egafd.com

wtf was the ref/linesman thinking tonight when he didnt give spurs the goal against man utd??? the ball was well over the line but the dopey officials didnt give the goal that would have put man utd 12 points behind the mighty blues

tas wrote:

> wtf was the ref/linesman thinking tonight when he didnt give
> spurs the goal against man utd??? the ball was well over the
> line but the dopey officials didnt give the goal that would
> have put man utd 12 points behind the mighty blues
>
>

It was Man U. It has to be 100% to go against them.

Yes I know man u get dodgy decisions most of the time, but the ball being atleast 3 feet over the line is petty conclusive if you ask me or virtually anyone else, even moaning alex ferguson admitted man u had got away with it. Surely it is now time to use video evidence for this type of thing.

Where would you stop the game for this situation? How would you restart it if it wasn't a goal?

I'm totally against video evidence myself.

I think it's part of the game and gives us all something to moan about. For the most part it's swings and roundabouts and what you get away with one week, bites back at you the next.

Well at least over the course of a season anyway.

The 1966 winning goal proved how useless camera evidence was

Its 4 goal umpires(1 on each post)

Its the only logical step given septic blatters "we've got to keep it human"
comment

cheers
B....OZ

The should put a huge sheet of glass over the goal frame, that way they're be a audio and visual acknowledgement of the ball crossing the line.

There was no need for video evidence in the 1966 World Cup Final as the ball was clearly over the line.

I thought everbody knew that.

Bollocks!

Never Mind

Wasn't it the 4th goal and not the third that was disputed or am I talking bollocks

cheers
B....OZ