NZ Kick really missed?

Was forwarded this particluar clip and it seems to show that the kick that won the World cup was missed (39 second mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACy2AAG5xuU


Not sure if a fake, but if not, then a terrible shame that the reffing has been sucha a talking point in this World cup

Its not a fake its just a weird angle. To me the kick went over. The AR's saw it and the French saw it. If it was in question i am sure the French players would have been very miffed and protested immediately.

Can't view the clip (at work )

But hey ho... it was adjudged to have gone over by 3 match officials so thems the breaks. Very doubtful if all of them got it wrong.

It is more that the ball goes behind the psot. For the life of me I can not see how that could have gone through - angle or not

But Risky, you are watching from a camera (or phone) recoring something from a tv. The depth perseption is all wrong and is impossible to tell from that video. As i said, if it was awarded and the Frence didnt think it went over then there would have been an immediate protest from them.

For that kick to have missed, you would need the TV, referee, both assistant referees, the entire french team, the french bench, Marc Lievremont, etc. all buying into this for that moment.
Poor definition on the camera angle used.
Nothing more.

Have to say, at the time I was surprised to see the flags go up as it looked to miss. Why can't the camera just show the kick from directly in front or behind the posts?! In slow mo it looks like it goes the wrong side of the post but I'm sure the officials right under it have a better view.

Oh, by the way, congratulations to NZ on winning the RWC. They went through 4 outhalfs, had a captain with one function leg, the serious weight of expectation on their shoulders but still managed man up and get the result. It was probably good for Donald to only parachute in at the end as the media didn't have time to crush the guy under the crazy pressure they pile on players.

True, but my point is, you can see the ball clearly go behind the post. At no point does the ball pass in front of the post, so physically can not be through the posts.

A mate also commented that there were no repeats of the ball, just the kicker, on NZ TV - which is very unusual.

I will look into this more :-

Look at the reaction of the french players. they all turn round to trot back to the half way line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pzsfc2OTs

The ball goes through the posts, it is just not obvious on the footage. It just highlights the problem of 2d images showing 3d events.

Actually lookin at that again, from that angle the ball swings out, comes back in between the posts the passes behing the right hand post as it enters the stand.

A successful penalty and a dumb conspiracy theory.

EnglishReign wrote:Have to say, at the time I was surprised to see the flags go up as it looked to miss. Why can't the camera just show the kick from directly in front or behind the posts?! In slow mo it looks like it goes the wrong side of the post but I'm sure the officials right under it have a better view.

For angled and curving kicks you wouldnt be able to tell from a 2d tv picture if it went through unless the camera was positioned directly overhead. This is why they only use the TMO in extreme cases when bot the ref and the ARs are unsure, and even then its often ambiguous. Its even worse when the kick goes high like the welsh one.
Its also why tmo's shouldnt be ruling on forward passes, unless its extremly clear ( and how do we decide a metric for a consistent use of that?) Camera anles, depth perception, and direction of gameplay can cause some very misleading pictures.
Im suprised they dont hover the spidercam abover the posts for kicks, but then I guess theres the danger of it getting hit and blocking the score.

I was a wee bit surprised to see the flags go up to be honest but then when I saw the reaction of the players etc. I accepted it. When I saw the replay I could see the ball just making it inside the post.

London Tiger

Actually your clips shows it does not go through the posts. At no time is the ball to the left of the post and if you pause at 43 seconds you can clearly see the post is in front of the ball. ie. the ball went outside the post

When I saw it on TV, i thought, whoops you nearly missed that, it did fade to his right after he hit it, but it definately went over!

This should not be an issue, the issue, sadly, should be the refereeing in the final, which was boardering on corrupt

It was definitely over. In real time i thought it missed and there was no replay but i watched the highlights and you could clearly tell it went through. A non story

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

EnglishReign wrote:Have to say, at the time I was surprised to see the flags go up as it looked to miss. Why can't the camera just show the kick from directly in front or behind the posts?! In slow mo it looks like it goes the wrong side of the post but I'm sure the officials right under it have a better view.

For angled and curving kicks you wouldnt be able to tell from a 2d tv picture if it went through unless the camera was positioned directly overhead. This is why they only use the TMO in extreme cases when bot the ref and the ARs are unsure, and even then its often ambiguous. Its even worse when the kick goes high like the welsh one.
Its also why tmo's shouldnt be ruling on forward passes, unless its extremly clear ( and how do we decide a metric for a consistent use of that?) Camera anles, depth perception, and direction of gameplay can cause some very misleading pictures.
Im suprised they dont hover the spidercam abover the posts for kicks, but then I guess theres the danger of it getting hit and blocking the score.

Of course you can! If you stare at the right hand post (in this example) the ball will either break the 'line' of the post if it passes inside, or the line of the post in your vision will not be broken and will remain solid as the ball will pass behind it. That's how I'm used to telling if the ball goes through anyway.

Riskysports wrote:London Tiger

Actually your clips shows it does not go through the posts. At no time is the ball to the left of the post and if you pause at 43 seconds you can clearly see the post is in front of the ball. ie. the ball went outside the post

Actually I disagree. At 43secs the ball passes in front of the posts. But as I said 2d images showing 3d events.

If there was any doubt over whether or not the kick was successful, don't you think the French players / management might have mentioned it by now?

How can you say it goes in front of the posts. The post does not disapear as the ball passes. The ball disappears behind the post -

I have actually checked this on a large screen now - and am 100% convinced it did not go through

It is very clear to see

LondonTiger wrote:Actually lookin at that again, from that angle the ball swings out, comes back in between the posts the passes behing the right hand post as it enters the stand.

A successful penalty and a dumb conspiracy theory.

We were sat right behind this, ie goal to goal and yes at first it looked like he'd missed it but then it drew back in, 3 points, World champs thank you very much job done

Riskysports wrote:How can you say it goes in front of the posts. The post does not disapear as the ball passes. The ball disappears behind the post -

I have actually checked this on a large screen now - and am 100% convinced it did not go through

It is very clear to see

When I watch the replay the it is the post that partially disappears as the ball passes in front of it. Hard to see as it's white on white, but that's what I see. Score!

if that isnt fake the kick isnt over. it could be fake- anyone got a clip of the game from a tv source

Okay this is weird. When I saw the kick in HD yesterday it seemed it went over, but then it looked close and I could have easily been swayed by the affirmative reaction of the crowd/commentators. This footage certainly suggests it didn't go over. Going to have to look at the HD footage again.

I have to say, when i saw it in real time, I thought he'd missed, but put that down to the angle. That clip is not determinative. You would need a zoom feature to sort it out.

How the heck you can say you can see clearly from a picture that pixelated with such a slow frame rate that the ball passes infront or behind a post of the same colour i do not know.

Nobody there at the time had any doubt.

However the HD version here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pzsfc2OTs

The angle of curve really makes it look like it couldve missed, but we have to remeber thre distorting effects.

I still cant see clearly if it did go infront or behind the post on this though (reallly havent a clue where people are saying its clear one way or the other), id have to go with the reaction of every single person there. It was good.
If Joubert was wrong he was hardly alone in that mistake.

Its clearly a conspiracy,

just like the score was 8-7 to NZ...

and NZ last won the world cup in 87

Cmon people this is complete drivel.... whatever about pixels and squinting at tiny little white balls passing white posts...

The French players (about 5 of them standing directly under the posts and following the line of the ball with their own eyes) all turn and watch the ball go over and then immediately turn to run back to half-way... they do this BEFORE they even see the umpires put up their flags! That means that roughly 7 people confirmed the flight of the ball simultaneously (and most of them were French players willing the ball wide with their every breath).

IronMike wrote:Its clearly a conspiracy,

just like the score was 8-7 to NZ...

and NZ last won the world cup in 87

Oh my God, it's true! And Craig Joubert has the same surname as Andre Joubert, the Springbok full back who poisoned the All Blacks before the final in '95!

We are through the looking glass here, people...

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:How the heck you can say you can see clearly from a picture that pixelated with such a slow frame rate that the ball passes infront or behind a post of the same colour i do not know.

Nobody there at the time had any doubt.

However the HD version here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Pzsfc2OTs

The angle of curve really makes it look like it couldve missed, but we have to remeber thre distorting effects.

I still cant see clearly if it did go infront or behind the post on this though (reallly havent a clue where people are saying its clear one way or the other), id have to go with the reaction of every single person there. It was good.
If Joubert was wrong he was hardly alone in that mistake.

the clip honestly makes it look like it missed- being 100% serious- not making conspiracy claims- just that it looks as if it missed and i have 20/20 vision. Not sure how anyone can see (from the clip in question) that its good or 50/50

"Cmon people this is complete drivel...."

how??

my personal opinion is that it could be any of the below.

it wasnt good
the clip has been doctored
its an optical illusion.

Anyone that wants to argue or rule out any of the above is biasd in some way or another. or knows the definitive truth- Does someone want to come out show real evidence either way?

Optical illusion caused by the curve of your TV screen. Buy a flat screen you tight git!

mystrioakey, you've forgotten the most likely.....

....this footage is from Wayne Barnes iphone and he's doing all he can to stop the All Blacks winning this world cup aswell as the last

Comfort wrote:mystrioakey, you've forgotten the most likely.....

....this footage is from Wayne Barnes iphone and he's doing all he can to stop the All Blacks winning this world cup aswell as the last

so its been doctored by wayne barnes- i get it- ok case closed.

Comfort wrote:mystrioakey, you've forgotten the most likely.....

....this footage is from Wayne Barnes iphone and he's doing all he can to stop the All Blacks winning this world cup aswell as the last

Thats not bad in all honesty

mmmm. not sure about that.

plenty of other reasons why france should have won that match. although there are pleanty of reasons why nz should be world cup champs too.

it's been a strange rwc.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

IronMike wrote:Its clearly a conspiracy,

just like the score was 8-7 to NZ...

and NZ last won the world cup in 87

Oh my God, it's true! And Craig Joubert has the same surname as Andre Joubert, the Springbok full back who poisoned the All Blacks before the final in '95!

We are through the looking glass here, people...

I thought that was someone called 'Suzie' or is that how AJ liked to be known at weekends?!

mystiroakey wrote:"Cmon people this is complete drivel...."

how??

my personal opinion is that it could be any of the below.

it wasnt good
the clip has been doctored
its an optical illusion.

Anyone that wants to argue or rule out any of the above is biasd in some way or another. or knows the definitive truth- Does someone want to come out show real evidence either way?

I explained why it is drivel in the exact same post! The whole "personal opinion" argument thing is worthlessly circular too. Let us all accept that we all have opinions and are entitled to say whatever we like... including my opinion that your complaining about this kick is ridiculous and slightly barmy. Everyone has an opinion but not all opinions are equally valid. Besides the fact that your vid clearly DOESNT show the kick going wide (it's just a blur!), as I already explained: A whole number of French players were following the line of the ball while standing directly under the posts with baited breath. They all intently watched probably the most important kick in their rugby careers... and they ALL saw it go over and then SIMULTANEOUSLY turned and headed back to the centre for a kick-off BEFORE the umpires even raise their flags.

If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player (including some of the ones standing under the posts) have looked shocked and run around complaining to any official they could find?

FFS
Yes, the kick was close to the upright, but the HD clip shows that it was clearly inside, the assistants both raise their flags with no doubt and the French players all react as through the decision is correct, without the slightest hesitation.

Not even a debate on this, unlike the Hook kick against SA (where the difficulty is mostly because the ball was hgher than the top of the upright, so judgement is extremely difficult).

" including my opinion that your complaining about this kick is ridiculous and slightly barmy."

personally i think the above is slightly barmy. there is nothing wrong with checking out this piece of evidence, its sort of fun at the very least, at the worst needs to be sorted out in a big way and was a criminal decision.

"Besides the fact that your vid clearly DOESNT show the kick going wide (it's just a blur!"

not my vid. not my thread

and yes its clear as day the ball goes wide- in the vid

"If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player"

dont know- respect for the ref- it was to close. anyway immaterial, human error is a part of life.

Anyway as i have said- only someone who is biased or perhaps narrowminded would just accept the decision without looking into it any further.

" but the HD clip shows that it was clearly inside,"

really - i have just checked it out on the youtube hd clip- keep clicking pause on and around 42 secs-= there is nothing clear what so ever- infact it looks out- not saying it is- it could be an optical illusion- but its as sure as day looks out

mystiroakey wrote:
"If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player"

dont know- respect for the ref- it was to close. anyway immaterial, human error is a part of life.

No sorry, i dont think that's a fair summary. No. The french players don't "take a moment, look at the ref and then decide to accept it". The french players don't "look for a 22 and then realise the kick has been given". The french players in the video don't even "pause for one second to look at each other because it is so close they are not sure". They simply ALL turn IN UNISON without consulting each other or the referee and head back. At least 5-7 of them from directly under the posts... together in sync.

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway as i have said- only someone who is biased or perhaps narrowminded would just accept the decision without looking into it any further.

What is it with this biased nonsense?? By your definition, the whole French team and staff are biased against themselves. And, if anything, I was screaming for France by the end because it appeared they were being systematically reffed out of the game and were the better team on the day. There is some blurry, grainy, not very well isolated and strategically chosen youtube footage put up claiming a preposterous idea that it proves something that no one, NOT ONE commentator in any media (paper, TV, radio) or on the pitch or in any official capacity has even alluded to (let alone validated). And yet you claim that if you dont immediately join in the outrage your biased... yep has all the hall-marks of conspiracy theory stuff alright.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
"If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player"

dont know- respect for the ref- it was to close. anyway immaterial, human error is a part of life.

No sorry, i dont think that's a fair summary. No. The french players don't "take a moment, look at the ref and then decide to accept it". The french players don't "look for a 22 and then realise the kick has been given". The french players in the video don't even "pause for one second to look at each other because it is so close they are not sure". They simply ALL turn IN UNISON without consulting each other or the referee and head back. At least 5-7 of them from directly under the posts... together in sync.

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway as i have said- only someone who is biased or perhaps narrowminded would just accept the decision without looking into it any further.

What is it with this biased nonsense?? By your definition, the whole French team and staff are biased against themselves. And, if anything, I was screaming for France by the end because it appeared they were being systematically reffed out of the game and were the better team on the day. There is some blurry, grainy, not very well isolated and strategically chosen youtube footage put up claiming a preposterous idea that it proves something that no one, NOT ONE commentator in any media (paper, TV, radio) or on the pitch or in any official capacity has even alluded to (let alone validated). And yet you claim that if you dont immediately join in the outrage your biased... yep has all the hall-marks of conspiracy theory stuff alright.

what is your beef pal, they is no outrage from me ,just dont discount it- blimey you need to calm yourself down. I didnt put this thread up, i didnt you tube the video- i havent made the million and one comments about this video on the interent, just what i have said on here. Its an optical illusion or an incorrect deccision(i have discounted it being fake due to watching the hd you tube clip), can i be sure which one- no- you can though . nutter lol

How on earth did this even become a debate? And how on earth is this dtill going on? There are by my count 7 frenchmen in close proximity watching the ball not one protested.

mystiroakey wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
"If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player"

dont know- respect for the ref- it was to close. anyway immaterial, human error is a part of life.

No sorry, i dont think that's a fair summary. No. The french players don't "take a moment, look at the ref and then decide to accept it". The french players don't "look for a 22 and then realise the kick has been given". The french players in the video don't even "pause for one second to look at each other because it is so close they are not sure". They simply ALL turn IN UNISON without consulting each other or the referee and head back. At least 5-7 of them from directly under the posts... together in sync.

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway as i have said- only someone who is biased or perhaps narrowminded would just accept the decision without looking into it any further.

What is it with this biased nonsense?? By your definition, the whole French team and staff are biased against themselves. And, if anything, I was screaming for France by the end because it appeared they were being systematically reffed out of the game and were the better team on the day. There is some blurry, grainy, not very well isolated and strategically chosen youtube footage put up claiming a preposterous idea that it proves something that no one, NOT ONE commentator in any media (paper, TV, radio) or on the pitch or in any official capacity has even alluded to (let alone validated). And yet you claim that if you dont immediately join in the outrage your biased... yep has all the hall-marks of conspiracy theory stuff alright.

what is your beef pal, they is no outrage from me ,just dont discount it- blimey you need to calm yourself down. I didnt put this thread up, i didnt you tube the video- i havent made the million and one comments about this video on the interent, just what i have said on here. Its an optical illusion or an incorrect deccision(i have discounted it being fake due to watching the hd you tube clip), can i be sure which one- no- you can though . nutter lol

Yep another wonderfully logical response. I restrict myself to refuting your rather feeble arguments. You make allegations about anyone disagreeing with you being "biased and narrowminded". And then, when I again limit myself to strongly criticising your arguments... you do the usual thing of accusing someone else of being angry and insulting you. Have a read back mate.

biltongbek wrote:How on earth did this even become a debate? And how on earth is this dtill going on? There are by my count 7 frenchmen in close proximity watching the ball not one protested.

Dont even bother biltong... I've said that a few times now. But as with all conspiracy mongers, if you use rational argument you become "one of the non-believers" and open for insult. Then they turn the thread into a debate about how you are insulting them and their "opinions" unjustly.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
"If the kick was even controversial... why would not one French player"

dont know- respect for the ref- it was to close. anyway immaterial, human error is a part of life.

No sorry, i dont think that's a fair summary. No. The french players don't "take a moment, look at the ref and then decide to accept it". The french players don't "look for a 22 and then realise the kick has been given". The french players in the video don't even "pause for one second to look at each other because it is so close they are not sure". They simply ALL turn IN UNISON without consulting each other or the referee and head back. At least 5-7 of them from directly under the posts... together in sync.

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway as i have said- only someone who is biased or perhaps narrowminded would just accept the decision without looking into it any further.

What is it with this biased nonsense?? By your definition, the whole French team and staff are biased against themselves. And, if anything, I was screaming for France by the end because it appeared they were being systematically reffed out of the game and were the better team on the day. There is some blurry, grainy, not very well isolated and strategically chosen youtube footage put up claiming a preposterous idea that it proves something that no one, NOT ONE commentator in any media (paper, TV, radio) or on the pitch or in any official capacity has even alluded to (let alone validated). And yet you claim that if you dont immediately join in the outrage your biased... yep has all the hall-marks of conspiracy theory stuff alright.

what is your beef pal, they is no outrage from me ,just dont discount it- blimey you need to calm yourself down. I didnt put this thread up, i didnt you tube the video- i havent made the million and one comments about this video on the interent, just what i have said on here. Its an optical illusion or an incorrect deccision(i have discounted it being fake due to watching the hd you tube clip), can i be sure which one- no- you can though . nutter lol

Yep another wonderfully logical response. I restrict myself to refuting your rather feeble arguments. You make allegations about anyone disagreeing with you being "biased and narrowminded". And then, when I again limit myself to strongly criticising your arguments... you do the usual thing of accusing someone else of being angry and insulting you. Have a read back mate.

calm it bud, open your mind, allow the discussion and debate.

mysti I hope your contributions are as a giant wind up. Even if it is you are being offensive purely for the sake of it.

Some saddos have created a conspiracy theory out of thin air. You keep insisting that anyone who trys to apply common sense to the situation is being biaised and narrow minded.

LondonTiger wrote:mysti I hope your contributions are as a giant wind up. Even if it is you are being offensive purely for the sake of it.

Some saddos have created a conspiracy theory out of thin air. You keep insisting that anyone who trys to apply common sense to the situation is being biaised and narrow minded.

i think you need to look back pal and see who is being offensive- have you seen the vid?

its looks out- not once have a said it was though. I am the only person here applying common sense.

it was out or its an optical illusion. that isnt my opinion- that is stone cold FACT!

Not sure how people can just discount what there eyes tell them- its like blind faith- never understood religion, but i wont tell you that god doesnt exist. I am a realist thats it. If you wanna come on here and make ridiculas judgements without looking into it then by all means- its very narrow minded.

Anyway i am of on this thread- said all i need to. cant be dealing with an argument today

chill down and try and open your minds abit- that or go to spec savers.

Mystiroakey, forget the video, there are enough french players closeby that never questioned it