NZ Kick really missed?

First topic message reminder :

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

i think its interesting- not sure why i shouldnt biltongbong-

i can give you examples of when people can get it so wrong. i am a palace fan and the ref (and many other players) got it so wrong against us last season that the ref missed a goal that went all the way into the goal and bounced of the back post inside the goal!!!

stuff is missed, its part and pacerl of human life and error- i am not arguing this point as a conspiracy theory- i am discussing it as a topic, even as a scientific topic- why does the ball look out from our point of view, if it wasnt?

Mystiroakey, I grant you mistakes are made, but in a RWC final not one french player raised an eyebrow, now surely it is in their best interest to notify the referee if they thought it missed

mystiroakey wrote: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!

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

Well there you go.

In my opinion it looks in. In your OPINION it looks out. Perhaps we should all go to specsavers together.


The only fact is that the Touch Judges - the best position to see - deemed it a good kick and 3 points were awarded to NZ.

LondonTiger wrote:

mystiroakey wrote: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!

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

Well there you go.

In my opinion it looks in. In your OPINION it looks out. Perhaps we should all go to specsavers together.


The only fact is that the Touch Judges - the best position to see - deemed it a good kick and 3 points were awarded to NZ.

+1 The point is it DOESN'T look clearly wide - which would be the only reason to keep debating all this. It is simply an ambiguous angle. All TV footage of a white ball going across white posts is gonna be difficult to make out. But it more or less looks in to me too and I wouldn't have even thought twice about it if it were not for this one thread with blurry footage and its suspiciously convinced partisans with no real other evidence to support their claims. All outside evidence (immediate responses, impartial umpires, opposing players, and the synchronicity of their responses, etc) supports the fact that it obviously did go over.

Next we will here that the posts were CGI'd five feet to the right of where they truly were.

I have the game recorded and just watched the kick again.

It was clearly in.

"I have the game recorded and just watched the kick again.

It was clearly in."

dont know how you are seeing that- what anglle are you watching are there any others than the ones posted on here?

have you tried pausing it as it nears and passes the post?

I thought it missed when watching the match but as already mentioned if it did i doubt the French players would have just stood around and said nothing.

I genuinely thought the Donald penalty had missed, but then again i thought that the penalty by France had gone through and can't quite believe what i've seen on the clip!!

However, on the day it was a successful kick, so thats the end of it.

As an Englishman i think there are shades of geoff hursts goal in 1966.

viewtothegym wrote:I thought it missed when watching the match but as already mentioned if it did i doubt the French players would have just stood around and said nothing.

Yeah i dont get this whole french argument. My argument and everyone else's is that the replays we are seeing are telling us its out- thats what we are debating. I want other views other angles, just because a couple of players that could have been in a position to see if it had gone over or not -saw it go over or wasnt sure(they all looked straight at the reffs after it was kicked to see if they were giving it to NZ) is immaterial to the point at hand and prooves nothing.

viewtothegym wrote:I thought it missed when watching the match but as already mentioned if it did i doubt the French players would have just stood around and said nothing.

Yeah but that is your argument mystiroakey because you want to avoid all arguments that make your suggestion basically impossible. For some reason you wish instead to remain focussed on some inconclusive internet footage that allows you to argue circularly forever on the same point about it being "definitely" wide (which has not been accepted by most in the first place).

As viewtothegym again brought up yet again and I will repeat: ALL the french players under the posts and every supporter directly behind the posts... all of them respond IN SYNC and BEFORE the umpires raise their flags. Then the umpires and referee (presumably fully focussed on where the ball is going) all agree in unison and without hesitation declare that the ball is over.

I have still not heard any explanation as to how any of this could be possible without exception/hesitation if the ball had even been controversially close - let alone wide. In most cases, whenever a ball is close, you see and hear the crowd waiting for the umpires to lift the flag.

just watched it, I think it missed

lol- surprise surprise- just thought you would attack for the sake of attcking- typical

I personally think it missed,but who am i to say i wasn't there.

All them French players under the post didn't dispute it so it must have gone over.

After watching the video footage i think even more it missed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOGT9TBPYRU

They landed on the moon so they say but who filmed them leaving?

A remote camera? really?

This is the view I had, Donald's kick was from on the join of the mown grass and the ball was a good foot inside the post

That picture doesn't make sense

viewtothegym wrote:That picture doesn't make sense

In what way? you mean cos it's not of the kick?

Yep

They are warming up in that pic aren't they?

viewtothegym wrote:They are warming up in that pic aren't they?

Yup that was taken about 8.12 pm

Rangiora wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:That picture doesn't make sense

In what way? you mean cos it's not of the kick?

I have done an analysis of the shadows that would have been cast at that time in Eden Park and that photo is definitely a fake! A fake I tell you... you're all so gullible.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

Rangiora wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:That picture doesn't make sense

In what way? you mean cos it's not of the kick?

I have done an analysis of the shadows that would have been cast at that time in Eden Park and that photo is definitely a fake! A fake I tell you... you're all so gullible.

mystiroakey wrote:"I have the game recorded and just watched the kick again.

It was clearly in."

dont know how you are seeing that- what anglle are you watching are there any others than the ones posted on here?

have you tried pausing it as it nears and passes the post?

Same angle, but paused, in HD on a disgustingly large TV. The ball clearly passes between the posts.

viewtothegym wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOGT9TBPYRU

They landed on the moon so they say but who filmed them leaving?

A remote camera? really?

Was it Alain Rolland?

Gatts wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOGT9TBPYRU

They landed on the moon so they say but who filmed them leaving?

A remote camera? really?

Was it Alain Rolland?

In the kitchen with the lead pipe?

no in the study with the sharpened red card

So those pesky Kiwi's not only control the Irb, the refs and now they control the Worlds media. Is there no end to their evil regime ?

Possibly not, i wonder if David Eike has something to say about their evil web of lies and deceit?? Are these Kiwi's truly the Reptiles he warns us all aboot??

Gullible!
Interesting choice of word

Come on we all know Allan is a member of the Dublin Lodge along with BOD and all it took was a double finger tucked in hand shake to make sure them nasty Welsh lads were sent packing!

Saddam told Elvis who told some guy from Nebraska in a sweaty bed sit.

They are regularly seen breakfasting together at the Burlington.

Doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence either way. So why would no one on the pitch question it? The most likely answer is that they thought it was over.

However to indulge the conspiracy theorists could there be another explanation? Most teams are coached to watch for rebounds and what the French were really watching for was whether it hit the post or not, rather than what side it passed. When it passed their brains told them it was a walk back (either to the 22 or the halfway line). Some of them may just have been listening for impact but watching to see where a possible NZ threat would come from if it did rebound?

The Assistants have to work as a pair and rely on each other where each one takes a post. If the ball passes inside an AR's post then he particularly looks at height and then looks to his mate - so in reality for close calls it's only one Assistant Referee who is making the decision. Naturally with home advantage the crowd were always going to have a big cheer whether it went over or not, so could one official have been swayed or made a mistake? I've never seen the ref. question a close call when both ARs put their flags up.
It was strange that the winning score wasn't replayed though.


IMO there should be no need to have such a debate. Firstly how easy would it be to use a ball that is a different colour to the posts? That would make it easier for officials and spectators alike, and not just for the posts but for the line judging as well.
Secondly there is an electronic solution that would track the position of the ball and automatically show whether the goal was good. Using it would also allow the AR's to stay on their touchlines ready to officiate should the kick be missed.

lkol great aukster you dont have to9 be a conspiracy theorist to consider that the kick might not be over- the footage suggests it isnt. the debate is valid. Dont pander to the people that want to stop a debate and can only think on the lines of black or white.

I will repeat again- its an optical illusion or a bad call. we are not debateing that is a conspiracy theory(the refs were paid off whatever) just very simply- was it a good call!!!

however your last paragraph is good- and a soloution to the problem

can i just point out also to the people on here that may be seeing a blur- it may be that your monitors are of a lower resolotion than others!

Really? The rugbydump.com footage is still inconclusive for some? if so, get a new screen.

The solutions to tracking the ball are all well and good, but really the only contentious kick of the tournament was so because it appeared to be too high to go between the posts, so not sure it would resolve the problem, which to be honest is should be just about bottom of the list of the IRB's 'to fix' list.

mystiroakey wrote:lkol great aukster you dont have to9 be a conspiracy theorist to consider that the kick might not be over- the footage suggests it isnt. the debate is valid. Dont pander to the people that want to stop a debate and can only think on the lines of black or white.

I will repeat again- its an optical illusion or a bad call. we are not debateing that is a conspiracy theory(the refs were paid off whatever) just very simply- was it a good call!!!

Yes it was a good decision.

goneagain wrote:Really? The rugbydump.com footage is still inconclusive for some? if so, get a new screen..

Thanks for directing to that site. It does indeed show teh ball passing between teh posts.

LondonTiger wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:lkol great aukster you dont have to9 be a conspiracy theorist to consider that the kick might not be over- the footage suggests it isnt. the debate is valid. Dont pander to the people that want to stop a debate and can only think on the lines of black or white.

I will repeat again- its an optical illusion or a bad call. we are not debateing that is a conspiracy theory(the refs were paid off whatever) just very simply- was it a good call!!!

Yes it was a good decision.

you think so- thats fine. I dont know , i have no conclusive proof- whats yours?

thanks for the rugbydump footage- that certainly looks almost 50/50,very hard to work out where we are seeing ball at the point it goes past the posts(is it past or is it before)

, but hey i havent seen that before- other footages- like the one on this thread and the one on youtube look like they are going out no question, which would offcourse lead to an optical illusion due to the viewing angle, colour of the ball and colour of the posts

mystiroakey wrote:you think so- thats fine. I dont know , i have no conclusive proof- whats yours?

1) The HD footage I watched on my TV showing the ball going through
2) The positioning of the Assistants was perfect and they gave it.
3) The reaction of the French Players
4) The analysis on RugbyDump http://www.rugbydump.com/ that clearly shows the ball passing between the posts before curling behind teh right hand post
5) The lack of any outrage from French fans/press etc.
6) I have been to specsavers and still have 20/20 vision

Weighing this up against:

1) Grainy footage where the camera is moving and the whole thing is inconclusive.



(PS This really is a non-story. My contribution is at an end. You have obviously decided it missed - despite evidence)

The Great Aukster wrote:Doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence either way. So why would no one on the pitch question it? The most likely answer is that they thought it was over.

However to indulge the conspiracy theorists could there be another explanation? Most teams are coached to watch for rebounds and what the French were really watching for was whether it hit the post or not, rather than what side it passed. When it passed their brains told them it was a walk back (either to the 22 or the halfway line). Some of them may just have been listening for impact but watching to see where a possible NZ threat would come from if it did rebound?

The Assistants have to work as a pair and rely on each other where each one takes a post. If the ball passes inside an AR's post then he particularly looks at height and then looks to his mate - so in reality for close calls it's only one Assistant Referee who is making the decision. Naturally with home advantage the crowd were always going to have a big cheer whether it went over or not, so could one official have been swayed or made a mistake? I've never seen the ref. question a close call when both ARs put their flags up.
It was strange that the winning score wasn't replayed though.


IMO there should be no need to have such a debate. Firstly how easy would it be to use a ball that is a different colour to the posts? That would make it easier for officials and spectators alike, and not just for the posts but for the line judging as well.
Secondly there is an electronic solution that would track the position of the ball and automatically show whether the goal was good. Using it would also allow the AR's to stay on their touchlines ready to officiate should the kick be missed.

Sorry Aukster... Your last paragraph I like... But I'm not buying anything you're selling in the first two paragraphs: Some supporters (mostly those not in prime position) will of course react to the first kick of the ball. But it is simply not the case that all supporters sitting behind the goal will simply cheer positively en masse despite what they see with their own eyes. Many (and I have been one on many occasions) will immediately grasp their head and groan or otherwise respond negatively. It is simply not believable that ABSOLUTELY noone watching a crucial kick go wide from directly behind the posts is going to respond negatively. As regards the players. Again, it might be believable that one or two might be watching only for a rebound. But 5-6 were watching it. And NONE responded negatively. Another French player was BEHIND the posts and he also watched it go over so he could not have been looking for the rebound. Finally, players turn and respond very differently for a 22 than for a kickoff. They look for the ball that was kicked or they seek a replacement in order to restart quickly. They also look to eachother to organise their positioning. These players were clearly heading back to the halfway NOT looking to prepare for a 22. (And in any case, as we all know, none of the French players were confused or contesting the kick).

But finally all of this is essentially moot. Especially as regards mystiroakey's continued attempts to keep it going. The argument all along was not about the terrible footage shown here. That was simply mystiroakey's argument and it was contested many times. The exact point was that the footage being shown here was selective, blurry and inconclusive. It could not be used to promote ANY argument (and certainly didn't show the ball actually going wide!). And that, for that reason alone, this whole thread was ridiculous. A) Because there was no other evidence from players, to fans, to officials or anywhere else that suggested there was a problem AND B) Because as soon as there was better footage (and I rewatched it again on a full-TV size screen to confirm this) you could see the ball going through the posts.

This was and always will be a damp squib of a topic.

LondonTiger wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:you think so- thats fine. I dont know , i have no conclusive proof- whats yours?

1) The HD footage I watched on my TV showing the ball going through
2) The positioning of the Assistants was perfect and they gave it.
3) The reaction of the French Players
4) The analysis on RugbyDump http://www.rugbydump.com/ that clearly shows the ball passing between the posts before curling behind teh right hand post
5) The lack of any outrage from French fans/press etc.
6) I have been to specsavers and still have 20/20 vision

Weighing this up against:

1) Grainy footage where the camera is moving and the whole thing is inconclusive.



(PS This really is a non-story. My contribution is at an end. You have obviously decided it missed - despite evidence)

when have i even said it missed- would you be kind to drag that out please? lol- does it make your argument better by believeing your own lies!

none of your evidence is conclusive proof- however the rugbydump is a better picture- although i still cant see it going over for certain

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

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

ETC, ETC...

...to which others like myself responded that the video was inconclusive (at best) and that it was ridiculous to keep on using that footage as the basis of a whole theory regarding the ball going wide. Tonnes of other evidence said that it was not wide... Ockham's razor and all that... the most obvious explanation was that the footage was somewhat misleading and that the ball did go over and you should just make an effort to see the live TV footage on a proper screen (which a few of us, again, did).

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

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

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

ETC, ETC...

...to which others like myself responded that the video was inconclusive (at best) and that it was ridiculous to keep on using that footage as the basis of a whole theory regarding the ball going wide. Tonnes of other evidence said that it was not wide... Ockham's razor and all that... the most obvious explanation was that the footage was somewhat misleading and that the ball did go over and you should just make an effort to see the live TV footage on a proper screen (which a few of us, again, did).

erm so i say that the vids look like the ball isnt over, and your telling me that i said it wasnt over- both comments are saying there are other options!!

abit of a cheap shot pal- my stance has allways been - i dont know, which i know that you know! your stance is simple- its over get over it!

mystiroakey wrote:

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

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

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

ETC, ETC...

...to which others like myself responded that the video was inconclusive (at best) and that it was ridiculous to keep on using that footage as the basis of a whole theory regarding the ball going wide. Tonnes of other evidence said that it was not wide... Ockham's razor and all that... the most obvious explanation was that the footage was somewhat misleading and that the ball did go over and you should just make an effort to see the live TV footage on a proper screen (which a few of us, again, did).

erm so i say that the vids look like the ball isnt over, and your telling me that i said it wasnt over- both comments are saying there are other options!!

abit of a cheap shot pal- my stance has allways been - i dont know, which i know that you know! your stance is simple- its over get over it!

Errrm yourself. You continually said over and over that, whatever the truth, the video footage DID show the ball going wide. We all said that that was not the case. You followed that by saying that that didn't mean it didn't go over (whatever that means??). But the key point remained the same: most of us here kept saying that the footage DID NOT show what you were insisting it did! That was the whole point. And moreover we maintained that it was silly to make a big deal about this poor footage or make claims saying "it's clear as day that it didn't go over".

The rugby dump (http://www.rugbydump.com/) has now shown even clearer slowed down footage. So I presume you are now at least ready to admit that there was no way the first video showed the ball going wide "as clear as day"?

That'll be 2 c's for Occam's...

ou followed that by saying that that didn't mean it didn't go over (whatever that means??)

yeah and i pointed out that it could be an optical illusion. are you a bit basic or something! look up at what it means if you dont know!

OzT wrote:That'll be 2 c's for Occam's...

Unless there's video evidence for that I'm not going to believe you

OzT wrote:That'll be 2 c's for Occam's...

Occam's razor, also known as Ockham's razor, and sometimes expressed in Latin as lex parsimoniae (the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness), is a principle that generally recommends selecting from among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

nipe, didn't realize that Nos na, I just learnt it as Occam's, cheers for that!