|
|
Post by clavius on Jan 25, 2015 16:12:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by borodale on Jan 25, 2015 16:47:21 GMT
Really strange that no Wealdstone players objected ,pretty clear that it hit the side netting and the players celebrated ,mind you how did Pacquette miss from that range ! ,got away with that ,and Tommy thinks we should have won !
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 25, 2015 16:49:40 GMT
Strange that no Boro fans commented on the validity of the 'equaliser'. Must have been obvious to all those watching behind the goal. Human nature being what it is though...
|
|
|
|
Post by borodale on Jan 25, 2015 16:58:40 GMT
Perhaps "the old fogeys " couldn't see it and the "15 year old lareys " were too short ! (a description of our fan base from Stones fans Forum )
|
|
|
|
Post by sideline on Jan 25, 2015 17:08:31 GMT
Looks to me that the young man with the white hoody had the best view and was bemused with the goal celebrations and was off to tell his mate that it was wide!!
Lucky Boro. Wonder if photographer has a nice still of the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smithy40 on Jan 25, 2015 18:44:30 GMT
Are you sure that has missed? If you look carefully the thing that makes it look like it has missed is the shadow made by the ball from the flood light showing up on the post. It is just an optical illusion. It is just the angle that it is filmed from. If you pause the video just as Pacquette heads it and then play it again it is easier to see that it has gone in and see the shadow on the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by clavius on Jan 25, 2015 18:58:53 GMT
You can see the Ball go outside of the post and go under the Net.i enhanced the video its Quite clear
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 25, 2015 19:54:42 GMT
Richard Pacquette apparently admitted to his old mate Jefferson Louis that the ball went through the side net. No 'optical illusion' there.
|
|
|
|
Post by borodale on Jan 25, 2015 20:00:57 GMT
Aren't Louis and Pacquette cousins ,if so, must be an interesting conversation at Xmas comparing clubs they have played for and where to go next !
|
|
|
|
Post by boroblade on Jan 25, 2015 21:39:36 GMT
I was stood to the left of the goal less than 6 feet away from the side netting and the ball definitely went in the goal legitimately. The Wealdstone keeper would have hounded the ref all over the pitch if he believed the ball had gone through the side netting.
Not even a discussion point imo
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinanderson on Jan 25, 2015 22:02:58 GMT
Thanks for that input, Boroblade. It confirms what I am coming round to thinking.
It's up there with the Dallas Book Depository and those UFOs over Roswell, but...
There is one frame - only one - which appears to show the ball travelling wide of the post. But within perhaps one second, the ball is clearly nestling well within the back of the goal. To have reached that position via the wet and muddy grass beyond, and then at right angles back through a net which, as Cookie says, is pinned with six-inch pegs, would defy the laws of physics. And in the same split second, Pacman has flung both arms high in triumphant goal salute.... Yep. Goal.
This message is the authenticated Voice of the BBC, and has been personally approved by the Director General.
Not.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBoroLad on Jan 25, 2015 22:38:24 GMT
As a film maker my self and someone who spends my life around video footage, i took the video and slowed it down and zoomed right in.
My verdict is that its 100% a goal based on the following:
- The Ball clearly hits the back of the net, the net also does not move when the ball was supposedly going through it. The net only moves when it hits the back of the net.
- Pacman raises his hands almost instantly after he heads the ball (As Kevin has already pointed out)
- Nobody behind the goal puts their hands on there head before celebrating (As you would if you had thought it had hit the side netting)
- None of the Wealdstone players complain about it, including the multiple players inside the 6 yard area.
The camera quality is so poor that with a fast travelling white ball flying behind a white goal post this can cause the camera sensor to pick up something that didn't happen, this is a common error within lower quality cameras. An example of this would be in many UFO videos and even Ghost videos where things look like something they're not because of lighting or a poor frame refresh rate ect. The list goes on.
Goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 25, 2015 22:45:24 GMT
Who's cookie, and who mentioned 6in pegs? Why did Pacman tell Jefferson it went wide? Looks to me as though Pacquette was trying to influence the referee. The ball clearly goes through the foot of the sidenetting, from whence it's a four foot journey in a straight line to the back of the net. Camera doesn't lie m'lud.
Have to say though, Borough probably deserved to win the season's opener at Wealdstone, and the Stones should have won this one. We'd both be one point better off now!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBoroLad on Jan 25, 2015 22:49:31 GMT
When and where has Richard Pacquette supposedly said this?
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 25, 2015 22:52:24 GMT
The only conclusive proof would be some honest soul to look at how the sidenetting is fixed on those goalposts. If there's a gap - lots of doubt. Otherwise it's a hoax. Can anybody at the club shed some light? Just an honest opinion because it's all done and dusted now, result-wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 25, 2015 22:56:31 GMT
As regards the conversation, apparently it was at the end of the game. Don't know if it was in the tunnel or later but JL and RP are old mates. Don't know if they are related. This is not admissable in a court of law, by the way. Just interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinanderson on Jan 25, 2015 23:07:50 GMT
Well Tim, since you are a Wealdstone supporter, you wouldn't know Cookie (whose information was given on the club's Facebook group btw). You are simply spreading disinformation with your claims about Richard's alleged conversation with Jefferson. "Apparently" doesn't cut it. Do stop trying to play the even-handed observer, and you might win back some credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheBoroLad on Jan 25, 2015 23:08:15 GMT
Is there actually any proof of this conversation or not? Because its only you who heard this apparently and as you're a new member.. not pointing fingers but yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by boroblade on Jan 26, 2015 12:20:08 GMT
The dozen or so people who were stood near or next to me were in no doubt that the ball crossed the line legitimately. Not once did I hear anyone saying otherwise.
Good goal.....indisputable. Let's move on from all this speculation of "was it or wasn't it?"
|
|
|
|
Post by timparks on Jan 26, 2015 15:00:35 GMT
Good idea. I certainly don't want to be 'an even-handed observer'! Whatever anyone thinks does"t change the result on the day. but it's livened up an otherwise dull Sunday. Right, I'm off to look at those old US Govt videos of the moon landings. Look a bit fishy to me.
.. one minute after I wrote the above, one of the guys at work (a BBC cameraman) came over to look at the video that kicks off this thread and declared it 'bloomin obvious' that the ball went through the side netting. ' You can see how the ball kicks back slightly after catching the hole in the side netting and ends up behind the keeper.' Surely nobody can argue that it is a valid goal?"
Mmmmmm....
|
|
