’s exactly it col the fact by your own words you say you needed to see it again in slo mo is exactly the point.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course I needed to see it again in slow mo, I’ve never once said it was clear that it took two touches the first time I saw it in live time etc (not that I watched it live).

Still not sure what your point is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top