|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 7:59:35 GMT
I had very high hopes for 3 points from yesterday's match so I decided to go and watch it at Rabokk, my friend's bar and restaurant in Nadur, Gozo as we usually win when I go there.
We were a grand total of 3 Stokies watching the match on one of the 2 big screens whereas a more sizeable group of Manure followers were watching their match on the other big screen.
Peter, Rabokk's owner, a diehard Stokie, explained in graphic and very simple terms the sheer stupidity of this rule as all 3 of us felt we had unjustly been denied a goal.
He got a bottle if coke, put it at the edge of the bar and said that as soon as it is sufficiently far out to topple over, then that should be a goal.
And i am completely in agreement - if half the ballor more crosses the line, then it should be a goal
In yesterday's case 90% of the bottle had crossed the line
Applying Peter's analogy, the bottle would certainly have toppled and hence it should have been a goal
|
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 27, 2017 8:05:47 GMT
I had very high hopes for 3 points from yesterday's match so I decided to go and watch it at Rabokk, my friend's bar and restaurant in Nadur, Gozo as we usually win when I go there. We were a grand total of 3 Stokies watching the match on one of the 2 big screens whereas a more sizeable group of Manure followers were watching their match on the other big screen. Peter, Rabokk's owner, a diehard Stokie, explained in graphic and very simple terms the sheer stupidity of this rule as all 3 of us felt we had unjustly been denied a goal. He got a bottle if coke, put it at the edge of the bar and said that as soon as it is sufficiently far out to topple over, then that should be a goal. And i am completely in agreement - if half the ballor more crosses the line, then it should be a goal In yesterday's case 90% of the bottle had crossed the line Applying Peter's analogy, the bottle would certainly have toppled and hence it should have been a goal The goal line doesn't have a cliff edge. The ball could be 99% over the line and stay there . |
|
|
|
Post by eddy on Dec 27, 2017 8:09:19 GMT
I feel your pain mate, but the line has to be drawn somewhere doesn't it?
Why is half of the ball crossing the line any more valid a ruling than the whole ball?
If the rule was half of the ball over the line as you suggest, I am sure we would be just as frustrated when if a shot went 49% over the line and wasn't given, just like we are frustrated when its 98% at the moment.
It's the same rule for all teams pal
|
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:11:22 GMT
I had very high hopes for 3 points from yesterday's match so I decided to go and watch it at Rabokk, my friend's bar and restaurant in Nadur, Gozo as we usually win when I go there. We were a grand total of 3 Stokies watching the match on one of the 2 big screens whereas a more sizeable group of Manure followers were watching their match on the other big screen. Peter, Rabokk's owner, a diehard Stokie, explained in graphic and very simple terms the sheer stupidity of this rule as all 3 of us felt we had unjustly been denied a goal. He got a bottle if coke, put it at the edge of the bar and said that as soon as it is sufficiently far out to topple over, then that should be a goal. And i am completely in agreement - if half the ballor more crosses the line, then it should be a goal In yesterday's case 90% of the bottle had crossed the line Applying Peter's analogy, the bottle would certainly have toppled and hence it should have been a goal The goal line doesn't have a cliff edge. The ball could be 99% over the line and stay there . Technology can easily determine if 50%+ of the ball has gone over the line or not If it has, its a goal If it hasnt, its not That's fair and equitable If the whole ball bar a hair's width is over the line but its ruled not to be a goal because of that hair's width, does it feel fair or not ? Definitely not, in my opinion Surely this is not such a difficult concept to fathom is it ? |
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Dec 27, 2017 8:11:30 GMT
I had very high hopes for 3 points from yesterday's match so I decided to go and watch it at Rabokk, my friend's bar and restaurant in Nadur, Gozo as we usually win when I go there. We were a grand total of 3 Stokies watching the match on one of the 2 big screens whereas a more sizeable group of Manure followers were watching their match on the other big screen. Peter, Rabokk's owner, a diehard Stokie, explained in graphic and very simple terms the sheer stupidity of this rule as all 3 of us felt we had unjustly been denied a goal. He got a bottle if coke, put it at the edge of the bar and said that as soon as it is sufficiently far out to topple over, then that should be a goal. And i am completely in agreement - if half the ballor more crosses the line, then it should be a goal In yesterday's case 90% of the bottle had crossed the line Applying Peter's analogy, the bottle would certainly have toppled and hence it should have been a goal The goal line doesn't have a cliff edge. The ball could be 99% over the line and stay there . If Huddersfield had made the attempt, the verdict would have been right.Some strange people, playing football with coke bottles.The rules are the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:13:49 GMT
I feel your pain mate, but the line has to be drawn somewhere doesn't it? Why is half of the ball crossing the line any more valid a ruling than the whole ball? If the rule was half of the ball over the line as you suggest, I am sure we would be just as frustrated when if a shot went 49% over the line and wasn't given, just like we are frustrated when its 98% at the moment. It's the same rule for all teams pal If 49% of the ball is over the line and no goal is the decision, I'd be frustrated but would not feel hard done by If 99% of the ball is over the line and no goal is given, I'd feel both and to the nth degree |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 27, 2017 8:14:16 GMT
The goal line doesn't have a cliff edge. The ball could be 99% over the line and stay there . Technology can easily determine if 50%+ of the ball has gone over the line or not If it has, its a goal If it hasnt, its not That's fair and equitable If the whole ball bar a hair's width is over the line but its ruled not to be a goal because of that hair's width, does it feel fair or not ? Definitely not, in my opinion Surely this is not such a difficult concept to fathom is it ? My point here is that your friends analogy is invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:15:30 GMT
Technology can easily determine if 50%+ of the ball has gone over the line or not If it has, its a goal If it hasnt, its not That's fair and equitable If the whole ball bar a hair's width is over the line but its ruled not to be a goal because of that hair's width, does it feel fair or not ? Definitely not, in my opinion Surely this is not such a difficult concept to fathom is it ? My point here is that your friends analogy is invalid. Then you don't understand what an analogy is, my friend |
|
|
|
Post by nutterpotter on Dec 27, 2017 8:17:49 GMT
The goal line doesn't have a cliff edge. The ball could be 99% over the line and stay there . Technology can easily determine if 50%+ of the ball has gone over the line or not If it has, its a goal If it hasnt, its not That's fair and equitable If the whole ball bar a hair's width is over the line but its ruled not to be a goal because of that hair's width, does it feel fair or not ? Definitely not, in my opinion Surely this is not such a difficult concept to fathom is it ? Then you will have to change the rules for the sidelines too. How is the ref/linesman meant to know if more than 50% of the ball is over the sideline and whether a throw-in should be awarded or not? Makes it so much harder for them. The rule is clear and there's no need to change it. |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 27, 2017 8:19:31 GMT
My point here is that your friends analogy is invalid. Then you don't understand what an analogy is, my friend lDont be stupid. The goal line has no cliff edge like the end of the bar has in the example you gave. My friend. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:29:13 GMT
Then you don't understand what an analogy is, my friend lDont be stupid. The goal line has no cliff edge like the end of the bar has in the example you gave. My friend. If the goal line had a cliff edge, then it wouldn't be an analogy, would it ? I never said that you were stupid, although now that you chose to mention it .... |
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 27, 2017 8:33:10 GMT
lDont be stupid. The goal line has no cliff edge like the end of the bar has in the example you gave. My friend. If the goal line had a cliff edge, then it wouldn't be an analogy, would it ? I never said that you were stupid, although now that you chose to mention it .... Well yeah it would be an analogy actually. A good one and now you mention it, YOU said the rule is stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:33:11 GMT
Technology can easily determine if 50%+ of the ball has gone over the line or not If it has, its a goal If it hasnt, its not That's fair and equitable If the whole ball bar a hair's width is over the line but its ruled not to be a goal because of that hair's width, does it feel fair or not ? Definitely not, in my opinion Surely this is not such a difficult concept to fathom is it ? Then you will have to change the rules for the sidelines too. How is the ref/linesman meant to know if more than 50% of the ball is over the sideline and whether a throw-in should be awarded or not? Makes it so much harder for them. The rule is clear and there's no need to change it. The side-lines do not carry the same weight and determining factor as the goal line Plus today how can the ref/linesman determine with his naked eye if a ball has gone out of play or not considering that even if a hair width's is not over the line, then the ball is still in play ? It would actually be EASIER for the refs and linesmen to detrrmine if the ball is substantially out than to determine if a haur's width is still in and therefore the ball is still in play !! |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Dec 27, 2017 8:37:54 GMT
Then you will have to change the rules for the sidelines too. How is the ref/linesman meant to know if more than 50% of the ball is over the sideline and whether a throw-in should be awarded or not? Makes it so much harder for them. The rule is clear and there's no need to change it. The side-lines do not carry the same weight and determining factor as the goal line Plus today how can the ref/linesman determine with his naked eye if a ball has gone out of play or not considering that even if a hair width's is not over the line, then the ball is still in play ? It would actually be EASIER for the refs and linesmen to detrrmine if the ball is substantially out than to determine if a haur's width is still in and therefore the ball is still in play !! Determining that ALL the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye is fucking hard to do. I'll tell you what's even harder though: working out if 51% or more of the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:41:34 GMT
The side-lines do not carry the same weight and determining factor as the goal line Plus today how can the ref/linesman determine with his naked eye if a ball has gone out of play or not considering that even if a hair width's is not over the line, then the ball is still in play ? It would actually be EASIER for the refs and linesmen to detrrmine if the ball is substantially out than to determine if a haur's width is still in and therefore the ball is still in play !! Determining that ALL the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye is fucking hard to do. I'll tell you what's even harder though: working out if 51% or more of the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye. I dont agree - its a decision the ref has to takr like whether a tackle is a foul or not In any case giving or denying a throw in is surely not as much of a game changer as allowing or disallowing a goal, is it ? |
|
|
|
Post by greystokie on Dec 27, 2017 8:43:56 GMT
It has to be that all the ball must cross the line for it to be a goal. Until that happens then some part of the ball is still in play.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutterpotter on Dec 27, 2017 8:43:57 GMT
Determining that ALL the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye is fucking hard to do. I'll tell you what's even harder though: working out if 51% or more of the ball has gone out, at speed, with the naked eye. I dont agree - its a decision the ref has to takr like whether a tackle is a foul or not In any case giving or denying a throw in is surely not as much of a game changer as allowing or disallowing a goal, is it ? How about determining if something is a corner then? You can't have one rule for the goalline and another for the sidelines etc. Need to have consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 8:44:51 GMT
I dont agree - its a decision the ref has to takr like whether a tackle is a foul or not In any case giving or denying a throw in is surely not as much of a game changer as allowing or disallowing a goal, is it ? How about determining if something is a corner then? You can't have one rule for the goalline and another for the sidelines etc. Need to have consistency. Same principle applies |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 27, 2017 8:47:06 GMT
All of the ball over all of the line, anywhere on the pitch, is the cleanest, simplest rule and the easiest to understand and manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by shangamuzo on Dec 27, 2017 8:54:40 GMT
All of the ball over all of the line, anywhere on the pitch, is the cleanest, simplest rule and the easiest to understand and manage. True. |
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Dec 27, 2017 8:55:03 GMT
The rule is the rule and as long as it is consistently applied (which it is thanks to GL technology) then that's fine by me.
No doubt someone with more time than me will work out if it was a 50% + 1 rule we'd have 60 points and be top of the league
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Dec 27, 2017 8:55:53 GMT
As soon as you start pissing about with arguing about percentages of balls over lines you're into really murky territory.
It's a clear rule in place that makes it easy to determine, and crucially, really tough to make an argument against.
It does have to be consistent for sidelines and bylines because it becomes ridiculous otherwise.
It's definitely annoying that the shot didn't quite have that extra zip on it but that's life and it wasn't a goal (although your analogy wasn't "stupid" to anyone with an ounce of abstract, hypothetical thought).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 8:58:20 GMT
I’d say this is why pissheads don’t make rules but then they have some thriving bars in Westminster so I’ll go with this is why they shouldn’t.
|
|
|
|
Post by StaffordPotter on Dec 27, 2017 9:02:15 GMT
I had very high hopes for 3 points from yesterday's match so I decided to go and watch it at Rabokk, my friend's bar and restaurant in Nadur, Gozo as we usually win when I go there. We were a grand total of 3 Stokies watching the match on one of the 2 big screens whereas a more sizeable group of Manure followers were watching their match on the other big screen. Peter, Rabokk's owner, a diehard Stokie, explained in graphic and very simple terms the sheer stupidity of this rule as all 3 of us felt we had unjustly been denied a goal. He got a bottle if coke, put it at the edge of the bar and said that as soon as it is sufficiently far out to topple over, then that should be a goal. And i am completely in agreement - if half the ballor more crosses the line, then it should be a goal In yesterday's case 90% of the bottle had crossed the line Applying Peter's analogy, the bottle would certainly have toppled and hence it should have been a goal I actually laughed out loud when I read this. |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 27, 2017 9:05:06 GMT
How about determining if something is a corner then? You can't have one rule for the goalline and another for the sidelines etc. Need to have consistency. Same principle applies Ok then a bit more theory for you. If I presented you with a picture of a football, and asked you in a second, without measuring, to draw two vertical lines on it - one on the outer left edge, and one right down the very middle - I guarantee you that the one on the edge would be more accurate, as the edge of the ball is very visibly defined already. Effectively you're asking officials to firstly define in their heads where the dead centre of the ball is, and then if it's crossed the line for throw ins, corners etc. whilst it's moving. You're making their job harder and increasing the likelihood of a wrong decision. They can already SEE the edge of the ball, but would have to ESTIMATE where the centre is. |
|
|
|
Post by malteser68 on Dec 27, 2017 9:11:15 GMT
Ok then a bit more theory for you. If I presented you with a picture of a football, and asked you in a second, without measuring, to draw two vertical lines on it - one on the outer left edge, and one right down the very middle - I guarantee you that the one on the edge would be more accurate, as the edge of the ball is very visibly defined already. Effectively you're asking officials to firstly define in their heads where the dead centre of the ball is, and then if it's crossed the line for throw ins, corners etc. whilst it's moving. You're making their job harder and increasing the likelihood of a wrong decision. They can already SEE the edge of the ball, but would have to ESTIMATE where the centre is. Present 3 different referees with 10 pictures of a football some which have completely crossed the line amd others where the ball is still un by a hair's width and see if they all cone to the same conclusions !!! Of course for the goal line this will be determined by the technology as we all agree that the goal line is the most important, surely !! Line is |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 27, 2017 9:13:43 GMT
It’s easy to understand why the whole ball must be over the line because it’s much easier for a lino or ref to see this rather than try and make a judgement whether the point of ground contact of the ball is on the line or over it. Goal line technology can be adjusted to detect a ball 51% over the line in the goal but what about the touch lines where no technology is used? The law as it stands is fair imo and don’t forget it’s the same for both teams except if they are the top 4 when different rules apply  |
|
|
|
Post by spoton on Dec 27, 2017 9:16:18 GMT
The only time I think the rule is wrong is when player's position the ball as far as possible outside the corner quad, year's ago it was always inside
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2017 9:37:04 GMT
Why the fuck would you need 51% to cross the line. Unfair advantage to the defenders.
50.1% would be far better.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Dec 27, 2017 9:43:31 GMT
I personally think the rule is fair and that means it'll occasionally benefit us and sometimes go against us.
The line rule is the same in tennis. Literally 0.01% of the ball being on the line is in. Simple.
It's one of the few easy to understand and effective rules in football. Let's hope it stays that way.
|
|
