Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Geoff Hurst's goal, was it in?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Geoff Hurst's goal, was it in?



Recommended Posts

I think so - Don't forget Roger Hunt was just behind Geoff when he ahem 'scored' - Do you really think if it wasn't in? That a striker as prolific, experienced and instinctive as he in his prime would just have left it there and thus passed up the chance to A:) Score in the World Cup Final himself thereby becoming an England legend in his own right and B:) Ensure there was no debate over the whole shebang whatsoever - The fact Sir Roger just stood there means he was either convinced it was in himself or he and Geoff Hurst perhaps saw the linesman signal a goal immediately before the free for all row involving the ref', said linesman and half the West German Team.

 

Also - Though it most probably do be sheer heresy to suggest it? The ball in that World Cup incident? Was I think, slightly further over the line than Garcia's 'Goal' in May 2005 in that Semi-Final win against Chelsea and if you take the view that that 2005 effort was a goal as the ball was far enough across the line? Then the World Cup Final one clearly had to be. For what it's worth IMO? Both were goals - In both cases there was just enough to allow them and I doubt the professionals of the refereeing teams in both cases would have ruined their reputations by being unprofessional enough to allow 'goals' when there was enough evidence not to (The one in the Chelsea game was a heart surgeon no? So he had to be precise). In both cases also? There would most certainly have been goals had the 'goals' eventually given not been awarded, in 1966? Roger Hunt Would have scored had the 'goal' not been given - Something made him not bother else he would have scored for sure. In 2005? Petr Cech would have got a Red Card and had a penalty awarded against Chelsea and the Ref' in question has since confirmed that this would have happened had Garcia not scored.

 

Anyway it matters not now since Either way? The decisions to award 'goals' in both games were vindicated in view of what would have happened had they not been given along with who was the better team in each game; It's clear then that justice was eventually done as the better team won both times -Whilst All debates such as this were rendered moot & unimportant in terms of the results and history as they say? Was most certainly written by the victors on both occasions...........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really looked into this, always just taken historys word for it but I've just seen it from a few different angles on youtube which themselves have slowed it down, and I don't think it went in. It hit the crossbar, which is obviously not in because the crossbar is effectively the line, comes down but bends inwards but not enough to go over the line, bends outwards again before it hits the line, Id say half on half off. Thats not a goal is it? It has to be all over?

 

This is the video that did it for me. Excuse the text and music.

 

fyUgs_5yW0w

 

That video actually shows it as bouncing half on the line, half on the pitch not goal.

 

Speaking of Roger Hunt, Im not entirely sure he could have got to it, with the defender right by him who headed it over, and maybe he turned away because of that. Or he turned away because he thought it was in. He didn't see the linesman from where he was looking, and he didn't see Hurst celebrate. Maybe he heard him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it proved it wasn't in. The ball didn't cross the line.

 

That's entirely possible. I just remember seeing something where they proved it one way or another (except I thought it had been they proved it in) that video Acid posted looks familiar so I guess that must be from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can proove they bombed our chippy.

 

If the Germans didbomb your chippy the fact that the potatoes were grown in Vichy France proves that it was an argricultural war against French farmers who drive the price up of all root vegetables. But only rootvegetables' date=' though as the potatoe is the [b']apple[/b] of the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what set of rules you use. If you apply the strict laws of the game, it clearly wasn't a goal. If you then apply Rule 22.3.17 of the International Fan Provisions 1946 - namely any ball that is partially over the goal line in any international game against Germany is, in fact, a goal because it's against the Germans - then it was a goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...