The real problem with goal line technology

By Walter Broeckx

On Untold we have been strong pleaders for more help to referees.

We find it unacceptable that in such an important sport decisions are made that are wrong. In an ideal world no decision on a football field should be wrong. But we realise that this will be a kind of utopia. We don’t want every throw in to be examined till the death. Or every contact.

Football has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. If you look at the slow speed the game was played some 50 years ago (just look at an historic final if you get the chance) and compare this with the speed of the game now. The speed has doubled at least, tripled would be closer to the truth I think.

The reason is simple. The modern footballer is a complete athlete and with all the new things that have been found, better nutrition, better medical care the modern footballer can rung twice if not thrice as much as the top players in the 50s or 60s.

And among that high speed football (apart from when time wasting has arrived in a match) we see that the match officials are still doing it in the same was as in the good old days. And with good old days I really mean good old days.

Of course the modern ref also is a better athlete than the refs in the 50s or 60s were.  But other things have made life more difficult for him. One of those things is the fact that play acting has entered the game at some point. Players go down without fouls in order to win penalties or free kicks. That is only one of the bad things that entered football.

And with the high speed of the game it is very difficult for a ref to make the right decisions all the time. Even when he wants to make them he still can get caught by a player who is cheating. Or because of the speed of players moving he can miss certain things and make mistakes. As a ref I know I make mistakes. And I have said it a few hundred if not thousand times before but for the record will repeat myself: Any ref that is saying he doesn’t make mistakes is a liar and is useless.

We don’t need lying refs and we don’t need refs who think they don’t have to improve themselves.  And to put the record straight I don’t have much of a problem with a ref who makes a mistake. I do have a problem when mistakes are made with always the same teams benefiting or the same teams being the victims. Because that is the moment when making mistakes becomes bias. And we don’t need refs who are biased.

So what was the way we looked at the introduction of goal line technology at Untold? We supported it. But we also said that this was just one little step in the right direction and that more steps need to be taken to help referees. What those steps are or should be is however not  the subject of this article.  Now we want to talk about the goal line technology and how it has been used in the match Arsenal – Tottenham.

To get one thing out of the way first: if the ball crossed the line or not is something I don’t know. And there is the whole problem. I remember a few seasons ago a Fa cup semi final when ref Atkinson gave a goal to Chelsea that didn’t cross the line. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get ref Atkinson next Saturday when we play his beloved Chelsea by the way. And when writing this on Monday morning the referee appointments are not yet made public. If that would be the case I suggest The Ox and Gibbs making sure they don’t get mixed up again.

But what I remember from that FA cup semi final was that the tv companies showed a dozen replays of the incident. From all angles possible. They showed them. And again. And again. And some more.  In order to give the audience the best possible view.  But now this Saturday in the North London derby it was a completely different show.

The situation was that Mertesacker headed towards goal, Lloris stopped the ball but couldn’t hold on to it and the ball trickled towards goal. On or over the line? That is something the goal line technology should decide.

First thing was that it took ages before a replay was shown. Very unusual. But worst thing was that only one replay is shown in total. And well in fact it is no replay at all in fact. Because they showed the goal line technology replay and only showed it till Lloris first stopped the ball. Even a blind man could see that Lloris had to make a second save to keep the ball out or prevent it from going over the line.

But the goal technology didn’t seem to register this. Or no images where shown of this. And that itself is something that is worrying. Because it now seems that goal line technology can only register one decision. And when you get two decisions to make with just split seconds in between it only looks at the first decision and not at the second. And so you can say that it doesn’t work as it should work.

So they have given us a false feeling of security. We thought that it all was covered and tested. But now it seems not to be the case.  I think the company that developed the system and the FA and the PGMOL should give us an explanation on what happened and why the system didn’t register the second decision. But given the way they come out in the open in the past I am not holding my breath for this to happen.

And then we have a second question that needs answering. The question on why not the usual replays were shown. You know the half a dozen replays from half a dozen angles. And with replay I mean the real replay and not the animated goal line technology replay. I want to judge such an incident with my own eyes. The computer animation is fine and a good help (well not really in this case) but I want to judge it with my own eyes.

And for an unknown reason nobody seems to be allowed to show that replay. A replay that must be on the tapes (or hard disks probably these days). But here we are 2 days after the incident and no real life replay has been shown about where the ball was when Lloris pushed it out for the second time.

Giving that calciopoli also was kept running with the help from how they showed things on TV this is something that worries me.

Of course I might be wrong and the ball never went over the line. But the thing is: they could show us. But they deliberately preferred not to show us the images that would shed light over this incident. And as I have a natural suspicious mind I keep on wondering: why?  And certainly when I compare this with other incidents on the goal line where they did show the real life time replays from different angles.

Is there something we are not allowed to see? Someone better show us the real images. Otherwise I can only think that there might have been something to cover up.


There’s an index to recent articles and a list of Arsenal’s anniversaries for today on The Untold Home Page.


149 Replies to “The real problem with goal line technology”

  1. Don’t they give a copy of the recordings of all cameras to ARSENAL???

    Watched the same in no replays at all.

  2. Don’t they give a copy of the recordings of all cameras to ARSENAL???

    Watched the same in no replays at all.

  3. Do agree with you
    And here I was thinking that I was the only one who it abit fishy that the were no actual replays shown, replays from different angles….
    I for certain felt the the ball was very much inside the goal after lloris had made the initial save. And this is watching it one time on a big screen in Africa, with no replays at all on that action.

  4. I think Arsenal is given what they got from the official broadcaster. So unless they have filmed it with their own cameras they can only show what is given to them.

  5. Think Rantetta pointed out yesterday that we had an incident at the WC where the ball hit the post, then another post before hitting a player and crossing the line. Think goal line technology was shown to show ‘no goal’, ‘no goal’ then ‘goal’. So it is possible for GLT to follow second or third phases of play. Saturdays was frozen at the as soon as loris’s hand made contact with the ball, and not after. That’s ridiculous as he didn’t get hold of the ball, so would have naturally expected GLT to be used in situations that followed thereafter. But like you say Walter, normal replays would have been shown, but not one, not even a single replay except this GLT snippet. Ok, the ball may not have crossed the line, but why not then;

    1. Show GLT at the point when loris palmed the ball away the second time?

    2. Provide normal replays at least, even from the same angle, they would have gone a long way.

    Arsenal 13
    The footage that is made available to Arsenal is the same that would have been shown during the match. So they can only replay that bit.

    This, in my view, confirms there is cheating going on in many forms in this league (a few parties are involved here). Any other explanation will be just trying to cover up for these cheats. I wish someone uses 3D modelling of that video to show what really happened.

  6. Thanks for this article Walter…I have been waiting to read your full take on this matter…and it reflects my sentiments and thoughts right down to your last sentence.

    I say again (as I have posted on a couple other articles here on UA the last couple days):

    -This reeks of a cover up,
    -Puts a complete new complexion on the MEDIA and the BROADCASTERS (cementing their anti-Arsenal program and taking it to a new super high)
    -That someone including Arsenal has to now launch an inquiry into this matter.

    It would be very disappointing if we are not given a SATISFACTORY explanation and if there is wrong doing by who ever (meaning goal should have counted)…I would call for a REPLAY of this match!

  7. AL, I believe at the World Cup the goal line technology of a German company was used (don’t know the name). For the Premier League they use Hawkeye. It could be that Hawkeye is more limited in showing incidents in quick succession, although I don’t think that is really the case. Hawkeye makes use of many cameras and they will keep recording regardless of the number of incidents.

  8. Be sure there will be all the tapes in digital form, from all cameras without fail…A court order will obligate SKY/BBC or whoever to hand them all over or be in contempt and liable for concealing information as ordered.

  9. I viewed the incident on the Arsenal Palyer footage several times yesterday and there was only the view from one camera angle, plus the partial footage from the ‘goal line technology’ up to the moment Lloris initially stopped the ball. I must admit from my seat in the East stand (about 70 yards from that goal) I thought it was a save in real time and that the ball hadn’t crossed the line but wanted an overhead view to confirm it. I am still waiting to see that replay which I’m sure must exist and the longer I wait the more I am concerned that the ball might just have crossed the line. That MOTD completely ignored the incident only adds to those concerns. I have seen clips and stills from various sources on the Internet since Saturday with different views that invite one to draw conflicting conclusions.

    Clearly the current technology hasn’t put this issue to bed and that needs to be addressed.

    Far better would be to allow managers/ team captains the right to challenge decisions with the footage from all available camera angles being displayed on the main stadium screens for the referee to confirm or alter his original decision in full view of the crowd.

  10. @ Walter & @Al
    First the system that FIFA use and the system that the FA use are different
    Second You are wrong about the footage available to Arsenal as there is a significant amount of footage that would have been available during the game. The back room staff will probably have been looking at live feeds from all the cameras during the game. Had there been any indication that the ball was even close to being over the line I have no doubt AW would have been all over the issue.
    Also all clubs at PL level monitor individual performance mainly through their own recordings. If you think back it was part of that un broadcast footage during the QPR v Chelsea game a few years back that the Met Police/CPS relied on when taking JT to court.

  11. @ Andrew Crawshaw

    I think for most supporters the issue has been put to bed but its the inbuilt distrust that so many of the posters on this blog have that is challenging matters further

    The reason he likes of MOTD didn’t spend time on this is that they don’t feel there is an issue.

  12. @Andrew Crawshaw
    September 29, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    “…Clearly the current technology hasn’t put this issue to bed and that needs to be addressed…”

    I understand what you are saying, however I am absolutely certain the technology works perfectly! Someone or some ‘interests’ have chosen to tamper with the amount of raw footage that was input into the system so as it can draw and SHOW the correct conclusion.

    I mean hell hard discs can be damaged and in most cases 99% of all data can be recovered!!!

    There are no excuses for not showing the public The various angles of that header…There are so many (cameras) placed around Emirates!!

  13. I have noticed this before with offsie decisions against us that don’t always get shown.
    I’m also amazed as to why Jack wasn’t given a penalty. Even more amazed that Jamie Redknapp (an ex pro) doesn’t know that a trip is foul and a trip in the penalty area is a penalty. Astonishing.

  14. I think the ref didnot ask for a review. Or what they say ‘pressed the button on his wrist’.

    So they are trying to cover his tracks. By not showing replays and showing only one angle of it and the goal line tech review shot only of the first touch by the keeper.

    Conspiracy theory: It was a goal. If it wasn’t why not show all angles and the proper footage of the review?

  15. To add. They showed numerous replays and numerous angles of the Mertesacker header that could’ve been an own goal…

    What stopped them from showing us this goal attempt and what is said to be an incredible save from the spurs keeper.

    Let him share the limelight for saving the game for the tiny tots…

  16. MikeT. Mybe most Chelsea supporters have put this to bed but not us.

    The simplest way to put this to bed is to show us the image shot by the goaline technology during the second motion by Lloris to push the ball away. That would put it to bed.

    The fact that we have not seen it suggests that the technology does not work properly and the powers that be are covering it up

    b) the ref does not work properly

  17. @Arsenal 13

    The ref would should never ask for a review . The technology does not require him to press any buttons on the wrist monitor for if it were over the line his and similar monitors worn by all the officials will have buzzed to confirm the ball was over the goal line

    For me the reason that they didn’t show the incident from 110 different angles was that simple fact they didn’t need to

  18. @ Mike T

    It may well be that Arsenal has some extra footage, but that does not explain why the broadcaster CHOSE not to show replays from different angles, which is the more pertinent question. We know that the broadcaster, indeed, knew that this was a huge moment/incident in that match, hence their bullsh*t GLT animation, to silence us. And they damn well took their time to even show us the GLT crap.

  19. Arsenal will have their own footage from their own cameras but they can’t broadcast it, because the broadcasters have the rights, as Walter kindly explained above. Such footage was helpful when there was a witch hunt against Eduardo,though I’m sure the Friendsof untold will attempt and fail to argue that there was no witch hunt, which ultimately failed, possibly in part thanks to that extra footage which could not be broadcast to the public.

    During the World Cup when a similar Goal Line incident occurred we could all see the footage that showed the system to work perfectly well in such instances, even though the commentator was infamously confused by the straightforward chronological order of events. Chrono-logical. Logic.

    It is reasonable, and indeed logical, for Arsenal fans to be mildly curious about not seeing the goal line replays from the extra angles available to the broadcasters. For no reason other the that they are sports fans. The demand to see is the reason why every other sport shows multiple replays from different angles of marginal events like run outs in cricket etc etc etc.

    The only people who appear to be confused by this goal line tech. seem to be the confused football plundits and the broadcasters.

    It is interesting that the Friends of Untold find this curiosity about such incidents to be odd, when as a result of such demands from sports fans, all other sports try and show as much coverage of such incidents as possible. Indeed it seems strange that a sports broadcaster would cut the replay before the really exciting bit, don’t you all agree? Where Loris claws the shot out at the second attempt. Drama, excitement, worth a replay regardless of whether it crossed the line? You’d hope so! I don’t actually care if it did or not. But I can’t help but notice such strange editing from broadcasters who pays millions for their footage…?

    Why would they leave it out? Errors and oversights can happen, but it’s interesting that apart from such stupidity that there could be no logical reason for the edit. The comments by the Friends of Untold that try to excuse the from the broadcasters rest upon shaking foundations, they do protest too much, because as we can see from looking at every other sport, sports fans demand and desire to see such incidents. It’s not rocket science but simply Football.

  20. @ Mike T (3:21 pm)

    “The reason he likes of MOTD didn’t spend time on this is that they don’t feel there is an issue.”
    Then why the need for the broadcaster to show GLT animation during the game?
    Also, what issues did MOTD spend time on?

    “For me the reason that they didn’t show the incident from 110 different angles was that simple fact they didn’t need to.”
    But, like Arsenal 13 said: They showed numerous replays and numerous angles of the Mertesacker header that could’ve been an own goal…????

  21. @Mike T

    If a similar incident happens next week with Szczesney saving a Terry header, how many views would you expect the broadcaster to show? Would you be happy to see just the single camera angle? I said I’m my posy that from my seat my initial reaction was that it was a good save and not a goal. My experience so far is that for a non controversial incident multiple views are replayed on the stadium screens at a suitable break in proceedings, but incidents where the referee made a mistake are never shown. I am also used to Arsenal getting the bum end of the deal from refereen on a weekly basis, something that isn’t the case for other teams. Hence some of my paranoia.

  22. Initials BB

    I suspect if you asked supporters around the country and not just Chelsea supporters around 99% will be satisfied with the technology.

    The irony is that so many on here have advocated additional support to referees yet when that support is put in place some still want to cry foul not because there is any creditable evidence whatsoever to question its reliability but because the TV company didn’t show endless replays of showing an incident that the technology said wasn’t contentious.

    Off course technology can go wrong but I haven’t seen anything to question the technology’s reliability other than a video shot from the TV feed which may or may not been edited

  23. All this combined with the scoreboard showing the wrong score is looking fishy.
    I have always wondered how football could be manipulated like boxing was/is.
    It would take much more complexity, but it seems we are looking at just another facet of the world we live in.

  24. Of more interest to me was the lack of plunditry regarding the contact with Wilshere’s ankle and the know. Ankle stomper Rose.

    Ok. I can accept that someone might think that it wasn’t a pelanty. Fair enough.

    What was odd was the complete inability of the plundits to comment on the contact! They could’ve said, “he caught him but it was hard for the referee to spot”, or, “maybe there was contact but it wasn’t really a foul IMO”.

    They could’ve made any number of comments, but they simply described the player as falling over. Which is bizarre plunditry, there’s no debate about it. Very strange behaviour.

    IMO the lack of commentry on this pelanty incident is simply remarkable.

  25. When you get a Hawkeye review in cricket, for say LBW, they never cut the footage at the point of impact. They always broadcast the full replay of the incident to the viewer, showing the continuation of action after the moment of impact so that the decision can be clear for the viewer.

    This is because they understand that people want to see “the action”.

    This is fairly simple stuff to understand! Some do protest too much as they spin themselves into yet another hole.

  26. @ Finsbury

    I thought the footage shown through Arsenal players was a combination of the broadcasters footage and the in house pictures

    The thing is that to must supporters this really wasn’t a major talking point and I understand why you would have liked to see it from different angles but all I saw was he keeper making a bread and butter save and Hawkeye showing it wasn’t over the line.

  27. @ Mike T (3:56)

    If that incident wasnt contentious, as you say, can you explain why the tv company felt the need to show GLT animation at all?
    After all, we at least got multiple angles and replays of morinho eye gouging incident…

  28. I’m with finsbury. It’s far more blatant when they describe Wilshere as having glass ankles even though there was clear contact. Any other top club, it’s a penalty.

  29. Ah I just got informed it will the ref Untold predicted it will be for the Chelsea match. Here he is again referee Martin Chelsea Atkinson. I wonder if he will have learned the difference between Gibbs and The Ox since last season. And will have learned when players need to be send off for dangerous and reckless challenges. Players in blue that is of course. And that when a handball is made on a ball going wide there should only be given a yellow card. And if possible on the correct player.
    And lots more and more and more and more and more… How can the PGMOL send a ref who has screwed up so badly last season again to the same fixture? And the seasons before by the way also….

  30. Ohhh The ONE and ONLY Atkinson!!! well predicted UA…and here we go AGAIN!!!

    I am starting to believe that there is some serious money being handed under the table at various football governing bodies; ITS BECOMING A TREND IT SEEMS!

  31. @ wengerson

    The reason they showed the GLT was to show what the technology was showing in other words not over the line.
    Quite simply once that was determined why on earth would you show endless replays?

  32. Walter
    Atkinson again??!! Do we need more proof this league is bent? Shaking my head.

    Mike T
    You’re totally wrong to say the reason this wasn’t replayed was because they didn’t need to; that GLT was used alone shows it was that close to warrant a second examination. How then can you justify lack of replays, if it was deemed close enough to employ use of GLT. We’ve seen replays of Chambers’ shot which we all know didn’t go in. Why then not show even a single replay of a ball that may have or may not have crossed the line??

    Also when I said Arsenal will have footage that would have been broadcasted during the game I meant footage they can use to re-broadcast legally. If they have their own private footage then that will be for private use, certainly not to be shown to third parties due to rights issues.

  33. AL
    September 29, 2014 at 5:20 pm,

    I am sure if Arsenal have footage which clearly shows the ball went over the line; they WILL NOT stand still with it. One would think/hope that this footage is already being analyzed at Arsenal…and perhaps we will read/see something about it in the coming days!

  34. Mike T

    Sorry but you appear to understand. So, I’ll try again:

    Different angles as you comment would indeed be a treat for te viewer at home. But it’s the chronoLOGICAL inconsistency that occurs from cuttin the edit before the incident or action is complete that highlights the banal forlorn futility if any attempt to explain why these edits stopped a mere second before the interesting event that observing fan wanted to see regardless of affiliation – the second save pushing the ball away after the initial save. If you continue to attempt to imply as you do above that the average football fanwatching is interested in watching replays of exciting and action packed incidents then that hole you are digging will only get deeper. Carry On digging.

  35. Mike T
    Your continuing to paint this incident as insignificant is starting to annoy a little. But I hope you can answer the below;

    1. “Quite simply once that was determined why on earth would you show endless replays?” – Wrong. There wasn’t even a single replay. So what exactly do you mean by endless replays

    2. GLT should have been used to clear the point where loris scooped the ball away a second time,as it kept rolling into the gial, not to freeze the image when his hand made initial contact with the ball.

    3. Why did it take at least 5 minutes to show GLT?

  36. < that the average football fan watching is not interested…

    …back to work. Thank god I'm not a writer! Or typist.

  37. finsbury
    September 29, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    hahahahahahaha…ohhh I am sure he understands…but is in denial 🙂

  38. @apo i know he is going to ref our match i meant the last season match referee who sent off Gibbs instead of Ox. It was Marriner and not Atkinson.
    As for the Sunday match well it just got worse for us; First the injuries and now this.I do wonder what will it take to get Mike Riley off our backs? seriously why does he hate us so much? Its not enough that we have to contend with injuries sustained thanks to the incompetence/bias of his select group but we have to deal with the most opposition supporting refs in our big matches.
    Everybody with eyes knows there is a deep love between Atkinson and Chelsea and yet he keeps refereeing their matches as if its nothing. What are the odds that Maureen asked for him personally and Riley delivered? I can just imagine how that went and how easily it was for Riley to say yes. Totally disgusted :@

  39. Mahdain
    September 29, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    As for our injuries (and NOT only this season so far (6 games)) but going back even a few years where we have suffered BROKEN LEG after BROKEN LEG ‘thanks to the incompetence/bias of his select group’…its not rocket science to identify a PATERN HERE!

  40. It is most probable that the footage was stopped coz I felt the ball was at least on the line after the second save by Lloris, but only the first save was shown and that was way off the line. Looked odd. So I’m thinking that a slow motion clip of the incident till when the ball was cleared off the line would have cleared all doubting minds like mine. As for how much of the footage is available, I believe multiple views from the numerous cameras in the Emirates is enough. So someone with an explanation as to why multiple reviews were not shown should be hanged and no one should use the line “…they thought it was no issue at all”. The reason for those relays is to clear all doubt – my doubt is hanging, and I’m sure I’m not the only one

  41. @Al & Finsbury

    Once the GLT showed it wasn’t over then there would only have been merit in showing the footage again and again if it had been really close. But it wasn’t.
    I will repeat something I said earlier in that if AW thought for second the ball had gone over then he would have been all over the incident.

    You want there to be an issue and are so convinced the world and its son are out to do Arsenal down you wont accept things as they are you are convinced there are spooks everywhere.

    The broadcasters (SKY & BT) I think only have unique access to game footage- which is owned by the PL- till midnight on match day up to that point other broadcasters who have purchased a different set of rights such as BBC can only show a set number of minutes after a set time and before midnight.

    Come midnight the clubs have rights to show the full game and the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd & Liverpool use the Sky platform to show all PL games on their respective TV channels

    As for exciting action well the Spurs goalkeeper made a bread and butter save and other to it being not that far from the goal line once that the technology proved it wasn’t over then I am not sure for many there was any merit in showing replays to confirm it wasn’t a goal. That’s of course unless you see conspiracies every where.

  42. @Apo yes there is a pattern without a doubt but the question remains; what will it take for the lid to be open for all responsible parties to be held accountable? The powers that be have turned the beautiful game that we all love into a farce with a big thanks to the effing media. If half of these lazy “journalists” hacks spent more time doing their work compared to making up sensational bs then maybe the game wouldn’t stink as much as it does now.

  43. Mike T
    You’ve failed to answer the 3 questions I posed. Yes, we’re not disputing that GLT was used, but it was used at the wrong point. Why was it not shown at the second save,which is when we say the ball crossed the line?

  44. @Mike T
    Why do you keep only refering to the initial save which everyone agrees was plainly not over the line. Will you kindly now address the pertinent question we are asking, and which you seem to be deliberately ignoring. Why was the most questionable and exciting part of the incident completely ignored? Anmswer on a postcard please.

  45. @Al
    Hawkeye does not provide TV replays what it does is overlay their images on the TV replay which is what we saw
    Hawkeye plots the ball all the time when in the area. It would have continued to plot the position of the ball and would have triggered the alarm if the ball had fully gone over the line even if that was in a second phase of play.
    It took longer than would be hoped but it certainly didn’t take 5 minutes to show the GLT images.

  46. My initial reaction was ‘Goal’, but I was prepared to accept (and still am) that it wasn’t a goal. However, the lack of a proper replay and the animation stopping at the initial save are issues worth addressing and I am glad to see it get some mention at least on various blogs and football sites.

    It won’t change the result, and that’s fine now. But will it at least lead to people demanding to know more and see more in the future? Not if Mike T has his way. Refusing to acknowledge that there is an issue there regardless of whether the ball crossed the line or not.

    For the record, much as I distrust referees, I do not think any referee would disallow a legitimate goal if the sensor on his wrist said it was a goal. Which leaves the question of whether the technology worked properly. If it did and it wasn’t a goal, the broadcasters certainly failed in their job of getting the images across to the viewers because the animation was definitely stopped at the wrong time. If it didn’t, then that is a much bigger issue directly related to GLT, but all the same, the role of the broadcasters remains in doubt.

    So regardless of Hawkeye’s performance, which is an important question in itself, the role of the TV is certainly not good enough. Whether by incompetence or design.

  47. @ Mick & AL

    Mike T wont answer these questions! It’s too inconvenient for him. I’m convinced he is a spook.

  48. @ Wengerson

    See my post of 6.11

    @ Shard

    Is it me ignoring there is an issue or is others desperate for there to be an issue?

  49. From the live footage its clear that ball moved backwards after the initial save. All we want to know is how far did it actually go.

    Why not show it if therz nothing to hide? After all it was a wonderful save that kept the tiny tots in the game. Come on, keeper deserves the moment of glory. A super slow-mo of the double save wouldn’t be of any waste.

  50. @Mike T

    You appear to have entered your cyclic debating style – even before I have joined the debate! This usually happens when your opinions are challenged/shredded!

    The point of concern is that the full record of the path of the ball has not been revealed by the broadcasters, until it is no one can be sure if a goal should have been awarded.

    It does not matter what GLT or Hawkeye can or cannot do – the point is that either is capable of clearly providing the information – but there has been a reluctance by Sky/others to release same.

    When I review my own recording of the match it looks a goal – but it happens too quickly to be conclusive – but the ball appeared over the line – the pathetic release from the broadcasters looks cunningly edited – for whatever reason.

  51. Mike T
    I think someone has accused you of wriggling of not giving straight answers, but going about answering in a roundabout way. Instead of explaining what Hawkeye is or what it does, will you just answer this question, and try to answer them separately in the order they have been asked;

    1. Why were we shown GLT of the initial save, and not the second part where loris claws the ball away? (please don’t explain technology in use to me, not interested, just need to know why the first part alone was shown)

    2. We know we get replays of ordinary TV footage, nothing to do with GLT, why didn’t we get at least one replay of this incident? Just one?

    As you can see Mike, two simple questions, and I expect two simple answers (labelled 1 and 2, if its not too much trouble). Thanks.

  52. As we established earlier that Arsenal can’t even get the speakers working , who is to say that they have managed to wire the GLT correctly.?

  53. looks like the hawkeye is setup to show only the moment when the ball was closest to line, hence no replays of second Lloris touch

  54. Without even clicking on that clip oleg, we know that clip, the one that suddenly goes blurred when loris makes the save. Edited clip. And it would be helpful if we all stopped trying to explain what hawkeye can and can’t do, because noone here has worked with that technology so we all don’t know how it works.

  55. Guys, this isn’t conclusive. It’s a fake, pay at attention to where loris makes initial save, the video is perfectly clear before and after that incident. Isn’t it odd that the video went blurry at the crucial point?

  56. Al

    1. We were shown on GLT the furthest point the ball went to being over the line. The point is that you believe the ball continued to travel backwards.

    2. You did see a replay. As I explained Hawkeye is not a TV camera so did not and could not produce TV pictures. I suggest you think about Hawkeye in tennis and cricket when it is used to show was the ball in or out or was in say LBW it produces a computer image.

    @ BJT

    I have my opinions as to why more replays of the incident weren’t shown. Some on here want to believe its for another reason.

  57. @Al, I agree plus that angle is not a good angle to view the play. Most of the time they would show multiple angles such as from the goal camera, not only angle from behind the keeper. It makes no sense considering the play occurred in front of the keeper.

  58. Can we all PLEASE stop talking about blurry images and fakes. For goodness sake! Go over to Arsenal Player and watch the ACTUAL footage. The incident is clear. The reason for a few Youtube and twitter blurry images is because of the screen resolution – when you pause it and blow it up it looks blurry. Regardless just watch the un-doctored Arsenal Player footage. It is there for all to see.

    Once again whether it was over the line or not is completely , one hundred percent, IRRELEVANT. Anyone debating the point has completely missed the point.

    The question is WHY is the incident not being relayed properly on TV – Anywhere. Even on Arsenal TV (who I assume just get Sky footage) the replay is just the standard stop the action after the first save by Lloris.

    Now I have just watch the lead up to tonights Monday night football. During the build up there countless still images, graphics, reverse angles imaginary verticle planes drawn up to see if a player was offside. It went on for 26 minutes – discussion and angles and endless pictures, and even Gary Neville doing an impression of a goal keeper coaching to make his point. However NONE of this analysis focused on the goal line incident at Arsenal.

    I will say that again – 28 minutes of analysis of incidents ranging from Nolan’s offside to Mignolet crouching too low for long shots. There were at least 15 reverse angles , stills and graphics to show the points being made in detail. Then it got to the Arsenal match – 5 minutes on how we don’t train for corners according to Jamie Carregher and NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL on the huge incident with Mertesacker. No images, no mention, NADA.

    If I was 90% sure of could play before i am now 100% sure. the REAL replay will either show that the referee cheated and ignored the signal OR goal line technology failed and did not send a signal to the ref. I no longer have any doubt that the ball did indeed cross the line – if it had NOT we would have seen the replays.

    This will be covered up at all costs – we will never again hear mention of it on Sky, BBC or any other major media outlet. It stinks.

  59. To that link, other that the blurry part, as Al described earlier, I have two points:

    1- The ball was bouncing, this Video is not conclusive.

    2- Why do we need GLT if we are going back to this videos. Show me the moment when the ball was nearest to the goal, and no it wasnt what they showed, I have eyes.

    My recommendation, lets all send to the Hawkye emails and ask for an answer, lets ask them to clarify what we are afraid of, and compare it with the WC one, trying to their Underestimates product. Then they will have to defend it, which will then show the real problem as it is. Whatever it is, a Goal or not, I will feel better about it.

  60. Plus I would like to ask, there were other incidents:
    1- An Arsenal player falling in the penalty area in the first half, after a corner. It was so obvious on live play.
    2- Kaboul jumping and MAYBE pushing Welbeck in the back IN THE PENALTY AREA AGAIN, the ball was heading to Welbeck. and the look on Kaboul face was like a revenge for what Welbeck did when he shouldered him on the throwline before.
    3- There was a call for a handball when Ozil was dribbiling into the Penalty area ( in the first half).

    Now that is 3 Penalty calls, 2 of which I believe Should always be replayed. Why didnt the TV coverage replay those, not for once?
    I think the Wilshere penalty and the Goal line Tech. Issue had forgotten the Arsenal Fans those incidents!!!

  61. @yassin – plenty more where the replays were glossed over too.. the studs up shin high tackle , a dangerous lunge, on Ozil that could shave broken his leg. No discussion at all…just move along, nothing to see here.

    Its looking more and more like there is deeper corruption than I ever thought – with TV editors, pundits, and officials involved to a greater or lesser extent…

  62. I recorded MotD on virgin media allowing me to replay frame by frame (you can’t do this in i player). I have just got round to watching it and i am 95% certain the whole ball crossed the line. Looris’ initial contact was in front of the line but after that contact it travelled behind the line only for him to scoop it out. All the money spent and we have a technology that doesn’t work as good old fashioned cameras from multiple angles.
    1-1 at that stage would have given us more time to grab the winner though we should alreday have been in the lead after being cheated from the not given penalty on Jack.
    In both instances we didn’t appeal. Must be the only team that doesn’t do so and worse when many teams appeal even when they know they are wrong.

  63. Mike T
    1. It seems you’re the only person who thinks the ball moved forwards after the initial save by Loris. But pictures of loris after that second save show him well behind the goal line, suggesting he’d made a backward movement to make the second save, rather than forward movement.

    2. We were NOT shown even a single replay of this incident. The only thing shown is this animated GLT thing. You didn’t need to explain what hawkeye is, I know full well what that software is,and that wasn’t my question. Anyway, I didn’t watch any more TV but as you can see from other comments here, this incident has not been replayed again,despite a whole half dedicated to talking about the weekend’s matches. Given how they’re excited even with that vanishing foam I’d be expecting any use of GLT (which we don’t see in action every week – pretty sure this was the only GLT incident all week…) would have been definitely mentioned and at the top.

    Anyway, I don’t have to try and convince you Mike, getting kinda tired of this whole thing and you choosing to answer questions you were not asked. I know what I saw, or rather what we didn’t see, to know there’s a problem with our league. I hope one day someone will decide to come clean. It’ll happen, one day.

  64. Oleg is mistaken, we hope.

    Because Hawkeye works fine with “phase 2” of such incidents. As proven in the infamous outburst by Jonothan Pearce during the World Cup. I didn’t read the other lame attempt to describe how Hawkeye works above, no need!

    These above attempts to ignore the question why the rebound has not been shown from either

    A) above the goal line
    B) in line with the goal line from the side line

    only reflect poorly on those attempting, and failing (in public mind you) to squirm.

  65. “the REAL replay will either show that the referee cheated and ignored the signal OR goal line technology failed and did not send a signal to the ref.”
    Exactly. And one wonders who the pundits are trying to protect here; GLT or the ref(although I have my suspicions who is the likely candidate for such protection). And that the blanket decision not to show this was adopted so swiftly, within 5 minutes of it happening, shows a disturbing readiness/preparedness to cheat. It confirms that the structures already exist between these entities that they know exactly what to do to cover each other’s backs, without the need for a discussion first.

  66. @Jayramfootball,

    and I can go on to tell you their goal came after our GK handled a ball from a FK resulting from a dive. In case the ref had not gave this dive a foul we where going on a dangerous counter attack.

    Now I know the ref makes mistakes, that is normal, he is human after all, but why always against is, why this manipulation?
    why when we get a wrong call, the whole world blows out?

    After this incident, I somehow am sure something is wrong with this league, no matter this ball was in or not.

    BTW, out of topic, did anyone here from Bob, who used to come here and comment, he was one of the first regulars, and disappeared lately?

  67. If you look at the link I posted earlier you will see that Hawkeye tracks the ball and not as Walter suggested only till the point of an incident.

    Or put another way Hawkeye is programmed to say when the ball is over the line and not, unless asked, to tell you when it isn’t.

    When the ball goes over the line it sets off a signal and from what I understand 20 seconds later the image is produced to show it was indeed over.

    I believe that Hawkeye will also produce, if asked an image linked to a phase of play to show at that point if the ball was over the line or not.

    Did the ball travel backwards after the first save? I am not sure but lets suppose it did. Had Hawkeye tracked it over the line it would have set off the buzzer so unless you are questioning the reliability of Hawkeye it didn’t cross the line wasn’t a goal.

    Video replays play no part in Hawkeye.

    It really comes down to do you trust Hawkeye.

    jamray asked this

    The question is WHY is the incident not being relayed properly on TV – Anywhere. Even on Arsenal TV (who I assume just get Sky footage) the replay is just the standard stop the action after the first save by Lloris.

    I have my views but its clear that some have far darker thoughts

  68. @Mike T – what are your views on why the incident is not being shown? I can only think dark thoughts about it because that is a natural reaction to an obvious stone walling of the replay. Why is the replant being shown? It would be EASY for the league, broadcasters and goal line technology experts to totally dispel any sense of wrong play by just showing the full replay. What have they not done this?

    There is something at play here beyond just a coincidental lack of coverage. An incident like that (and ones far less interesting or game changing) are usually played over and over again… its seems incredible that now show and no broadcaster has bothered to show it or even mention it. Its not even mentioned in any newspaper reports of the game. The only reporting done has been a 100% conclusive it want a goal because the replay showed it wasn’t – even though we did not get a replay.


    Is a useful website.

    No one above questioned Hawkeye. Why would they? Works fine in EVERY other sport.

    They questioned the why the broadcaster had not replayed a goal mouth incident. Like they do when using Hawkeye in EVERY other sport. Because they like, you know, a bit of goal mouth action. Not difficult to understand. A fairly simple query that can’t be ignored through useless obfuscation. This effort at squirming was pre-emptively skewered by the reference above to cricket and other sports for this very reason: the lack of reason in these lame and yes, predictable, excuses.

    This is getting almost as embarrassing as the stink caused by OldTurdy

  70. I did the same as jayramfootball it was over the line. As for the views of Tom t if you are not willing to look at the footage that’s shows that the ball crossed the line after the first save by the goalkeeper. And why the was no secondary footage to show this or why hawk eye didn’t have a second attempt at showing if the ball crossed the line as in the world cup.

  71. Exactly GJ, we all remember the incident during the WC.
    Hawkeye worked fine then! Except for the commentator…an maybe some above.

    I don’t care about that incident. It’s the complete avoidance any discussion on a blatant penalty incident that is completely bizarre of the reasons already given above. Strange and inexplicable football journalism.
    There has been some progress: the Manchester Grunt now describes Wilshere getting a knock whilst being “challenged by Rose”. Finally! Progress! Hallelujah!

  72. Finsbury it’s much easier not to give Arsenal a penalty and getting it wrong than to give a penalty that’s not. It will lead to the ref been slaughtered in the media remember the FA cup match against Liverpool.

  73. Yup.
    I also remember he stick a linesman got from the petty plunditocracy, Carragher et al, for making the correct call on a fairly blatant and stupid pull on Giroud’s shirt.

    Right call, wrong answer!

  74. @jayram

    I cant speak for the broadcasters as to why they didn’t show more replays but for me, if I were controlling the feed as Hawkeye hadn’t indicated the ball crossed the line once the replay had been shown and Hawkeye graphics had popped up I am not sure from the perspective of the wider audience much else were to be gained by going over the incident.
    Sky would love a story. Had they footage even at this point which showed the ball was over the line they would be showing it. Sky must hate Hawkeye.

  75. Mike,

    Sky and all other broadcasters hate Arsenal, they twist every story possible to an anti-arsenal slant. If they don’t show the replay it can mean only one thing – a story they can’t put a negative spin on. My last word on the subject.

  76. Mike T

    While I think the system would have picked it up if it had gone over the line at the second save, it was very close to the line if not on it, any such event is ALWAYS replayed multiple times from every angle they have available and it was surprising that it was not in this instance.

    I’d challenge you to name a similar situation wherein no replays were made of a ball so close to crossing the line in any other PL game, even if it as I expect was just bad work by the tv director and it would have shown it on the line or just in front I completely disagree with the idea that it was a bread and butter save since loris had to take two attempts at it, one of these from behind his own goal line so it certainly deserved the usual level of examination these types of incidents get rather than being ignored like it was.

  77. To mike t sorry for calling you Tom t earlier but the fact is the ball crossed the line no matter what hawk eye presented.
    In fact that it didn’t show the second faze when the goalkeeper pushed the ball back over the line is a problem.
    During and after the match I took hawk eye at face value. It was not until I was listening to Hawksbe and Jacob on talksport that I became aware that the was an issue.
    If you worked on controlling the feeds you should lose your job for missing such a big issue.
    For getting your Chelsea bias if you can if the tech can get it so wrong that should scare all fans who have been lead to believe that it will always get it right.

  78. finsbury

    I think Mike T pointed out earlier that in the World Cup, it was a different company providing the GLT, not Hawkeye.

    Mike T however brings up ‘doubting Hawkeye’ as if it’s an outlandish thought. It isn’t. I do not believe the referee would be so bold as to not award a goal signalled by Hawkeye on his wrist. He is not to know how close it is or isn’t, and wouldn’t take that chance even if he wanted to deny Arsenal a goal.

    So either it wasn’t a goal, which is good in that the tech works. But bad in that the TV didn’t show it properly.

    Or that the tech failed,and TV is covering it up. Sky would love a story Mike T says. Sky would probably love their earnings from a credible Premier League PRODUCT than a story that could potentially kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Beyond reasons of it being British, was the Hawkeye the best product? Does it work better than the German company’s product in the World Cup? Did it work properly in this instance. If it didn’t, was it the technology that failed, or the human element attached to it? Or was it only the broadcaster that failed? Considering a football ‘expert’ at the World Cup couldn’t understand the No Goal, and Goal decision of the GLT in two phases, it is possible that a football producer didn’t get it either. But it still doesn’t explain the lack of conventional replays.

    These are bigger issues than whether Arsenal should have been awarded a goal or not. The fact that it wasn’t covered by the mainstream media despite it being ‘newsworthy’ suggests hanky panky, but that’s the thing. It only suggests. Can’t be proved, and while there is no demand for them to provide evidence so as to remove doubt, they will be happy to let it slide.

  79. There was a time when EVERY incident of the game was shown in quick replays during the game, and if the game has paused, or at half time they would then show a more comprehensive set of replays.

    Today we notice that there are now “selected” replays and sometimes trivial replays are shown when really important ones are not.

    I agree that there is something going on when the replays from that “save” was stopped before he made the second save. It beats logic to stop it there, where both of the saves were in almost the same motion.

    It seems that the corporation responsible for the filming of the match can show what ever they want. I think that ALL filming should be fed to the club’s own recorders too, maybe they already do. If they do i suppose we will hear from Arsenal then, but there seems to be a P C (political correctness)aura around football now, where everyone is seemingly toeing the line, waiting patiently for that little mistake or weakness of someone else, then to POUNCE.

    I think we need to make more noise, because this is something that we cannot let pass, think how it gives them the ability to further manipulate games if no one says a word about it.

    I hope it all changes for the better, but if not for sites like this, it surely would not.

  80. Mike T is stuck to the first part of the save that Lloris made like an industrial adhesive.

    Mike T, I’ll take your point that the save was made and the ball didnot cross the line. No goal for ARSENAL and the tech worked fine and the ref did not get the buzz on his wrist.

    BUT the question remains. why only first part of the save was considered for Hawkeye review. Why not the second part??

    And why no replays are shown of it? When you consider the fact that Their goal was shown from all different angles to show us that Flamini cost us the goal. And also numerous angles and replays of what could’ve been a Mertesacker own goal. How many replays did we not see of Rosicky challenge on Mane which cost us a penalty???

    Question remains, why not now??……

  81. @jayramfootball
    September 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    “The question is WHY is the incident not being relayed properly on TV – Anywhere. Even on Arsenal TV (who I assume just get Sky footage) the replay is just the standard stop the action after the first save by Lloris.”


  82. @jayramfootball
    September 29, 2014 at 10:12 pm,

    ‘… its seems incredible that now show and no broadcaster has bothered to show it or even mention it. Its not even mentioned in any newspaper reports of the game. The only reporting done has been a 100% conclusive it want a goal because the replay showed it wasn’t – even though we did not get a replay.’

    I just would like to edit one part of this paragraph in the the last sentence; ‘…even though we did not get a [FULL] replay.’

  83. If I was Lloris I would have been livid. Come on you make a spectacular double save in the most important match of the season. A save on a great header that looked certain to go in. And then the TV companies don’t give you the glory you deserve?
    Lloris should be the most angry person in the world. He probably is.

  84. Absolutely, Walter! When a keeper makes such a save they’re credited with keeping their team in the match, and praised all round. That was a double save, surely should get a mention?

  85. And still the question remains: why didn’t Sky show real images of the incident from various angles. This was the Save Of The Match. The computer animation from the GLT is fine to add to the replays. But not the only replay.
    As a former keeper I can admire a fine stop. And this was a fine double stop. So I want to see that on my TV with images. Real images of real people. I want to see replays where you can see the grass moving where the keeper goes to the ground.

    Well I didn’t get such images. We should have seen at least 3 different angles from this save. One from the regular camera angle, one from the goal line camera and one from behind the goal.

    Just to appreciate the fine stop. To learn from the technical side of how the keeper did it. You now educational material for all goal keepers young and old.

    Save Of The Match? Come to think of it, it probably was the Save Of The Weekend.

  86. The thing of concern is that the game was played on Saturday, it is now Tuesday (4 days including the evening after the match)…and still we have NOTHING; not even from Arsenal.

    Those of us here (who have deep suspicions about what was shown to us and what lays beneath it) are completely MAD, BLIND, and STUPID (Mike T may feel so), BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT, also because from my young teenage years I have consumed much of my leisure time in photography and since 20 years included video capture into this. What I have come to learn is that the angle of any ‘shot’ (still or video) will ALTER (be different to others taken of the same subject) depending where and how the camera is held/positioned, from which angle to the subject it is positioned, what type of lens is used, and HOW EASY IT IS TO manipulate by photoshop (for stills) and various video editing programs for video capture. THE DIFFERENCE is INCREDIBLE!

    Which is proof as to why we didn’t get to see even that short replay (part of the scene at goalmouth) – because they (editors) needed time to make it LOOK REAL and conclusive.

    It amazes me that after 4 days we have NO WORD from ARSENAL F.C on this!

  87. I couldn’t make the game but saw it on TV. At the time I was perplexed by (i) the extensive delay in showing the GLT animation, (ii) why it was stopped after the first part of the save and (iii) the lack of replays including none from the goal-line camera. On MoTD they DID show a shot from the goal-line camera BUT stopped it at the point of the initial save!

    Having seen the vine video linked above it now seems clear that it wasn’t a goal – and it is even possible that the initial save was the point closest to the goal-line. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the GLT graphic shown on Sky and the one shown on BBC are different. The Sky graphic showed a clear gap between the goal-line and the ball while the BBC one showed the ball touching the goal line.

    All this raises lots of questions but, without knowing the details around the picture editing, I am just about inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the broadcasters/GLT/match officials but think the whole incident has been very clumsily handled.

    Regarding Atkinson for Sunday – oh geez. He wasn’t the ref last season, but pretty sure he was the ref when Chelsea clogged their way to a win 2 or 3 years back. Recall Ramires stamping on Coquelin’s foot in midfield prior to a Chelsea goal. Really, really poor by PGMOL.

    Apart from anything else, it puts unnecessary pressure on Atkinson.

  88. Apo
    Found this on the sky website, I’m emailing them to register my displeasure at how this incident was handled. If as many of us as possible email them, they may take note. Highly unlikely but worth it, they need to know people will not just stand by while they sweep important things under the carpet.

    If you have any comments or complaints about a programme broadcast on Sky, you can email us at or call us on 03442 410 265.

    Does anyone think this is a good idea? Or copying in the MP for the area as well when I email( I really need to know especially the latter part of copying the MP in, as I wouldn’t want to spam him for no reason. Thanks.

  89. Pete
    That clip from behind the goal is very misleading. The ball is bouncing along giving the impression it’s nowhere near the line. If one sees the same action from the front of the goal they would get the impression the ball was beyond the line. Likewise, if viewed from back of goal (as in this clip), the impression is the ball didn’t cross the line. The best angles would be sideways (from the corner flag) or directly above the cross bar. Sky will have coverage of these angles, but chose not to show them. Begging the question why.

  90. Get over it already, you didn’t win! Get over yourselves, it’s hardly the likes of the goal Spurs scored many years ago against Manure when it was hooked out from near the back of the net, you guys get real desperate to get one over, it’s embarrassing!

  91. @AL
    September 30, 2014 at 7:52 am

    “If you have any comments or complaints about a programme broadcast on Sky, you can email us at or call us on 03442 410 265.”

    I WILL BE CALLING THEM in an hour or so!

  92. Walter–you’re right about Lloris being angry. He should be. My first thought was, “What a fabulous save!” I actually didn’t think it crossed the line at first, but since I’m a keeper myself, I was keen to see it again because I love a good save (even if the keeper plays for the Spuds). Best save I’ve seen in a while.

    But since they didn’t bother to show it again, or to show the full GLT, I started to wonder why poor Lloris was denied his moment of glory. Saving your team 2 points in the NLD is worth celebrating.

  93. @AL
    September 30, 2014 at 7:52 am

    I changed my mind and tried to call just now (from outside the UK – +443442410265) – prerecorded message that the number does not exist, I then added the ‘0’ just in case; same result!

  94. AL – Possibly. But the ball wasn’t bouncing very high and did not seem to have any significant spin on it. Therefore still don’t think it was a goal!

    But certainly wanted to see full replays from the correct.

  95. ok @ apo Armani,this is how i’m going to complain,sky are a bunch of dick heads who can do all the replays when manure is playing even if its a throw in or the ball is out or a would be a penalty or a corner they do it in several directions,but those magwampa’s will never pray anything for Arsenal only when its against them thats when those shit holes will do that in every angle.

  96. Can’t believe this is still going on and it’s a sad day when a Chelsea fan makes more sense than many Arsenal fans. The clip I and Oleg put up wasn’t edited, that’s plainly obvious and it’s also plainly obvious the ball went nowhere near to crossing the line. You can easily see the ball in front of the line so it’s a complete non-story.

  97. Colario/Apo
    My apologies, didn’t realise that was a Spanish number, hopefully noone has tried to call it directly! Thanks guys.

    Not surprising you think a Chelsea fan is making more sense even though he can’t offer a single reason why we didn’t get a single conventional replay of this incident. Mind you, noone here seems to be saying the ball definitely crossed the line. Rather, we’re questioning the lack of replays as suspicious, as well as the silence on what would have been a stunning save, perhaps save of the season. Doesn’t that strike you as odd that noone seems to want to talk about this?

  98. Best odds for a Chelsea win on Sunday are 7/10 with Ladbrokes, get it while you can, as the odds are sure to come in as more people realise who the ref is.

  99. Some on here say it didnt cross, I say it did cross, and it is a matter of life and death to me,so Mike T and Chapman Ghost, what is the best way in your opinion to know if I should live or die? Please someone give me an idea of how to get to know if the ball was in or not?

  100. @AL
    September 30, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Yes the complete matter has gone into high suspicion as it seems there is a COVER UP…and LACK of transparency of the goalmouth scene; the fact that only one angle of the header and INITIAL TOUCH by Lloris has been made public…RINGS FOUL PLAY…if note then SHOW US ALL THE ANGLES!

  101. @Chapmans ghost.

    You have no idea whether it was edited or not. It takes expert witnesses in court to testify whether an image has been altered/ edited or not. And from your earlier posts you are hardly an expert- by your own admission.

    To put the matter to bed and satisfy all concerned all they have to do is analyse the entire passage of play including the goalkeepers second action, pushing the ball away when it is obvious that the keeper and his arm is well behind the line and the position of the ball is inconclusive. They have as yet only analysed the initial save, after which they cut the footage and left it at that. Puzzling when we see offside calls shown from 5 different angles to prove that a player was offside by a nose(see Kevin Nolan at weekend).

    All they have to do is go through the
    entire incident in detail, properly, which
    they have failed to do. You would think they’d be chomping at the bit to put this story to bed and prove us paranoid gooners wrong, if they had the evidence to do so.

  102. Shard

    Thanks. It’s possible that the Hawkeye system could have a glitch or two that needs ironing out, but they were waiting so many years for the contract with the configurations of the tech required more or less already tested and I can’t imagine that there are any if any problems with the set up. But it is a possibility.

    Do you remember that article by 7am Kickoff, a great piece on the deliberate holes left through FUFA’s adoption of this system?

    So, we understood before this season’s plans that this system is a nonsensical half-measure compared to what has existed in field hockey for years now, as I saw and many thousands, indeed millions saw at the 2012 London Olympics, and that set up with the third official for the hockey worked fine. No problems! The sport that (Dutch) football coaches look or looked to for ideas because of the similarities…

    “So either it wasn’t a goal, which is good in that the tech works. But bad in that the TV didn’t show it properly.”

    This seems most logical to me. What a few above seem unwilling or incapable of acknowledging is that as football fans we would just like to see a proper replay of the goal mouth action because that is what we all like to watch, the football. As Walter again explains above. As all broadcasters are aware, which is why the lack of any footage seems a little bit odd. And those who find football fans wondering why the broadcaster is not showing the most exciting moment of the football match bar the two goals are the oddest of all!

  103. @finsbury

    Without a thorough check one can’t be sure, but that would appear to be the perception.

  104. The real problem with goal line technology is it wasn’t what was needed in the first place.

  105. I was at the Arsenal v Totts game in block 102 row 4. I saw the ball cross over the line and got pulled out by the keeper and was shocked that it wasn’t given. I waited for the replay – never came. The goal line technology was just a still frame of the ball on one side of the line. I believe that there has been some crooked behaviour by someone to not clear the detail. The whole thing stinks.

  106. @menace
    September 30, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    If you have noticed my comments relating to this incident on several of these articles here on UA, you will see that I agree TOTALY with you even though I wasn’t at the game physically…something STINKS alright!

  107. and menace; guess what? Thats why we are not given a complete variety of all the angles and slow-mos of the incident – THAT IS EXACTLY WHY!

  108. “The real problem with goal line technology is it wasn’t what was needed in the first place”

    Exactly. A sop. As was concisely explained in the above link from 7amKickoff. That article was written in 2012!

  109. Goal line technology is only as good as the data (raw video footage in this case) fed into the program.

    Who is responsible for the capture of footage?

    who makes the decision of what footage is fed in and how long after the actual event – I think will be the critical parts of the equation.

    If the footage is not handled and distributed into the system in the most HONEST way, then the result coming from the graphic GLT images will be FAKE!

  110. I am certain that the ball goes backwards after the initial save, so we are not seeing the correct event. As we saw at the World Cup, we had a situation where first the no goal part of a shot was shown in the GLT and then the second phase was shown considerably later where it was a goal. It seemed a bit of a joke at the time, do you remember, because ‘No Goal’ came up first and then ‘Goal’ quite a bit later. In this situation, bearing in mind the fanatical and frenzied anti-Arsenal mood of the media, perhaps some idiot thought they were correctly following the anti-Arsenal agenda but seriously overstepped the line by not showing the 2nd phase here, which was possibly a goal. Of course they should show the 2nd phase as the ball is at least as far in and almost certainly further in, so it’s almost certainly the critical bit that has been omitted. Sooner or later this is going to be proven or someone will put their hands up and admit that they had orders or edited the Sky Clip or GLT clip or whatever. When that happens, the FA may feel it is time to investigate these agendas that go on. I just hope that we don’t have to wait for too long…

  111. I have read most of the comments and forgive me if I missed the point I am making has already been made by others.

    It’s all ok to say why they did not show the reply, or why was it so late. what’s the conspiracy and all those points are complete and utterly valid. But where I really really get’s me angry is with our commander-in-chief, Wenger. I do not recall him mentioning the second save and neither did he raise most of the points we are debating. Can you imagine, if this was against Hellsea? Egorinio would have absolutely blasted the refs. Not the GLT, but the refs putting them under tremendous pressure and would rake the benefits for oncoming games, similar to how red nose used to operate and operate so well. The media would have run with the story scrutinizing and debating this over & over again. Even the commentators [I do not refer to them as pundits] on Sky and MOTD would debate this.
    The fact the we have not made an issue of this in the media is a blessing for the GLT and broadcasters. Whatever the issue was, it’s buried now and we, the fans are labelled and sour losers. If it’s proved to be a system failure of GLT, the plug will be pulled on its contract. Suppose this would have cost a team the title or get relegated?

    I feel that Wenger is too much of a gentleman, but I sincerely feel he should start striking below the belt every now and then just that we are not taken for granted……which seems to be the case.

  112. @gouresh
    September 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    I am absolutely and utterly PRO-WENGER, however, I get the point you are making re the pressure which needs putting on the refs and the media and I have been waiting for some reaction from our beloved club – especially about this incident.

  113. The media would rather concentrate on ‘important’ issues such as ManU considering a string of friendlies since they have basically a free week in between games hahahahahahahaha

  114. As I said last night using the highlights of the Arsenal v spurs game on Arsenal player. I was able to pause the footage just as the ball crossed the goal line near the corner.
    If anyone has any other thoughts go do the same themselves and look at arsenal player.

  115. LMFAOOOOO….You guys are the real life version of Mel Gibsons character in “Conspiracy Theory”……1st it’s the GLT that proved you wrong, so now you claim that they didn’t show it quick enough…….get off it already.

    Oh, my offer from yesterday still stands…..if that pathetic tough guy keyboard warrior BILL FROM MANHATTAN would like to “discuss” anything shoot me an email at CES1NCE@ We can arrange something seeing as I am in Manhattan also.

  116. Cess…Bill is busy this afternoon and he probably wouldn’t hang out in your kind of place anyway.

    Gouresh – There is more than one way to skin a cat and I don’t believe that Wenger would ever stoop to the lows that some managers have done, which is what you are sort of hoping he might do. He is a different kind of manager. He has a moral compass and a vision which prevents him from behaving like the Mourinho’s of this world. We should all be thankful for that. Can you seriously look at our team and find a better one in the premiership? You could put a Messi, a Ronaldo, a Robben, a Lewandowski, maybe a Hazard or a younger Pirlo in this team and improve it but on the whole, as a team, I think that we have the best team in the country as a group of players. Why do you think that even the players that we sell end up in the best teams in Europe? It is because they are the best players. If there is one criticism you could arguably be justified in making, it would be that we could win more trophies if we strangled the life out of the opposition like Chelsea or spent hundreds of millions more than we have earned on players, like Chelsea and City have done. Those days are fast disappearing and we have a rosy future. Patience is hard for all of us but can you imagine how good it will feel when we are back where we were before the Emirates was built?

  117. Gentlemen,

    My apologies for not getting to this early, but, only now I figured out how to get a frame-by-frame replay of the incident on my Media Center. I managed to take a photo of the moment right before Lloris makes the second save. It’s a bit too blurry for my taste, but that’s what the HD video footage gave me.

    A few comments:
    + I think we can agree that the ball is traveling on a direction that is quasi-parallel to the goal line.
    + Second, the ball is traveling at a slow speed.
    + The time difference between this moment and the moment the ball reaches the farthest towards/inside the goal is of the order of hundredths of second. We’re talking about 1 TV frame, really. In the next frame that I could capture, the keeper’s hand was already on the ball, and the ball was traveling away from the goal.

    Based on these 3 assumptions, we can safely say that changes in the ball position from here until the totts keeper pushes it out are insignificant.

    Now, as I said, it’s blurry, but it seems like the ball is still not entirely over the line. Even if the footage didn’t catch the ball movement at its apex, it’s unlikely that the ball had the time to cross the line with its entire circumference.

    Damn Sky for not showing us a professional replay.

  118. All,
    I emailed sky complaints by the way. No harm in letting them know we are not pleased by this.

    I tried a similar thing too, and I was trying to use some freeware 3D imaging software to try and see if I can rotate the still and view from different angles. Hard work, and requires plenty of time. Anyway I have the clip on my PC, hopefully one day I’ll find some time to devote to this. And like you say, to think sky has all the footage and to clear this up in a matter of seconds….

  119. Meant to say ‘has all the footage and tools to clear this up in a matter of seconds…. ‘

  120. Walter
    Thanks for this article, and thanks to most for their comments, inc. and esp. those refuting Mike T etc’s usual denial of any possibility of wrongdoing of any kind EVER – when it concerns Arsenal.

    I tend to use the word “blatant” a lot.

    For those asking why Mr Wenger doesn’t speak about these things, cast your mind back a decade or so.
    When Arsene calls v Nistleroy a Cheat, or says: ManU kicked us off the park, the result is a stream of broken Arsenal players’ bones, and even more Blatantly bad decisions against the club.

    Indeed, Sky, who pay the TV money, undoubtedly led the charge to change *commentary/plunditary – across the whole media. If the BBC/BT Sport, etc don’t stick to this status quo (undermime everything Arsenal), the “lesser” broadcasters could end up not getting the next highlights package.

    When Mr Wenger points out “odd decisions” he’s vilified and heavily punished by all authorities (UEFA/FA/Premier L, et al), and the punishment has gone on for years.



    *Note the way even Andy Gray commented on this (previously, oft posted) video below. He quickly learned to NEVER say these things again – when related to Arsenal:

    Mr Wenger has had to pay hell for that, along with any other truths. Unlike Maureen, who can say what he likes (or poke people in the eye) and generally be admired by meedja.

  121. @ Sally: I agree with your comment on Wenger’s attitude. He is the manager who holds his nerve and is most dignified. That is rubbed on to our players and you can see them in the way they conduct themselves on and off the pitch. This is one of the reasons why we all love him and respect him……but one should show their dark side every now and then. it shakes people up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *