« Master of the Whistle (from Ed) | Main | The Torres goal should make you rethink the DOGSO . . . »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Thanks, the lighter part made me laugh!
[Glad you enjoyed it, Ed]

Brian Smith-White

I am not so sure that a goal wasn't scored. https://p.twimg.com/AqjDlIJCAAA8UI8.jpg is a clearer picture. Is this the greatest penetration of the ball went into the goal mouth? I don't know. Less than an inch further in and the decision is less contentious but still equivocal. The only location to unequivocally evaluate the "completely crossed the plane of the goal line" question would be standing next to the goal post and looking across the goal mouth - lining up the two goal posts in one's field of vision. However any referee that started at that position would have moved slightly onto the field or slightly further off the field to have a better view of the events occurring in the collection of players (punching, handling, pushing, ....) and thus would have been less than perfectly positioned to decide the goal. And to further confound the problem - add one more player between the leg of Chelsea 6 and the goal post most distant from the AR. The line of sight from either side of the goal mouth to the ball is obstructed by a body. I don't think anyone would argue for having a person positioned on the cross bar - just to be in a position to decide a goal. This was a decision that needed to be made with the least amount of incontrovertible evidence (not awarding a goal is making a decision).


[ Response from Ed: I think you mean to say "controversial" evidence, or "with the greatest amount of incontroversial evidence." But basically for a very close decision like this, if you are not in an excellent position to say yes, you MUST say no. As this referee found out, you will never "sell" the decision otherwise]

The comments to this entry are closed.