CHAOS BRIEFLY REIGNED at the World Cup as France were eventually given a second goal against Honduras following an anxious wait.
Karim Benzema thought he had scored to make it 2-0 and reeled away in celebration but the fun was only starting. A video replay showed Benzema’s initial shot hitting the post and ‘No goal’ popped up on the big screen.
However, as the replay continued, it showed the rebound strike Honduras goalkeeper Noel Valladares and bouncing over the line. ‘Goal’ was the new call and whistles blew out around the ground. BBC’s Jonathan Pearce claimed the moment was hugely controversial but the general consensus was that technology had proven sound.
The technology has previously been used for clear goals but this was the first big decision-making call. Judge the goal/no-goal/goal for yourself.
https://vine.co/v/MI1JWwmvUhF
The decision left many people confused and they sought refuge on Twitter.
I don’t see what all the fuss the commentators made of it was all about. I imagine the system is used for any time the ball comes close to/ in contact with the line, the first one hit the post…. Obviously not in but the ball was close to the line – hence the technology comes into play. Second on was in…. Millimetres in but in all the same. Works perfectly imo.
They were giving out about how long it took. The keeper should know instantly if it’s a goal or not because it should come up on his watch. But I agree it worked they should just get over it.
Ya if you watched the match the ref awarded the goal within seconds of the incident the delay was due to the managers and 4th official having an argument!!
I think you meant ref, not gk, still didn’t deserve all the red thumbs I dont think!
Ye meant to say ref haha only noticed now.
Richard keys has got to be the biggest fu*king ret*rd of all time.”the ball was never in”
Hhh haha
Indeed,but we knew this long before today.
It was a goal. The technology works. No debate. End of.
Hardly confusing. Ball off post = no goal. Ball off hand of goalkeeper = goal
Richard Keys thinks that female officials don’t know what the offside rule is and at the same time doesn’t think that a football that is still in play that passes the goal line amounts to a goal? And he’s still in paid employment as a football commentator?
Jonathan Pearce made an eejit of himself. No more too it, only to lament the quality of the commentary, or lack thereof.
I don’t know why the shot off the post was even displayed on TV as not in – of course it was never in – it was what happened after that mattered, the keeper knocked it over the line. Goal. End of.
“The eventual prognosis ….” a prognosis is defined as a forecast of the likely outcome of a situation – generally a medical condition. What you mean in your sub headline is ” The eventual outcome was….”.
Do they not teach English is journalism school anymore?
Read before you post
Jaysus lad say you’re some craic at a house party
They’ve actually shown that graphic a few times already where a post was hit etc and no goal was displayed. I think the system just displays anything within 2 yards of the line or something that’s why the shot hitting the post was shown in the first place?