When I watched the incident live my first instinct was that it was over the line. When I watched the replays however, I was convinced, like everyone else that it didn't go over. But I have just seen this picture: and am now convinced that it WAS over the line. What a decision from Martin Atkinson. For me, he got it right.
Except that he's already apologised to Redknapp for his error! Just goes to show how much the technology is required though. When I saw it my gut reaction was that it was nowhere near. The replays clearly showed that it was not over. This still shot is possibly more contentious but I think it's just down to the perspective.
My first instinct was it was no where near, then all the replays and the BBC's 3D model simulation thingy showed it to be no where near...but this picture looks like it is over the line... How the hell is a ref/linesman supposed to get it right when even the replayed 'evidence' is inconclusive!
I don't think it was quite over Tom but it was certainly closer than some TV replays would have you think. I thought it was over first time as well, but having seen the replays I don't think the whole ball has quite crossed. Martin is an experienced ref though and I'm sure he will get over it. Interestingly he is going to Euro 2012 as an additional assistant (goal line) referee this Summer.
I don't think he had seen that photo before he apologised. He saw the replays and thought that didn't go over. That photo shows that the whole ball is over the line imo
You see, I don't think it does show that, but again, that's why the tech is so crucial! I saw some of the tech being tested this morning and it was interesting how they were doing it. They simply placed a wall exactly one ball length behind the line and shot balls at it. Now that's all well and good but what about compression of the ball when it's struck by a beast like Lambert?
The point, surely, is that if there's any doubt a goal should not be awarded. There is no way Atkinson could have been sure it was over the line, so it was an awful call, whether he was actually right or not. And for the record, he wasn't. This picture appears to show the ball is over the line but the ball appears to be further back than it really is. This is the problem with using one 2D image, it can be misleading. Several camera angles is enough though and that's what they had yesterday. Should never have been given anyway.
I think it was over the line but I DON'T think the goal should have been given because of the referee's position. The assistant had no chance of seeing because of all the bodies in the way. The ref must have been 100% sure at the time otherwise he wouldn't have given it.
as that picture is not inline with the goal line, there is no way you can tell if it is fully over the line or not. The persepective may give the impression it is fully over when it isn't or vice versa. Having said that, i'd hazard a guess that it was not over. And of course, the other 5 goals were not that contentious....
This is exactly the point, he wasn't sure. He couldn't have been. He guessed. That's the scandal here.
Exactly what I thought. One would have to take account of the football's compression against a solid object, in that case. What they're trying to measure is the technologies ability to react to a ball going over the line, not so much the compression of the ball. Even video replays from 40 years ago could tell whether a ball was over the line, if the camera was placed there, but it's the speed of reaction that gets people saying no. However, as I've said many, many times before, a form of video evidence could have been implemented donkey's years ago. Nowadays [and with respect to our very own doubter, Fran] it's a done argument. Blimey, instead of trialling it all the time, give it one season in the PL and see if it's the disaster some people think it will be. They can always pull the plug on it.
He would have been sure when he gave it. He may have had second thoughts (probably did) afterwards but it was too late then.
If he genuinely felt sure, then he's a compulsive, irrational character who has no business refereeing a football match!
I think the photo is a dodgy angle - but then I don't know anything any more, my whole faith has been brought into question by this issue
http://www.not606.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=12710&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1334593954 Ah so now I see why that goal didn't count!
From that picture I would say that it isn't COMPLETELY over the line but if you do think it was over then how he (ref) be 100% sure the whole of the ball was over line? He can't and he wasn't. It was an impulse decision that in hindsight he admits he got it wrong.
