Jump to content

World Cup: Matches


Genie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

Why do you think that's the angle that "manipulates" it rather than the one you think proves otherwise?

Because the ball is a mile past the paper. Great to see the junior physicists are out in force on VT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnnyp said:

Because the ball is a mile past the paper. Great to see the junior physicists are out in force on VT. 

The bottom of the ball, at the point it makes contact with the floor, is undeniably past the paper, yes.

THAT DOES NOT MATTER.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnnyp said:

Because the ball is a mile past the paper. Great to see the junior physicists are out in force on VT. 

The bottom of the ball is that's touching the floor, but that's irrelevant with the current rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

There is when Johnny is denying reality despite having video demonstrations showing what's actually happening.

I think the point is its alot closer that what people are making out. Pieboys line shows how very close it is.

When you have things that close there will always be arguments for and against

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Johnnyp said:

Because the ball is a mile past the paper. Great to see the junior physicists are out in force on VT. 

No.

This is what it looks like in a 2D plane, from the top and from the side

image.png.94b95156d7b45a1164654e0e6066110a.png

 

From a perspective to the left in 3D, you'll see "daylight" under the ball, but in a 3D space, and in the laws of the game, it's treated as a sphere drawn down from the widest point of the ball.

You can see daylight, you can see the ball not touching the line, but it's still considered in if when looking at it from an aligned perspective, looking straight down, any part of the ball is slightly over the line.

Looking at it from an angle is misleading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Demitri_C said:

I think the point is its alot closer that what people are making out. Pieboys line shows how very close it is.

When you have things that close there will always be arguments for and against

Everyone agrees it's very close, from the overhead angle (i.e. the one that shows if the whole ball crossed the line, which is the rule). If you think it's out from there, I think you're probably tricked by the white of the ball but fair enough.

What is surprising is that some people think the ball not physically touching the line means it must be out. That has never been the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I think the point is its alot closer that what people are making out. Pieboys line shows how very close it is.

When you have things that close there will always be arguments for and against

Nobody is denying that it is close. One thing you need to keep in mind though is you're not looking at it directly along the line, so it is less close than it appears in the still images, as that ball/paper video shows.

If you can show it very slightly over the line from that angle that's slightly looking onto the plane, then it's comfortably touching when you're properly viewing it without the misleading angle.

Human perspective is flawed when we're looking at angles like this, it's why so many optical illusions work, and it's fair to be mislead and confused, but I do get wound up when someone digs their heels in and refuses to acknowledge it when it's explained over and over

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little late to the party here, but what a bottle job Roberto Martinez has done with this Belgian team!  Not guiding this incredibly deep Belgian squad to a single final in 6 years as their manager is going to be seen as one of the biggest missed opportunities in European footy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very close, but it couldn't be clearer from the overhead shot that it hasn't fully crossed the line. It has to fully break the invisible pane at the back of the line.

I think it's inconclusive from the close up shot, but from that overhead shot, it hasn't crossed the line. Unless someone has another frame where it has crossed the line, it's still in. If it's inconclusive and nobody can produce a frame where the ball has fully crossed the line, then surely the benefit of the doubt goes to the ball having stayed in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

It's not, though. The bottom of the ball is, but the widest part of the ball hasn't fully gone past the paper. The video has been specifically made to proves that point. If you're arguing that it SHOULD be out, you're arguing for the rules of the game to change.

And the reason why this is the rule, which appears to have been forgotten in this instance, is that of course the ball doesn’t have to be touching the ground at all.

Then you would be saying that the lowest point of the ball can’t have crossed the line, which would be harder to judge.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Lets be honest, we all want to see a Souness vs Infantino punch up at the final

No matter who wins, you're happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnnyp said:

You can clearly, I mean clearly see daylight ( a gap ) between the ball and the outer line ? “ Recreate the angle with a line and tennis ball “ Are we listening to ourselves here ? Seriously ?? What the actual ****. 

You are aware balls are spherical?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â