A Controversial Inter Goal? Imagine That!

Of course MAD, and you believe Adriano's goal against Milan wasn't a handball either.

I can't be bothered about the goal but am very curious to what the hell that goal celebration was about...

From what I can see from the video and images that I have seen it did not cross the line, no goal end of story.

*I meant the Samp goal was allowed. The Iaquinta goal wasn't.

I was editing one sentence about an allowed goal in England that counted as a point in a game but was actually wide of the goal mouth. But I didn't fix the rest of it before I hit submit.

The point was that it happens a lot, even when Inter aren't involved and the referee's themselves aren't consistent.

"And the people that did the study on how Serie A would look without refereeing errors are no relation to us either."

That would be a company called Make Tailored Advertising. I hope someone has better luck finding a web site for that "multi-media sports advertising firm" than I did.

And they didn't look at how Serie A would look without the refereeing errors.

They studied what the 3 daily sport newspapers in Italy reported as mistakes and how that affected the consumer, such as sports betting, to consumer watchdog groups.

The table readjustment was the newspapers and media outlets taking a flawed "study" (it's really a crappy media survey) that was made of their own reporting and then refiguring the table and then passing it off as somehow objective.

By the way, the math on that refigured table is off. I mean it's not like someone just made the whole thing up at all...

But obvious that you feel comfortable enough with it to use it as the jumping off point for this little post. I mean advertising companies never just make up stuff... right?

I await the next edition when you look at the Samp goal from last weekend or the Iaquinta header from a little while ago that had the exact same issues as Balotelli's goal and were all granted.

Yeah right...

Bottom like is, if you think the ball was over the line, you're blind.
I don't care if it wasn't a game changer or who you support. That ball did not completely cross the line. End of story.

The defending team should be favored even when there is a sliver of doubt. That the linesman was so certain is strange.

Here's the video for the non-goal. The video quality is too poor to see much, though. It's at about the 1:15 mark. http://www.tvgolo.com/football...

Alessio, Chris and I were chatting about that as it happened. It would have been interesting to post that video with this one for comparison purposes, but it happened right after I put up this post.

Ball definately crossed the line

Marco P. - doesn't look completely over the line still to me. Could be the angle but I doubt it. And in real time, I would have given Genoa the benefit of the doubt.

Funny it should be Inter when Agnelli's a-holez (Juve) and Berlusconi's Boys are the ones with the most mob/media... influence. Perhaps this is to throw off investigation? No wonder my Fiorentina gets the short end- what pull do we have???

An even better picture?
http://www.mcalcio.com/wordpre...

Judge for yourselves.

I'd say it was a goal. The dvr I watched over and over showed the ball completely crossing the line about two frames after the picture shown above. Could the ref have seen that? Of course not. Would there be argument either way? Of course. It's a bit absurd to claim bias on such a close call. All this one proves is that it is much harder to make the correct judgment while running down the pitch at a poor angle than it is to make the correct judgment from the comfort of your couch.

while "you" don't the site certainly seems to have some sort of anti-inter stitch over the past bit of time. i don't really have a dog in the fight either. i couldn't care less who wins serie a. either away it's pretty apparent from reading the site there's been an anti-inter slant, at least recently.

Matt, I ain't got no dog in this fight. I'm not much of a fan of Serie A, period, so it's not as if I have a favorite club. (I do make a Maldini and a Mexes exception, but that doesn't necessarily extend to AC Milan or Roma.) And the people that did the study on how Serie A would look without refereeing errors are no relation to us either.

I'm just saying that I've watched the video at least four times, and it doesn't look over the line to me.

the offside: anti-inter since 2009.

I dunno, I'm still seeing a part of the ball that was not over the line. If it were me, I'd rule no goal.

Well, since I watched the game - twice - I can say that Genoa did not change their game that I could see after the second goal. They were playing attacking football from the first minute (they had twice as many shots on goal than Inter). There was no rallying necessary. Genoa played hard. If anything changed the dynamic of the game it was Julio Cesar's two incredible saves.

I am not saying that there is no tactical difference between playing 1 down as opposed to 2 down, only that it did not seem to change Genoa's game.

And the reason Maicon and Cordoba are kicking Balotelli and Santon is because that goal celebration is DORKY.

I said no on the first play, but the replay changed my mind. However, it's not a goal, it's an own goal. The defender's first touch is what knocks it over the line before he clears it.

It did not look like most of the Inter team was particularly happy about the call either, though. Sort of "I guess we'll take it" from most of them.

tactics for 1-0 aren't different than tactics for 2-0? i guess every coach I've ever had must have been wrong.

Contrary to the first poster :) At first i thought yes (as in real life), then, after replay - no, it didn't cross the line.

It changes plenty about the outcome. There's more than just the technical and numerical sides of the game. Genoa could have rallied and scored, but I realize that doesn't mean much.

Why were Maicon and Cordoba kicking him during the celebration?

Laurie, as I watched it over and over and over on the dvr, I can say that the picture you have up there does not show the full extent of the ball across the line.

And Mike, Inter won 2-0. This goal was the second. I would have had no problem what-so-ever if they had not allowed it. It did not change the outcome of the game one bit.

100% not over the line.
So what does this make refereeing "errors" accountable for 14 of their points?
calciopoli 2.0.

You can tell from the placement of the defender's foot at the very end that there is no way all of the ball crossed the line. I'm surprised the linesman sided with the attacking team in this instance... oh wait, it's Inter. My bad.

Thanks, Musab. Since the video police have made English language videos a thing of the past, it's always nice to get the translations of the ones we can find.

For the record the Turkish commentator says "But its off at the last second!!!... but... yes... Morganti(?) has decided to give it, or rather that its crossed the line"

Dustin, that photo was my own screen shot taken from the video. So I can't guarantee 100% that this was where it stopped. But this was where it looked like to me that it stopped.

If that still image is where the ball was ultimately stopped, then no it isn't a goal according to the Laws of the Game. The way it's written is that there can be absolutely no Doubt that there is a goal. If a ball is still breaking the plane of the line, it isn't a goal.

Without the slow-mo replay I wouldn't have awarded the goal. However, if the linesman indicated that the ball crossed the line I would award a goal. Linesmen have excellent vision. Sometimes they flag for offside when a player is only one inch offside even when they (the linesmen) are 40 yards away from the player.

yup but that was an goal..

At first I said no, in real time from this distance it doesn't look like it crosses the line. But the slow-motion replay - for a very split second it looks like it might have gone over the line.

Then I thought about it... still no. Too many question marks.