I know how ridiculous you and your attempt to be clever sounds



Run along son, the grown-ups are trying to discuss something seriously.

If the ball is always rising then the first pic doesn't prove anything. As people are pointing out, you don't know when the ball is crossing the goal line so we could be seeing that ball still in front of the posts but heading wide.

It's inside the post because of the angle of the camera and because you assume that it has reached the line. The ball, as I've pointed out swerves back left (through speed or just the way it was kicked).

FWIW, here's my image of when I think it is over the post.

It might be a cameraman. But it also might be a man dressed in a Batman costume.

As for this point - sorry, I got confused by your image. I thought you were showing a blurred image of the ball on the grass.

With Brough kicking from outside the left hand post aiming to get the ball on a right trajectory you would expect it to hit somewhere to the right of where he kicked it and carry on going right after it's flown over the post, depending on distance between the posts and the hospitality window, plus speed of the kick. Ball could easily travel an extra foot right after it misses

But I didn't assume that at all! My images show the line the ball set off, and kept to. That's my point.


But it does not swerve left. It cannot have swerved left to end up where it did. Unless you suggest it swerved left, but then swerved back to the right?


Yes but you "thinking" that's when it is over the post is based on nothing at all. Whereas my analysis of the ball's trajectory has a known starting point and a known end point, and they if correct prove that unless it did a banana shot, it was a valid drop goal.

And your argument ignores the rest of my evidence. Why, because you can't explain it?

Could it, though? Why? If it swerved left, how could it then go right?

Anyway the position where it hit the glass, as viewed from behind Brough, is yards inside the left post. Not a foot.

2.0126953125:5