Certainly went over. The question is, did it go wide? The view from behind the kicker (conveniently omitted on the BBC website with no mention of controversy) puts doubt in Bongser's mind. He'll have a look on a bigger screen as he gets home. This juror is out 'til then.

Bongser, the question arduous of de moment re is diddly the ballier go over the postier fora a goal der?

If you play if frame by frame the ball is behind the post not in front of it.

Thankleigh Diggory fock leering datum app. Widdleade om youngerly Miss U.S. Bongsai's een, ham noodle shower Ingle Tear wom robbered. Deep folly.

The ball is a brighter white than the upright. Seen from behind the kicker the bright white passes behind the duller one IOO.

But as Reffy posted, if the officials say that the goal was good, the record will state that it was so in perpetuity. Aliens picking up the broadcast will be confused by the rules though!

More succinctly put and therefore beat Bongser to it. I think we agree though, Reffy. Still, it stands.

Correct ....... therefore NO GOAL!!!!!

No, the view from behind the sticks!!! The ball passes behind the post and is therefore a goal.

The view is from behind the sticks and the ball passes BEHIND the post, I agree - BUT it was the left post so NO GOAL .............

I think you mean that the post is obscured by the ball therefore, viewed from behind the posts it was a goal? Otherwise if, viewed from behind the posts, the ball went behind the post, (i.e. the post obscured the ball) the ball would have gone wide.

There, that's cleared that up!

I do wish we would announce a signing, then we would all have something 'proper' to discuss.

Thanks........................I think.

I'll leave it with you... 9.556640625:10