Skip to main content

Computer says....

Computer says....

The thing for me , is how the hell is it not classed as a shot on target , most stats saying we only had three on target one goal being an own goal so the three shots were all goals .
 
sure they said goal line technology is only 92% accurate, same with hawkeye on the tennis, it gets things wrong/out by mm
 
lenny said:
The thing for me , is how the hell is it not classed as a shot on target , most stats saying we only had three on target one goal being an own goal so the three shots were all goals .
Click to expand...

It hit the bar and bounced down so I'd guess a shot on target is classed as a shot that goes within the boundaries of the woodwork, or hits the woodwork then goes in, admittedly seems pretty silly in ilthe instance of yesterday's chance
 
lenny said:
The thing for me , is how the hell is it not classed as a shot on target , most stats saying we only had three on target one goal being an own goal so the three shots were all goals .
Click to expand...

Lies, damn lies, and statistics....🙂
 
lenny said:
The thing for me , is how the hell is it not classed as a shot on target , most stats saying we only had three on target one goal being an own goal so the three shots were all goals .
Click to expand...

Delaney said:
It hit the bar and bounced down so I'd guess a shot on target is classed as a shot that goes within the boundaries of the woodwork, or hits the woodwork then goes in, admittedly seems pretty silly in ilthe instance of yesterday's chance
Click to expand...

Seriously, who gives a shit about the statistics, we won 4-0 ffs, that's the only statistic I care about.
 
we have had the goal line technology equipment since the start of last season, as all Championship Stadiums have. I believe Saturday was the 1st time it has been called into action in that time.
 
Just to clear this up.

I could see clearly from row 31 of the STFS that it was at least a foot over the line. Must be a computer error. Should have been 5 nil.
 
LostinSpace said:
?

He didn’t judge anything, he didn’t get the bleep in his ear so he knew it wasn’t a goal.

I was on the Town End and to the naked eye it looked in, no question. Like Joan, I didn’t know we had goal line technology either and at the time I said I wish we had!
Click to expand...

Did you miss the sarcasm?
 
Goal line technology is all well and good when it gives you a goal the liner missed,

but its next to useless when it proves the liner correct for not awarding a goal.....

There we were, ready to vent our anger at the officials for not seeing a clear goal, when we remembered its the 'watch' that beeps...

how frustrating to have to accept a correct decision and not come away robbed and angry !
 
sports rehab said:
Goal line technology is all well and good when it gives you a goal the liner missed,

but its next to useless when it proves the liner correct for not awarding a goal.....

There we were, ready to vent our anger at the officials for not seeing a clear goal, when we remembered its the 'watch' that beeps...

how frustrating to have to accept a correct decision and not come away robbed and angry !
Click to expand...

And this is what I was getting at with starting the thread. Unfortunately some took it the wrong way!
 
sports rehab said:
Goal line technology is all well and good when it gives you a goal the liner missed,

but its next to useless when it proves the liner correct for not awarding a goal.....

There we were, ready to vent our anger at the officials for not seeing a clear goal, when we remembered its the 'watch' that beeps...

how frustrating to have to accept a correct decision and not come away robbed and angry !
Click to expand...

Waddie said:
And this is what I was getting at with starting the thread. Unfortunately some took it the wrong way!
Click to expand...



When 99% of the ball's over the line and in the back of the net then it's a goal... Where's the controvercy? 🙂
 
Back
Top