Who in fack cares - yassssssssssssssss

No.

Would rather Spain went out over Germany, facking hate Spanish football, so tedious to watch. But it looked out to me

FIFA saying the curvature of the ball had not crossed the line so it was still in

Here's one that people are reposting on Twitter that shows how angles work: https://twitter.com/JamesTMaw/status/821038042555305984

ITV showing the pictures showing the ball in play while moaning they don’t have the pictures? WTF?

Neville is a vvank calling conspiracy

The one image shows it was clearly still on the line.

It didn't cross the line. It also pretty much confirms that England's "goal" in 1966 final didn't cross the line either. I think that's what the pundits are mad about.

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 39 seconds ago
The one image shows it was clearly still on the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly!

They’re shouting all the odds and never addressed that image - it’s mental!

Looking from the above image, it appears that it didn't. At the end of the day, the Germans only have themselves to blame for being in that position going into the final game. A final game they made hard work of.

Spain are now in England's half of the draw, incidentally. France or England v Spain or Portugal in the quarters and semis looks pretty tasty

https://twitter.com/chris_kammy/status/1598409676353314816/photo/1

no way it was still in play

comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 22 seconds ago
https://twitter.com/chris_kammy/status/1598409676353314816/photo/1

no way it was still in play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean no way? You know the whole curvature of the ball has to be outside of the line right? That image for me shows part of that curve still matching up with the line. It's tight but still on it.

The ball is in play.

Anyway, the other image is more conclusive.

Looking at the images of the England 1966 final "goal" what so people now think about its validity?

comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 48 seconds ago
Anyway, the other image is more conclusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
100%

comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/chris_kammy/status/1598409676353314816/photo/1

no way it was still in play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you be this thick?

Is this another thing that separates normal people from stupid people?

https://twitter.com/magers87/status/1598423218473537537?t=QQFC7yo2uY8QDH0BfnKQ0w&s=19

If the crossbar was aligned to the chalk it would be even more in play

comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/chris_kammy/status/1598409676353314816/photo/1

no way it was still in play
----------------------------------------------------------------------

edge of the ball looks level with the edge of the line

comment by Tomkins (U1116)
posted 1 minute ago
https://twitter.com/magers87/status/1598423218473537537?t=QQFC7yo2uY8QDH0BfnKQ0w&s=19

If the crossbar was aligned to the chalk it would be even more in play
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. It's conclusive for me it was in by a mm or 2.

Japanese deserved to win
you won't get any complaints from me

Without seeing a view from above the ball then you can not really determine. But it did look a good 2-3 inches over from behind the player.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Without seeing a view from above the ball then you can not really determine. But it did look a good 2-3 inches over from behind the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Above?

Ffs when the ball is on the deck it’s a 2D decision. Anywhere on the axis of the goal line is fine.