KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum 3 Days to go until PL is decided...Mind Games?

Not hindsight, but based on what I saw, we were afraid to lose. And I was banging about how Ole transformed their fortunes. If United had played well and dominated us, then yes, I would have said we had a good game and drew, like against City at home, but they lost players in the 1at half and hardly played.

So hindsight then. As I remember you weren’t giving us much of a chance before we started because of their results. And then because we were both shitte we bottled it? Nice one.

We were not shitte, we didn't play. Compare the United game with any other game we played this season, let alone our last 2 games when we played to win. And when I said we don't have a chance?

On a separate issue I have, how accurate is the goal line technology? is it assessed before and after each game? can it have an off day like say for instance a Bobby's speed camera?

Looked at that City goal v Burnley again and I'm still not convinced it crossed the line to the letter of the laws of the game!

Maybe the line was thinner making it easier to get the whole of the ball over the whole of the line. If you have a groundsman who likes to splash a nice thick line on it then it maybe you have a point.

We may lose the title by a splash of paint. That ball crossing the line at Burnley and the ball not crossing the line for us at the Emptyhaad. I don't know which was the biggest margin but it wasn't a lot in either case.

I'd just like to know how they make sure it's working properly for each game? Has there ever been a game where it's broken down or has given a blatant wrong decision? Things like this don't get questioned when they really should. With VAR coming in next season look at the rigmarole it's caused and yet goal line technology isn't questioned?

The only way to question it is it's not working properly and it's not about the thickness of the paint/line as somebody said, the measure is really the diameter of the goal post (based on the (virtual) camera view) which is standard (I guess). So I am not sure what you are up to.

They must test the goal line technology before the game, to check camera positions and calibration etc?

Hawk-Rye tracks the balls position, so I do not think it compares it to the goal line, so the thickness of goal line paint etc would not affect the balls position.

We have had goal line technology for 5 years and I don't think anyone has challenged any of it's decisions, so compared to how it used to be, it is much better.

With goal line technology the graphic that appears on the tv screen for us to see at home is the clear evidence. I am happy with that. It is one picture taken from a straight line. Of course the thickness of the paint doesn't matter unless it is half an inch broader than every other line on the pitch.

I think we are clutching at straws here and having a bit of a laugh but I do think every decision has been made correctly.

To show how important it is they had it in the Tranmere v Forest Green play off game last night where a brilliant strike smacked the bar from 25 yards out and crossed the line. The ref had the technology and gave the goal almost instantly. Until it fux up we shouldn't question it.

What is confusing is that there are currently different Goal Line Technologies currently being used by various Footballing Associations. The EPL has been using Hawk-eye since the 13/14 season which is based on 6 cameras being strategically placed around the stadium and they use hundreds of frames to locate the trajectory of the ball. They say that even allowing for goal posts or the goal line paint being (thinner/thicker) being out of position they can still detect if the ball has crossed the line or not...that's a bullish claim to say the least! It only takes one camera lens to be out of sync and the system is f.cuked...and yet we are supposed to rely on this technology?
I cannot believe that since it's inception, it's worked perfectly without any mishaps. I suppose it's much better than the naked eye BUT it's not what the manufacturers bullishly claim it is 100% correct all of the time.