Did the goal line technology work or fail

[Karl]

Heheh,one thing though Karl,why extra time is always in minutes and never seconds if that watch the ref has on his hands figures?

We count the minutes as we do age.
The minute you are born, you are 'running down' the clock on your 1st year! You are in your first year of birth.

If a goal is scored within and up until the 1st minute that goal matters not when up until that 1st minute is equaled it is called as being scored in the first minute [ first minute of the birth of the game!!!].

[Karl]

OG yes. It was the GK who put the ball over the line.

Did he put it over the line?
...or did he fail to prevent it going over the line (That is the ball was on its way over the line and even for his best efforts he failed to prevent it so doing? - I have not had a second look. ...and do not think I shall unless it is replayed and I happen to be watching as I have erased this match).

[Rockman]

Okay,I mosy certainly do not know the time of day I was born but it is easy to find out the day of the week.
A watch denotes accuracy,extra time is compensating for the time lost.Only seconds are required to score.

[Karl]

Okay,I mosy certainly do not know the time of day I was born but it is easy to find out the day of the week.
A watch denotes accuracy,extra time is compensating for the time lost.Only seconds are required to score.

I hear you...but a suh hit guh!
Minutes! ...if nothing else it is certainly now accepted practice.

[Bricktop]

another case for getting rid of officials all together

[Tilla]

I said he put it over the line, hence OG. Had he not, then Benzema would have been credited with the goal.

[Jangle]

another case for getting rid of officials all together

yup just get rid of all the officials and just let everybody settle every argument on the field amongst themselves. The toughest and strongest man wins.

[Karl]

I said he put it over the line, hence OG. Had he not, then Benzema would have been credited with the goal.

I heard you. My question was directed from not remembering exactly how the ball was put over the line. Did the 'keeper spill the ball or did he try to throw it out-field and inadvertently throw it over his goal-line?

Was he trying to stop it going over the line and made a mis-placed pass - via hand or feet or chest pass or thigh pass or other clear action meant to pass the ball out-field - into his goal?

If not...that is, he merely failed to prevent a shot going into goal why is not accredited to the opponent but to him (OG)? Is it now accepted that if a shot to goal is taken by one's opponent - the attacker - and it comes into contact with a defender and that defender's best effort ends in failure that is an OG?

...or is it only sometimes that is the case and at others it is not? The difference between those attributed to the attacker and those attributed to the defender?

I can understand shots not on target being deflected into goal being termed OG...but shots on target with defenders attempting to prevent same going in being termed OG

Surely it is the attacking TEAM's players trying to put the ball in goal and the defending TEAM's players trying to prevent same??? Right???

[Mosiah]

Goal-line technology's placing of the ball seemed much different from the ball's placement as shown by video along the line. There was no daylight between ball and goal post (since I really did not see the goal line), yet there was considerable daylight between ball and goal line from GLT.

Seems odd! It is apparently the same technology being used by tennis, yet, results seem untrustworthy here!

[Islandman]

I think the determining factor is , was the shot on target and would have gone over the line if the defender/goalkeeper had not interfered with it. If yes, then the striker gets the goal, if no it is an own goal.

That is reasonable in my view. As to the France goal yesterday, I have now flip-flopped back to saying that it indeed WAS an OG, as it appears it would not have gone over the line without the GK.