• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

leroyjean

Youth Team
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
237
First of all I have to agree with PB and quite a few of the SZ contributors: in balance there wasn’t evidence enough to award a goal. Sorry Barry.
But the mind goes back to 1966. I’ve looked into that, and I have to say the (West) Germans had a point. A 1996 study conducted by the engineering department at Oxford University concluded that the ball did not cross the line entirely and that it was 6 cm away from being a goal. (https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/publications/1996/Reid96/reid96.pdf)
An article in the Guardian 4 years ago re-visited the Hurst goal, and the following link includes video clips that may not be quite what we wanted to see:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/14/goal-line-technology-video-analysis
I have to say that the very idea of the ball coming back into play after crossing the line completely implies that the point of bounce would need to be 11cm behind the back of the goal-line, and for me that already leaves something of a credibility gap.
As for investing a quarter of a million per club in technology, a rather cheaper solution would be to return to square crossbars.
 
Top