There's a freeze-frame that they showed on ITV that looked very much like the entire ball was (briefly) over the line. This is why we need technology - sensors in the ball and along the line or something.
I think you know in your heart that the ball did not cross the line. its a shame much is being made of what never was than the world class save by the world's best goalkeeper.
Nowhere in the laws of the game does it say that the ref has to be sure about anything. So it follows that he ought to decide on the balance of probabilities. Nevertheless he probably did get it right. By the way - a TV replay can't prove it wasn't over the line - there is enough time between frames for the ball to have moved a few inches which would make all the diifference. This might well be the reason that the ITV calculation from a number of different camera angles came to the conclusion that the ball was in whereas the side on camera angle didn't confirm that. Anyway the ref's decision is final so you definitely won!
I'm pretty sure the TV cameras are only 50FPS (1080i HD) so yes you are right, but I'm pretty sure FIFA regs, if and when, would use cameras that max out at something like 2000FPS, more than enough. This should give you an idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWaBHKihUE
Nowhere in the laws of the game does it state that the ref should base his decisions on guess-work either. What a very odd statement!
Didn't realise it was a dummy guide to reffing? Surely that's purely common sense. People like you are questioning it because it's not actually written in black and white... come on, seriously? We're stick to guess work then shall we?
Anyone else find it funny (for funny - read annoying), that when Gerrard was fouled (that one time he didn't actually dive), the ref told Mikel to stay where he was, went over to Stevie Me and asked him whether it was just a free kick, or to give him a card, before going back to Mikel and brandishing his yellow?
Is that the same Stevie Me who was once again completely absent in a major final until it looked like a comeback might be on?!?!
It was a serious point. An analogy: in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove the case 'beyond reasonable doubt' but in a civil court decisions are made 'on the balance of probabilities'. It is much more sensible for the ref to make decisions based on the second criterion, which means if he doesn't know he has to decide which is more likely (or 'guess'). The only alternative would be a rule that specified how he should decide if he doesn't know. That could be written in a number of different ways (how 'sure' does he have to be? who should he give the benefit of the doubt too?). Since this rule doesn't exist, it follows that the ref has to use his best judgement at all times. There are numerous line calls in every match and I'm sure that the refs guess some of the time about whether someone is offside or the ball is out of play. Giving a goal is not fundamentally different. It probably is 'common sense' for the ref to be reasonably sure before giving a goal, but that means the defending side is getting the benefit of the doubt which doesn't necessarily sound right either.
It was a bloody fantastic decision, based on the replays I saw. The ref and linesman got it absolutely spot on!
I'm sure that the FA Laws states " The ref can not give or should not give ANY decision regarding the ball crossing the goaline unless he is 100% certain in his own mind. " He can however after consulting the 3rd official change such decisions" This also applies to any other decions during the game.. eg Pen's, fouls, corners etc. Which is quite ironic having seen so many BAD decions which when shown later we're proven to be wrong .
So it could be then that the ref thought it PROBABLY wasn't a goal then couldn't it? How far are you prepared to go with your ridiculous assumptions?
Law 10 – The Method of Scoring For a goal to count, the whole ball needs to cross over the goal line, between the goal posts and under the crossbar. Of course, no soccer rules can be infringed by the scoring team for the goal to stand. This law also deals with things such as away goals, extra time, and shootouts. Ergo, if the referee doesn't think the ball crossed the line its not a goal End Of Story
Ginger - that is pretty much exactly what I have been saying. It is what the ref THINKS that counts - he doesn't have to be certain. CFCTEL is also exactly right: if the referee thought that the ball probably crossed the line he gives a goal, otherwise he doesn't. I also think that the ref got the decision right as the various replays show that the ball probably didn't cross the line. The point of my post wasn't to argue that what happened at Wembley was in any way wrong - it was to point out that the various claims that are always made after this sort of event that the referee has to be certain have no basis in the laws. All decisions are down to the refs opinion in essence.
OY - Law 6 7. When a goal has been scored and there is NO DOUBT about the decision, the referee & assistant referee must make eye contact and the assistant referee must then run quickly 25-30 metres along the touchline towards the halfway line without raising his flag. It's on page 85 of the FA's Laws of the game 2011/12
Tel what you are reading there is interpretation of the rule. If the referee or his assistant is not sure then he can't give it. The wording of Law 5 of the Laws of the Game states: "The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match."
