I paused it at its furthest distance and at no point do you see clear air between line and ball. Now it could be that it was over but every angle didn't show it or it wasn't over at all.
The hawk eye technology produces a computer generated picture if the cameras view is obstructed. Rewind it if you can and you'll see it. The system worked perfectly.
Now the goal keeper is being credited with an og - so it was no goal from Benzema, then a goal fractions of a sec later by the goalie?
I presume we haven't, and won't see the actual camera angle from the GL tech, we are only seeing TV pictures. I must admit, it's strange that the technology that was introduced to makes these controversial decisions less controversial......are in fact leading to debate and controversy
It doesn't matter what all the stadium cameras show, the technology that makes the decision is perfectly placed, it's a goal...
There's about 14 cameras that produce a composite picture, I know the computer image showed a goal but no camera did. I'm still saying no goal until I see the ball over the line.
No offence flyer, but..... If I had to choose between a multi million pound system, that had been tested to its wildest degree run by computers....... Or you and your sky+ box, pausing every few seconds....sorry mate but I know whose decision I'd go by
Post a PIC then. please log in to view this image That's a clear no goal. That's taken from the BBC site so I assume they got it at the point to where it was nearest to going in.
Don't think the camera work for most of these games has been very good - not up to the standard we are used to at home anyway. As said earlier, technology was showing two seperate instances - 1st to prove Benzema didn't score with his ball that hit post, then second to prove OG by keeper...commentry team not the brightest but not helped by local tv editors
