It wasn't an admission....it was an opinion,based on what He thought at the time,which was in the immediate aftermath.....the Referee and linesman saw it differently......He's since said differently in more recent interviews......and the Striker Who was nearest the ball didn't try to toe poke it to make sure it was in because,from his angle it had already crossed the line.....the most up to date technology shows that it crossed.......
@@michaelwinter7136 He said in a recent interview he couldn't see because the keeper was in the way but that if it hadn't have crossed the line Roger Hunt was in a position to score. Instead Hunt immediately turned around to celebrate because the ball crossed the line. Hurst also said that the German equalizer the ball brushed against a German arm, deflecting it into the path of Overath, so I guess controversy equals itself out, it happened the way it did.
The Kaiser, Franz Beckenbauer, and the Great Uwe Seeler (W. German Captain and one of my favorite players) both said after the game that "the referee gave the goal so it doesn't matter". That is great sportsmanship in spite of the pain of the result. They also both admitted that for the day England were the better team. Bobby Moore for England and Wolfgang Weber of West Germany were immense that day with unbelievable timely tackles. End-to-end action and great entertainment for the whole 120 minutes. W. Germany got their revenge 4 years later in Mexico (1970).
Dude, if the ball is still in the air and is falling towards the ground, technically when the video freezes the ball is closer to the line that would be if the video would freeze when it touches the ground...so if you freeze the video in the moment you would like to see it, you should see the ball even more clearly in goal...
@@gamewithgreg lmao the ball never even fully crossed the line. Hes trying to say that the video was stoped before the ball hit the floor to make it look like it was over the line from that angle. Watch the non edited video and it clearly isnt over the line. Theres a video where the camera is behind the goal and its clearly visible there. The ball was on the line but more of the ball was outside the goal then it was in the goal. It never fully crossed the line. The guy who shot it even said he didnt think it crossed says it all rly...
There is film footage from the corner flag which shows the ball sticking out from the goalpost (very slightly, but visibly) on the in-play side. There is also hawkeye-style footage done about a decade ago showing the ball was only half over the line, so a handswidth short of a goal. The Germans refer to this goal - and any goal dubiously awarded - as "ein Wembleytor" (tor = goal), so it has even entered everyday language.
It's not the line it's when the ball is coming down and the back spin curve is what the russian linesman saw and the usual bounce on the line , it was a goal in a million
@@Kvbftng This clip doesn't at all indicate a curved line from the bar to the ground, and most likely the linesman would not be able to observe that from an angled view during a few nanoseconds..
@@soah5921 it was one in a million , the ball should never have bounced out like that but because of the spin it was over the line from the crossbar and curves on the line which explains it bouncing out like that
thing is england would have scored regardless so really the question was if geoff hurst should have had a hatrick or not i say this because there was an english player who could have knocked it in if he thought it wasnt a goal
@soah5921 that's just backward and not what he's saying at all. I don't agree with him but you'd have to be a halfwit to think that's what he was saying
If we had goal-line technology in 1966 then we would be in a much better world than we are now, people trying to say that it was definitely a goal is ridiculous, yes, it probably was, but try being in the referee's shoes, you've got two countries against you at once, not an easy choice to make. p.s. i. I'm English
There is a British Pathe news doc somewhere here on youtube that shows the 66 cup final. One of the cameras is positioned just beside the goal and if you slow down the film you can clearly see the ball landing on the line, not over it.
That's a false image. Where you freeze the ball you make it look as if it is on the ground and in. Then you go on to make, out of your arse, pictures of the ball inside of the goal line and touching the blades. The real ball clearly met the ground on the white line at the end of its downward trajectory from the crossbar.
This recreation skews reality yes but it was 100% over the line (if I'm talking to a German that is) We got the decision, plenty have gone against us (if I'm talking to an Englishman)
I remember when I was a young lad at school over 60 years ago and for some reason I was placed in goal. A ball was kicked hit me straight in the stomach which caused me to to go backwards just a few inches. Although the ball never touched the ground from being kicked and my saving it the referee declared it a goal as the ball had crossed the line with me holding it so the 1966 ball even if it bounced out of the goal at a point it was over the line whilst in the air
@@kava3957 No, he's saying the best angle along with person to make the decision was the linesman, and his view was the goal stands. So people need to stfu crying about it
For those who think it didn't cross the line look at 0:06 the person closest to the ball is Roger Hunt who could have easily scored on the rebound if it wasn't in. That was one of the main reasons it was given
That's one of the most compelling arguments I've seen. If Hunt wasn't absolutely convinced it was in, he could've nodded it in himself. The only reason he wouldn't is if he knew the goal had already been scored.
Another genius from the toilet of Europe, what are you talking about trash teller, did Hunt push the ball in after the rebounce? NOPE! So it wasn't goal in the first place and that's the end of the chapter, we don't live in a parallel universe, we live in a world where the ball fell on the line and after the rebounce the german defender deflected the ball away with the header avoiding Hunt to strike.
I'm note sure if it would have been that easy to score it on the rebound ... look at the way he slightly changes direction after the ball came back, the defender would have challenged him if he stepped forward and it wouldn't have been that obvious
There is a with clear vision of goal line.Why don't you use him but always use this clips were noting can be viewed clearly.Isnt it because there is clearly seed that the ball hits the line.
Just to clarify to all the people saying it wasn't on the ground when it was over the line, it doesn't have to be, it just needs to be between the posts and under the crossbar to be a goal. That's why a keeper can't catch it behind the line, pretty obvious really.
That's not what people are saying. They're saying that freezing the footage when the ball is to the right of the line doesn't prove that it's over the line if it's still in the air. This is just how perspective works.
Are there actually people who think this has to be the case???? I think when I was a young child and only got into football I already knew basic things like that. Makes you wonder why they're even talking about football surely if you don't know things like that you're clearly not intetested in the game fullstop.
Vicious spin brought the ball back out. The confidence and celebration by the 2 England players near the ball proves it was definitely a goal, they aren't blind or stupid to stop playing and appeal for a goal.
@@Adhemirus Right! That is your opinion and you're entitled to it! But facts are facts. This specific player has a long, documented history of diving and today, despite delivering a great game, he corroborated that diving is part of his repertoire. He cheated, the referee bought. England played better and deserved to win? Yes, but this is football and part of its beauty consists of big upsets. Until Sunday, indeed!
@@Adhemirus I guess an opinion of some random dumbass on youtube about whether it was a penalty is worth more than Wegner's and Mournho's who both called it bullshit LOL
the footage used in this video makes it look like the ball had indeed gone in, but based off other pieces of footage like the british pathe footage near the goalpost, it shows that the ball just bounced right outside the goal line. wouldn’t have mattered tho cuz england still would’ve won. also why couldn’t have hunt just headed the ball in? he was right there and if he scored, litterally we would’ve avoided 40 years of drama 💀
Willie Schultz, the German full back, was making a regrettable bad job all the game. In this third English goal his marking on Hurst is terrible, he moves in the wrong direction when Hurst takes the ball, letting the English forward to kick to goal at ease. And in the 2nd English goal, Schulz clumsily allows the ball to bounce on him, the ball then goes to Peters who scores an easy tap-in.
July 30th 1966. Was a important day in England, South London gangster Charlie Richardson was arrested, Ow and on a minor note England won the world cup
@vincenzofranchelli2201 ...and it can be at half-way down...in the air...over the line. Footballs do funny dynamics when distorted by a powerful kick or rebound from the bar...spin, rotate, go bananas...
The ball didn't touch the ground yet. I got a frame where the ball starts to become distorted from hitting the ground. This frame hasn't touched the ground yet. With this ball above floor level, from that view, it looks like it's inside, perspectively.
The thing is, in the original footage you can see that the ball covers a bit of the goal line => it cannot physically be a proper goal with the entire ball behind the line. End of story. The referees, I'm sure, did as well as they could, but the photographical evidence, as many are still interested in this, shows that this was unfortunately not quite the goal as was given. Me? I have a life and can accept referees' mistakes.
Fake. Don't want to ruin anyone's fun but it was edited to look over the line. Oxford university conducted a study and found it was 7.6cm off being completely over the line. If you look at the real footage it very much hits the line dead centrally.
I don't really trust these supposed studies as many of them have been made but they all produce different results. I just think it's hard to accurately predict where the ball was from footage from 1966
Rubbish, it's a repainted line after 90 mins, boiling hot conditions, are you sure the players wouldn't be spluttering if it had. Even slow camera footage would have caught it.
I have lived in Germany for more than 40 years and am pretty happy here, but hardly an international with Germany goes by in which it was some way ufair Germany lost ,, A few days back back they played 1-1 with Hungary , The germans got a lead butthe Hungarians were creating a lot of pressure and chances .Post, bar and great saves from the keeper ,, In the last minute Hungary got a handball penalty ,,It was very definately handball, the ball blocked direction goal ,,It seemed not clearly intentional , ,,But the German commentry were moaning about it no end , On play I would have given it to Hungery ,,
@@bithihossain1844 Britain didn't cheat to win Falklands war.......Argentina invaded Falklands islands,the people of Whom are loyal to Britain.......a football match is hardly revenge..... Prima donna would have preferred to have won the war......
At the point the 3d animation comes in, the ball already jumped up from the line. So the perspective is wrong and at that point the ball was in the air, not at the ground.
Lots of bollox on here about drugs, nasal spray, I was a top Ref etc, anything to impress the readers, or come across as a dick. We had a lino who advises the Ref. Some got it right. Some didn’t. It’s the LBW of cricket. Humans making a call.
It looks like the ball bounces off the green grass behind the goal line, but before it bounces, it appears to roll very slightly onto the white goal line with most of the ball still over the line on the green grass. By 1960s standards it would probably be a goal. Even with the bluriness from the video footage removed here (assuming they were correctly removed), it was only just over the line, so any closer to the goal line and it would not be a goal by todays standards.
Technology has come a long way since 1966 you could easily super impose the faces of any England captain since then making it look 100% real holding the World Cup or European nation's trophy & yet still unfortunatley for them this doesn't make the scenario reality im afraid to say lol😊!!
it's clearly a goal... the ball touches the net at the top fast after Hurst kick the ball... then the ball goes down, touches milimeters after the line and finally returns out of the line... but was goal.
if you watch english tv, its gonna be slightly biased. if you watch a tv channel from whatever country england is playing, its going to be slightly biased. Why would you not expect people to be even a bit supportive of their country??
@Mattivq A bit supportive is one thing and commentating like a boxing commentator after every time England scores is another. Can't you see the difference in 1966 commentary ?
What is that crappy analysis though? Have they ever heard of perspective? The ball is still in the air at the point where they assume it's on the ground. (I don't care about football, England or Germany... I just randomly stumbled over this video.)
why is it that anyone who is so desperate to 'prove' the goal wasn't in, will usually only show the rear camera angle and then say "see?! la la la la la" and philibuster you into silence?
The BBC did a programme where VAR was applied to the goals. Only Martin Peter's goal would have stood. The others all failed the VAR test, including Germany's second goal where there were 2 German hand balls.
Boiling hot day, ferocious shot, vicious backspin, surely the painted goaline would have been telling. I would be spluttering if I was nearby. Curvature? Who can tell, the linesman was sure.
We have to go with the technology that was available on that day. And there wasn’t any just an Azerbaijani linesman. It was given and the rest is history. No one will believe technology today that proves it was or wasn’t over the line as it can be manipulated to give the result wanted. Let it go now. More pertinent is that England have yet to win a major trophy since.
It was obviously not a goal. I'm English. I have no axe to grind. It wasn't in any way near to being over the line. But it was still a goal because the referee gave it. End of.
theres no way of really telling if it did or not. the linesman said it was, the referee said it was. thats that, england won the world cup. get over it
@@martinranalli8572 that's correct,when Weber shot,one of his teammates was in an offside position.Granted,he wasn't interfering,but back then that was irrelevant.There was also a possible handball in there.
"Goal Line Technology" is you playing around with photos
Yes that is fake the ball was on the line but the goal line said it far away
It’s a goal
The original footage in this video shows the ball bouncing off green grass behind the goal line, not a white line, so visibly it looks like a goal.
Yes, if you freeze it when the ball's still in the air, perspective makes it look as if it's over the line.
But when It it's still in the air it still counting, you don't have to wait the ball to fall down at all
@@pescoutao1065 Which bit of perspective are you not understanding?
@@andrewguthrie2 I'm just saying
@@pescoutao1065 It's irrelevant.
@@andrewguthrie2 The entire ball crossed the line. That makes it a goal.
The linesman who called the goal on - Tofiq Bahramov - was Azerbaijani and he is the only referee who has a stadium named after him.
Says it all really 😂
İ am from Azerbaijan you are true
And he didn't call it initially and even changed his mind after being swarmed by English players.
In England I suppose?
@@luperamos7307 so the English wankers pressured him into changing his decision
Even Hurst himself admitted that he didn’t think the ball crossed the line.
It wasn't an admission....it was an opinion,based on what He thought at the time,which was in the immediate aftermath.....the Referee and linesman saw it differently......He's since said differently in more recent interviews......and the Striker Who was nearest the ball didn't try to toe poke it to make sure it was in because,from his angle it had already crossed the line.....the most up to date technology shows that it crossed.......
He couldn't even see it.
It's an opinion
nobody can tell unless you use technology
No, he actually said he didn’t see it go in as he had his back to goal
@@michaelwinter7136 He said in a recent interview he couldn't see because the keeper was in the way but that if it hadn't have crossed the line Roger Hunt was in a position to score. Instead Hunt immediately turned around to celebrate because the ball crossed the line. Hurst also said that the German equalizer the ball brushed against a German arm, deflecting it into the path of Overath, so I guess controversy equals itself out, it happened the way it did.
Let me guess.... this "technology" images were presented by ENGLISH engineers, right?
Right!
😂😂😂😂
No actually, they were Norwegian. Have fun lying
@@sxndo17 keep crying
@@sxndo17 You literally defending onw of the dirtiest wc of history you know?
The Kaiser, Franz Beckenbauer, and the Great Uwe Seeler (W. German Captain and one of my favorite players) both said after the game that "the referee gave the goal so it doesn't matter".
That is great sportsmanship in spite of the pain of the result. They also both admitted that for the day England were the better team. Bobby Moore for England and Wolfgang Weber of West Germany were immense that day with unbelievable timely tackles. End-to-end action and great entertainment for the whole 120 minutes. W. Germany got their revenge 4 years later in Mexico (1970).
RIP Franz, he passed away in the past few weeks
They did get their revenge, but it took a large dose of luck and an Argentinian ref to achieve it.
@@g.c.muttley1715as opposed to a Russian linesman 😂😂
@@g.c.muttley1715and also a large dose of methamphetamine
@@Mountainman2468 The ball crossed the line though didn't you see the bias video. Filmed by the man on the grassy knoll. Stood next to zapruder 😂
the use of a false perspective is so clear, the ball is still in the air, the 3d work is nice
Are you dumb? It doesn't matter if the ball is in the air, if it crosses the line it's a goal
Explain it then
Why is that relevant? You think a goal only counts when it's on the ground?
Dude, if the ball is still in the air and is falling towards the ground, technically when the video freezes the ball is closer to the line that would be if the video would freeze when it touches the ground...so if you freeze the video in the moment you would like to see it, you should see the ball even more clearly in goal...
@@gamewithgreg lmao the ball never even fully crossed the line. Hes trying to say that the video was stoped before the ball hit the floor to make it look like it was over the line from that angle. Watch the non edited video and it clearly isnt over the line. Theres a video where the camera is behind the goal and its clearly visible there. The ball was on the line but more of the ball was outside the goal then it was in the goal. It never fully crossed the line. The guy who shot it even said he didnt think it crossed says it all rly...
There is film footage from the corner flag which shows the ball sticking out from the goalpost (very slightly, but visibly) on the in-play side. There is also hawkeye-style footage done about a decade ago showing the ball was only half over the line, so a handswidth short of a goal. The Germans refer to this goal - and any goal dubiously awarded - as "ein Wembleytor" (tor = goal), so it has even entered everyday language.
Como se llama el video? xq lo quiero ver
@@iancorrea5664there is no such video
It's not the line it's when the ball is coming down and the back spin curve is what the russian linesman saw and the usual bounce on the line , it was a goal in a million
@@Kvbftng This clip doesn't at all indicate a curved line from the bar to the ground, and most likely the linesman would not be able to observe that from an angled view during a few nanoseconds..
@@soah5921 it was one in a million , the ball should never have bounced out like that but because of the spin it was over the line from the crossbar and curves on the line which explains it bouncing out like that
thing is england would have scored regardless so really the question was if geoff hurst should have had a hatrick or not i say this because there was an english player who could have knocked it in if he thought it wasnt a goal
I don't know what you're watching but they tried to 'knock it in' and only appealled for the goal after it had been cleared
So a goal about to be disallowed can still be allowed if the following situation anyhow would have resulted in a goal?
@soah5921 that's just backward and not what he's saying at all. I don't agree with him but you'd have to be a halfwit to think that's what he was saying
If we had goal-line technology in 1966 then we would be in a much better world than we are now, people trying to say that it was definitely a goal is ridiculous, yes, it probably was, but try being in the referee's shoes, you've got two countries against you at once, not an easy choice to make. p.s. i. I'm English
Forget 66 how about 2010 when our goal was cleas day over the line, disgusting
There is a British Pathe news doc somewhere here on youtube that shows the 66 cup final. One of the cameras is positioned just beside the goal and if you slow down the film you can clearly see the ball landing on the line, not over it.
@@freebornjohn6876 again 2010 Lampard shot was clear over the line and wasn't given so it is even.
Oxford said it wasn't goal, and tbh this is really clear
@@SamuelSouza-di6nq yes well Lampard scored one against them in 2010 that wasn't given so its even as far as I'm concerned
That's a false image. Where you freeze the ball you make it look as if it is on the ground and in. Then you go on to make, out of your arse, pictures of the ball inside of the goal line and touching the blades.
The real ball clearly met the ground on the white line at the end of its downward trajectory from the crossbar.
You are Correct I watched it in 66 and it was never a goal, this clip is 100% false.
I think the ball hit a fair bit more chalk haha
It isn't, see Viticosano vid 0.25 speed.
As if you have nothing else to comment on. Are you french?
@Footballshorts th-cam.com/video/Tqh_RLQHn2c/w-d-xo.html have look at an actually footage
This recreation skews reality yes but it was 100% over the line (if I'm talking to a German that is)
We got the decision, plenty have gone against us (if I'm talking to an Englishman)
I remember when I was a young lad at school over 60 years ago and for some reason I was placed in goal. A ball was kicked hit me straight in the stomach which caused me to to go backwards just a few inches. Although the ball never touched the ground from being kicked and my saving it the referee declared it a goal as the ball had crossed the line with me holding it so the 1966 ball even if it bounced out of the goal at a point it was over the line whilst in the air
Impossible to know if the ball ever crossed the line the only person who had an eye on it was the linesman and he gave it .
Are you saying this video is fake?
@@kava3957 No, he's saying the best angle along with person to make the decision was the linesman, and his view was the goal stands. So people need to stfu crying about it
For those who think it didn't cross the line look at 0:06 the person closest to the ball is Roger Hunt who could have easily scored on the rebound if it wasn't in. That was one of the main reasons it was given
That's one of the most compelling arguments I've seen. If Hunt wasn't absolutely convinced it was in, he could've nodded it in himself. The only reason he wouldn't is if he knew the goal had already been scored.
0:07
Another genius from the toilet of Europe, what are you talking about trash teller, did Hunt push the ball in after the rebounce? NOPE! So it wasn't goal in the first place and that's the end of the chapter, we don't live in a parallel universe, we live in a world where the ball fell on the line and after the rebounce the german defender deflected the ball away with the header avoiding Hunt to strike.
I'm note sure if it would have been that easy to score it on the rebound ... look at the way he slightly changes direction after the ball came back, the defender would have challenged him if he stepped forward and it wouldn't have been that obvious
There is a with clear vision of goal line.Why don't you use him but always use this clips were noting can be viewed clearly.Isnt it because there is clearly seed that the ball hits the line.
Just to clarify to all the people saying it wasn't on the ground when it was over the line, it doesn't have to be, it just needs to be between the posts and under the crossbar to be a goal. That's why a keeper can't catch it behind the line, pretty obvious really.
Exactly, people are so silly 😅
That's not what people are saying. They're saying that freezing the footage when the ball is to the right of the line doesn't prove that it's over the line if it's still in the air. This is just how perspective works.
dumbest comment i ever seen
Are there actually people who think this has to be the case???? I think when I was a young child and only got into football I already knew basic things like that.
Makes you wonder why they're even talking about football surely if you don't know things like that you're clearly not intetested in the game fullstop.
Geoff Hurst vs West Germany 1966
Kylian Mbappe vs Argentina 2022
Cristiano Ronaldo vs Spain 2018
Tofig Behremov Legenda☝
Never in doubt 👍
the ball did not cross the line . . . this was what the scotland's commentator said
That is no surprise given he was Scottish.
I love that commentary 😂👍
Bravo Mr. Tofiq Bahramov ! True Professional ! 100% GOAL !
Vicious spin brought the ball back out. The confidence and celebration by the 2 England players near the ball proves it was definitely a goal, they aren't blind or stupid to stop playing and appeal for a goal.
The ball was 50% on the line in the actual footage,the graphic totally different.
Missed the paint, and perspective is yards off the line.
Well. Today (2021.07.07), again. Sterling with the most important DIVE of his career so far...
Cry is free! Sweet Caroline...
@@Adhemirus And cheating is not nice. Dishonest Ademir...
@@jrpallares7027 It was penalty in my opnion! Moreover, England played better and deserved to win. Till sunday!
@@Adhemirus Right! That is your opinion and you're entitled to it! But facts are facts. This specific player has a long, documented history of diving and today, despite delivering a great game, he corroborated that diving is part of his repertoire. He cheated, the referee bought. England played better and deserved to win? Yes, but this is football and part of its beauty consists of big upsets. Until Sunday, indeed!
@@Adhemirus I guess an opinion of some random dumbass on youtube about whether it was a penalty is worth more than Wegner's and Mournho's who both called it bullshit LOL
Find me a German who says 2010 WAS a goal. 1966 is debatable. That's the difference.
Both were wrong
This animation is wrong 😂… he paused it mid air where it shows the ball on the inside of the line
2010 was a consolation goal
@@kajamix no it wasn’t 2010 would have made it 2-2
@@jamesharris7065 it was going to count as consolation in the end
the footage used in this video makes it look like the ball had indeed gone in, but based off other pieces of footage like the british pathe footage near the goalpost, it shows that the ball just bounced right outside the goal line. wouldn’t have mattered tho cuz england still would’ve won.
also why couldn’t have hunt just headed the ball in? he was right there and if he scored, litterally we would’ve avoided 40 years of drama 💀
Fun fact: who made this 3D render was a English group of students from an university of London.
Willie Schultz, the German full back, was making a regrettable bad job all the game. In this third English goal his marking on Hurst is terrible, he moves in the wrong direction when Hurst takes the ball, letting the English forward to kick to goal at ease. And in the 2nd English goal, Schulz clumsily allows the ball to bounce on him, the ball then goes to Peters who scores an easy tap-in.
Roger Hunt always said it was a goal, which he could've made certain. Angled camera shots came out earlier this year to clarify. GOAL !
Aahh mate.. You clearly didn't see the ball bursting out from the net, and coming in once again to hit the crossbar eh?
A clear goal, scientifically proved!!
It’s blowin ‘ in the wind BOB ! Three men on the Park for the “4” th goal ! 🤡❌🤡
Either way we still win 🏴
This was Sky Sports celebration of the 66 final in 2016, they showed the whole game and used goal line technology to settle the argument.
At the end of the day you can't change history. There's been a lot worse decisions made since then and that's with VAR
July 30th 1966. Was a important day in England,
South London gangster Charlie Richardson was arrested,
Ow and on a minor note England won the world cup
"Stalingrad"😮
Monty Python said it best: Not much fun in Stalingrad!!!!
That was the birthplace of the two goal hattrick
If you look at other videos, you'll see that there are a few frames after this one before the ball hits the ground and it touches the line..
If that was a goal l was born on Mars
Viticosano video 4_2 ghost goal, slow playback to 0.25 speed (three dots, settings) Same camera but looks less digital. Result is the same.
Welcome on earth
I always thought it bounced exactly on the line... But it didn't matter anyway as they think it's all over
Well, it is now......
Badam bum!!!!
Is there a flat ball society I can join?
I believe the bottom of the ball was over it was just that front back that didn’t fully cross
Whole ball has to cross
@vincenzofranchelli2201 ...and it can be at half-way down...in the air...over the line. Footballs do funny dynamics when distorted by a powerful kick or rebound from the bar...spin, rotate, go bananas...
The ball didn't touch the ground yet. I got a frame where the ball starts to become distorted from hitting the ground. This frame hasn't touched the ground yet. With this ball above floor level, from that view, it looks like it's inside, perspectively.
It doesnt need to be on the ground?
@@johnbryant5338 he used frame when the ball is afloat. In three dimensional scene, the ball is on the ground. totally fake.
The thing is, in the original footage you can see that the ball covers a bit of the goal line => it cannot physically be a proper goal with the entire ball behind the line. End of story. The referees, I'm sure, did as well as they could, but the photographical evidence, as many are still interested in this, shows that this was unfortunately not quite the goal as was given. Me? I have a life and can accept referees' mistakes.
Fake. Don't want to ruin anyone's fun but it was edited to look over the line. Oxford university conducted a study and found it was 7.6cm off being completely over the line. If you look at the real footage it very much hits the line dead centrally.
Exactly
....but over the line before it bounces, there-in a perfectly good goal.
I don't really trust these supposed studies as many of them have been made but they all produce different results. I just think it's hard to accurately predict where the ball was from footage from 1966
Rubbish, it's a repainted line after 90 mins, boiling hot conditions, are you sure the players wouldn't be spluttering if it had. Even slow camera footage would have caught it.
Wait who else is not wondering about the squid game music?
Is this why Germans have gone quiet about that goal ?,They never stopped for a very long time even though the England win was by two goals,
I have lived in Germany for more than 40 years and am pretty happy here, but hardly an international with Germany goes by in which it was some way ufair Germany lost ,, A few days back back they played 1-1 with Hungary , The germans got a lead butthe Hungarians were creating a lot of pressure and chances .Post, bar and great saves from the keeper ,, In the last minute Hungary got a handball penalty ,,It was very definately handball, the ball blocked direction goal ,,It seemed not clearly intentional , ,,But the German commentry were moaning about it no end , On play I would have given it to Hungery ,,
Futbol tarixinin ən mübahisəli qolu. Tofiq Bəhrəmov bu qolu heç bir texnalogiya olmadan görmüşdü 🇦🇿👍💪
More controversial than primadonna scoring with his hand in 1986?.......which was the only WC he won of the 4 he played in....
@@michaelwinter7136 That was the revenge of Falkland Islands which unfairly captured by British
@@bithihossain1844 Britain didn't cheat to win Falklands war.......Argentina invaded Falklands islands,the people of Whom are loyal to Britain.......a football match is hardly revenge.....
Prima donna would have preferred to have won the war......
@@michaelwinter7136 Cry more
@@michaelwinter7136 At least that “Primadonna’s” goal went inside 🤭🤭🤭
At the point the 3d animation comes in, the ball already jumped up from the line. So the perspective is wrong and at that point the ball was in the air, not at the ground.
Real goal line tech would've ruled the goal out bc how would it be in if in the actual video of the match it was still 75% on the line
There’s no way you could no that without actually using goal line technology.
Lots of bollox on here about drugs, nasal spray, I was a top Ref etc, anything to impress the readers, or come across as a dick.
We had a lino who advises the Ref. Some got it right. Some didn’t. It’s the LBW of cricket. Humans making a call.
75%? What you smoking dude?
Everybody moaning about angles, but no mention that this was the highest tech available at the time.
It looks like the ball bounces off the green grass behind the goal line, but before it bounces, it appears to roll very slightly onto the white goal line with most of the ball still over the line on the green grass. By 1960s standards it would probably be a goal.
Even with the bluriness from the video footage removed here (assuming they were correctly removed), it was only just over the line, so any closer to the goal line and it would not be a goal by todays standards.
Technology has come a long way since 1966 you could easily super impose the faces of any England captain since then making it look 100% real holding the World Cup or European nation's trophy & yet still unfortunatley for them this doesn't make the scenario reality im afraid to say lol😊!!
What isn't in doubt that this same England team were given a hiding by Scotland a year later at Wembley with Baxter Bremner and Co running amok 😅
it's clearly a goal... the ball touches the net at the top fast after Hurst kick the ball... then the ball goes down, touches milimeters after the line and finally returns out of the line... but was goal.
Funny how all of these people who say it wasn't over the line never seem to mention Maradona cheating England in the 1986 World Cup 🤔
Yeah and there was no doubt he cheated not even an argument
@@djelalniyazi4090 That's right.
It was 6cms short of being a goal.
See extensive report by Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman. They used real science / mathematics.
100% over the line before the cartoon even shows it and Roger Hunt did not tap it in either
I think that was JUST in.
it wasn't there is literally side on angles of the goal where it hits the line dead in the middle
@@jmb9040 ...the whole of the ball was over the line, before it bounced.
Debate over , it's a goal. Let's move on...
People saying it’s fake I mean pretty obvious he switches from footage from 66 to bloody fifa
Good to hear non biased English commentators unlike now a days ones.
if you watch english tv, its gonna be slightly biased. if you watch a tv channel from whatever country england is playing, its going to be slightly biased. Why would you not expect people to be even a bit supportive of their country??
@Mattivq A bit supportive is one thing and commentating like a boxing commentator after every time England scores is another. Can't you see the difference in 1966 commentary ?
Phone-a-friend would be a funny lifeline to have in football.
What is that crappy analysis though? Have they ever heard of perspective? The ball is still in the air at the point where they assume it's on the ground. (I don't care about football, England or Germany... I just randomly stumbled over this video.)
Never be a goal now you got the curvature of the ball now
Ok admin from England 🎉🎉🎉
Why did roger hunt just follow in and head it in the net
The ball was in
If I put my English bias aside this was never over the line lol, anyone who says it is, is a clown simple...
Facts mate.
If i put my germany bias aside england deserve world cup lol,anyone who says robbery, is a donkey crying
If you freeze it at 26s you can clearly see the ball on top of the line.
why is it that anyone who is so desperate to 'prove' the goal wasn't in, will usually only show the rear camera angle and then say "see?! la la la la la" and philibuster you into silence?
This is 🧠 the important thing you're missing in life unfortunately 💀
@@psycho7.7 Really? How so?
@@psycho7.7 Ok so no explaination, just an ad hominan attack? Pathetic.
The BBC did a programme where VAR was applied to the goals. Only Martin Peter's goal would have stood. The others all failed the VAR test, including Germany's second goal where there were 2 German hand balls.
Who guarantees this check is accurate? It never looked like a goal and it never will.
CLEARLY IN
According to that it is a goal
That is a goal
Best team won on the day
@@danielwilkins4748 yeah
@AdmiralOddSock then your stupid it crealy went in
@AdmiralOddSock It was a goal, get over it
There are pictures in which the white chalk can be seen on the ball after it bounces.
So, it crossed the line before that
W EDIT
No goal it was proven
Can't get my breath with some of the people and their comments on here. I bet half of them would say that Maradonas goal was OK.
Boiling hot day, ferocious shot, vicious backspin, surely the painted goaline would have been telling. I would be spluttering if I was nearby. Curvature? Who can tell, the linesman was sure.
Esta prueba es más falsa que un billete de siete dólares 😂
RIP Tofik Bahramov. Famous linesman of this match
The shadow doesnt touch the ball at this point it was still in the air
Proof it Never crossed the line
What you meant was proof it never crossed the line at that frame.
No one noticed the ball hit the.net at the top of the goal
It did not!! Wtf? How would it bounce down like that then?
@@meisterpropper4195 this is not a goal coz the ball didn’t hit the bar too
@@jakkaxn5513 dont make fun of me
@@meisterpropper4195 this is similar to lampard,s disallowed goal but this one is just hitting correctly in a line.
I did mate if you pause it at 0:07 seconds in you can see the ball in the roof of the net great job seeing that 👏
The argentines will hire this technology to hide Maradona´s hand in 1986
We have to go with the technology that was available on that day. And there wasn’t any just an Azerbaijani linesman. It was given and the rest is history. No one will believe technology today that proves it was or wasn’t over the line as it can be manipulated to give the result wanted.
Let it go now. More pertinent is that England have yet to win a major trophy since.
🏴 won 🏆 World Cup homeland: brilliant ❤
The sun and world can crash every minutes for this video:)))
It was obviously not a goal. I'm English. I have no axe to grind. It wasn't in any way near to being over the line. But it was still a goal because the referee gave it. End of.
theres no way of really telling if it did or not. the linesman said it was, the referee said it was. thats that, england won the world cup. get over it
Video made by British
Funniest thing I have seen on YT for years.
1000th like
West Germany's equaliser shouldn't have counted anyway,the game should never have gone to extra time.
Really?
@@martinranalli8572 that's correct,when Weber shot,one of his teammates was in an offside position.Granted,he wasn't interfering,but back then that was irrelevant.There was also a possible handball in there.
@@anglowarrior3871 I'm glad to hear/read that😊
@@martinranalli8572 it very rarely gets mentioned.
Miles over the line...
That was in no doubtno argument
One of the best decisions made in Football🏴⚽️👍, one of the worst decisions Lampard’s (disallowed) goal vs the Germans at the World Cup 2010👎
How is that a good decision, when its scientificaly proven that the ball didn't cross the line in 66'?
I still piss myself laughing ( though not literally ) when I see that lampard goal. Priceless 😂😂😂🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
@@Nairam10 Even if the goal was disallowed England still win 3 - 2 😂
Best decision was allow the hand of god
@@armaanhafiz what bro😂??😂😂
This doesn't have veracity, seems they are deliberately putting the ball in when turning the angle
Makes Maradona’s hand of God look more justified.
It was a goal
The prototype of VAR
That’s an embarrassing edit,Lord have mercy,no goal
Yes let's stop the ball BEFORE it bounces and hey... it's over the line!🤭