Heam44
Well-known member
Fair play mate, apologies for the wasting time comment. Although it was mostly aimed at Zorro’s - if it was 50/50, most Boro fans would say it was a goal comment. Just found that comment especially baffling.
For those who can’t see the double touch..
- Thread starter Heam44
- Start date
Fair play mate, apologies for the wasting time comment. Although it was mostly aimed at Zorro’s - if it was 50/50, most Boro fans would say it was a goal comment. Just found that comment especially baffling.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Like I said, I think you are a very good poster, we are all allowed to be emotional on a Boro forum.
McBrid
Well-known member
Yeah. That’s what I was saying, there was no one more disappointed than me at the decision. I threw my phone half away accross the room in frustration and started screaming and shouting saying typical mr Harrington and all this **** and it’s only when I have seen it back I think he’s got it right. I am certainly not happy it got given but I do think it’s correct. Let’s just beat Derby and it will be forgotten.
Heam44
Well-known member
McBrid
Well-known member
the_holgate_roof
Well-known member
So if not 100%, then the benefit has to go to the penalty taker surely???
McBrid
Well-known member
To be honest mate I have had enough of the whole thing now. I think he touched it twice now from the angles I have seen and the way the ball moves. The referee clearly did aswell and he obviously had a great view and would of heard the noise on the 2nd touch . Warnock never complained I think this says it all.
we all need to move on and focus on beating Derby now
the_holgate_roof
Well-known member
The problem is though, fine margins, season defining moments, agree we need to move on but it could be a debating point in many months time.....hopefully not.
McBrid
Well-known member
Well if it is I Will look back at it with regret more than anger. I’m more annoyed with Hayden Coulson.
Scrote
Well-known member
Both of those statements are subjective (in terms of the incident). They are a long way from the double touch being clearly visible.
Even Zorro with his 50/50 comment isn't saying we should disregard the evidence. However, the evidence isn't convincing and certainly isn't anywhere near clear enough to accept that the ref couldn't have given the benefit of the doubt.
It shouldn't be difficult to prove something that is as clear as you've making out.
I try to be objective in all this stuff (I've spent hours freeze framing and screen-shotting VAR discrepancies 'cos I hate it with a passion but I'm happy to admit it does get some things right) but in this case I genuinely can't see any movement (and if I could I'd happily spend some time with freeze-frames and arrows).
It may have happened. It isn't provable from the footage we've seen.
theredrooster
Well-known member
Scrote, I agree with everything you've written but I also agree with other posters in that it's gone now and we need to focus on tw@tting Derby County into the middle of next week and in the process making Wayne Rooney look even more confused than he usually does.
McBrid
Well-known member
Hope to see a lot of confused note passing on Wednesday
Last edited:
dan_ashcroft
Well-known member
dan_ashcroft
Well-known member
McBrid
Well-known member
Yeah
coluka
Well-known member
This is one of the most pointless debates really as it is irrelevant. The ref THOUGHT he saw a double touch like some Boro fans did and some didn’t. The ref made a judgement call on his run up, the slip, where he thought the ball was going and where it ended up (imho). In other words he guessed as he has no way of being 100% certain. He may be right, he may be wrong. There is no way VAR clears this up. The fairest solution is a rule change and retake.
My view is a one touch as I think his foot clips his standing leg not the ball and its just spin caused by momentum angle and force coupled with boot that sends it in the middle. I am not 100% though and accept I could be wrong. We can’t agree or prove anything whatever the camp. So now if the ref was so focused on Tavs kick 100%, who was watching for encroachment and who was watching their keeper move off his line. The least likely outcome for a refs focus is a double hit, so why was the ref so focused on the taker
My best guess is he made an educated guess in a genuine attempt to be correct, a sort of balance of probabilities as no way in real time could he be absolute. Maybe we need a microphone in the ball as a snickometer and ball tracking and if all else fails get Trump on board to argue our case, we are all red and white after all.
My view is a one touch as I think his foot clips his standing leg not the ball and its just spin caused by momentum angle and force coupled with boot that sends it in the middle. I am not 100% though and accept I could be wrong. We can’t agree or prove anything whatever the camp. So now if the ref was so focused on Tavs kick 100%, who was watching for encroachment and who was watching their keeper move off his line. The least likely outcome for a refs focus is a double hit, so why was the ref so focused on the taker
My best guess is he made an educated guess in a genuine attempt to be correct, a sort of balance of probabilities as no way in real time could he be absolute. Maybe we need a microphone in the ball as a snickometer and ball tracking and if all else fails get Trump on board to argue our case, we are all red and white after all.
uncle_rico
Well-known member
Still don't know how anyone can say for sure from the evidence available. I however, don't think he did touch it twice, which is my subjective opinion.
There's nothing we can do about it now though, so hopefully NW and the players have forgotten about it and are now focussed on beating Derby.
dan_ashcroft
Well-known member
I may be wrong here, but I think the ref said that the linesman called the double touch. You can see Tav looking across after the slip.
With regards to the video clips, I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way and the slow motion shows the lack of frames available to analyse. I can see cases for both viewpoints. There is a wicked spin on that ball.
With regards to the video clips, I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way and the slow motion shows the lack of frames available to analyse. I can see cases for both viewpoints. There is a wicked spin on that ball.
Last edited:
uncle_rico
Well-known member
Yeah he did, which makes it even more bizarre.
As bad as the referee was, if it was him making the decision then I'd think fair enough, but the fact that he didn't see it says everything for me.
Heam44
Well-known member
Have you seen the post match analysis from the EFL highlights on quest?