Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Jimmy Greaves - RIP
Comments
-
They just showed our World Cup Winning goal from behind the goal.
The ball barely landed on the line, let alone all of the ball being over all the line.
It wasn't even close to being a goal.0 -

0 -
Just watched it what a great documentary and i loved the Saint and Greavsie show. Some lovely moments in his career.1
-
miles overCovered End said:
2 -
0
-
Covered End said:They just showed our World Cup Winning goal from behind the goal.
The ball barely landed on the line, let alone all of the ball being over all the line.
It wasn't even close to being a goal.It wasn't the winning goal!!I still rely on Sir Roger Hunt's reaction.2 -
Would encourage anyone who has any interest in the man to download the programme. Excellent watch.Covered End said:Greavsie ITV 23.05-00.50 Monday (now).
Worth recording on +1 or watching on the ITV hub, loads of clips of his goals.3 -
That does NOT show the ball bouncing on the line nor the angle at which the ball is dropping.Covered End said:
In fact it could already have bounced and is on the way up.5 -
It was 2-2 when the goal/non goal made it 3-2, so I'd say it was the winning goal.bobmunro said:Covered End said:They just showed our World Cup Winning goal from behind the goal.
The ball barely landed on the line, let alone all of the ball being over all the line.
It wasn't even close to being a goal.It wasn't the winning goal!!I still rely on Sir Roger Hunt's reaction.
The 4th goal was immaterial.
England's third goal has remained controversial ever since the match. According to the Laws of the Game the definition of a goal is when "the whole of the ball passes over the goal line".[9] English supporters cited the good position of the linesman and the statement of Roger Hunt, the nearest England player to the ball, who claimed it was a goal and that was why he wheeled away in celebration rather than attempting to tap the rebounding ball in. Modern studies using film analysis and computer simulation have shown that the whole ball never crossed the line – only 97% did. Both Duncan Gillies of the Visual Information Processing Group at Imperial College London and Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman of the Department of Engineering Science at University of Oxford have stated that the ball would have needed to travel a further 18±4 cm to fully cross the line.[10] Some Germans cited possible bias of the Soviet linesman,[11] especially as the USSR had just been defeated in the semi-finals by West Germany.[12
0 -
Who cares?
It was given as a goal. We won.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
The fourth goal was immaterial?Covered End said:
It was 2-2 when the goal/non goal made it 3-2, so I'd say it was the winning goal.bobmunro said:Covered End said:They just showed our World Cup Winning goal from behind the goal.
The ball barely landed on the line, let alone all of the ball being over all the line.
It wasn't even close to being a goal.It wasn't the winning goal!!I still rely on Sir Roger Hunt's reaction.
The 4th goal was immaterial.
England's third goal has remained controversial ever since the match. According to the Laws of the Game the definition of a goal is when "the whole of the ball passes over the goal line".[9] English supporters cited the good position of the linesman and the statement of Roger Hunt, the nearest England player to the ball, who claimed it was a goal and that was why he wheeled away in celebration rather than attempting to tap the rebounding ball in. Modern studies using film analysis and computer simulation have shown that the whole ball never crossed the line – only 97% did. Both Duncan Gillies of the Visual Information Processing Group at Imperial College London and Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman of the Department of Engineering Science at University of Oxford have stated that the ball would have needed to travel a further 18±4 cm to fully cross the line.[10] Some Germans cited possible bias of the Soviet linesman,[11] especially as the USSR had just been defeated in the semi-finals by West Germany.[12
Tell that to Kenneth Wolstenholme, Geoff Hurst and a 100,000 fans, some of whom were already on the pitch ;-)2 -
It was the 3rd goal which made the difference though. The Germans wouldn't have sent everybody up for a equaliser without it, and would have probably settled for a replay - no penalties back thenbobmunro said:
The fourth goal was immaterial?Covered End said:
It was 2-2 when the goal/non goal made it 3-2, so I'd say it was the winning goal.bobmunro said:Covered End said:They just showed our World Cup Winning goal from behind the goal.
The ball barely landed on the line, let alone all of the ball being over all the line.
It wasn't even close to being a goal.It wasn't the winning goal!!I still rely on Sir Roger Hunt's reaction.
The 4th goal was immaterial.
England's third goal has remained controversial ever since the match. According to the Laws of the Game the definition of a goal is when "the whole of the ball passes over the goal line".[9] English supporters cited the good position of the linesman and the statement of Roger Hunt, the nearest England player to the ball, who claimed it was a goal and that was why he wheeled away in celebration rather than attempting to tap the rebounding ball in. Modern studies using film analysis and computer simulation have shown that the whole ball never crossed the line – only 97% did. Both Duncan Gillies of the Visual Information Processing Group at Imperial College London and Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman of the Department of Engineering Science at University of Oxford have stated that the ball would have needed to travel a further 18±4 cm to fully cross the line.[10] Some Germans cited possible bias of the Soviet linesman,[11] especially as the USSR had just been defeated in the semi-finals by West Germany.[12
Tell that to Kenneth Wolstenholme, Geoff Hurst and a 100,000 fans, some of whom were already on the pitch ;-)0 -
Frank Lampard v Germany, they got one back.0
-

5 -
If only we had Greaves in a Charlton shirt back in 1963/64 we wouldn't have finished fourth below Leeds, Sunderland and Preston! He and Firmini up front would have been a sight to see.Henry Irving said:
0 -
Peter Bonetti on the right, but who is player in white ??Henry Irving said:
0 -
Is it Bonetti, I thought it was Ray Clemence?4
-
This was Peter Reeves testimonial so a few stars played.Lordflashheart said:
Peter Bonetti on the right, but who is player in white ??Henry Irving said:
I thought it might have been Davy Jones from the Monkees but not convinced.0 -
Hmmm I think you might be rightSix-a-bag-of-nuts said:Is it Bonetti, I thought it was Ray Clemence?1 -
The face of the guy in white seems so familiar - I'm gonna kick myself when somebody identifies him.
(Maybe he just bears a passing resemblance to Alan Smith of more recent Leeds fame)0 -
Sponsored links:
-
On twitter someone saying the keeper is Ed Stewpot Stewart1
-
According to Home and Away it was vs West Ham - score 1-1 with 9,860 in attendance0
-
Found this on EBay

1 -
And also this on EBay

0 -
Kevin Lock maybe?Lordflashheart said:
Peter Bonetti on the right, but who is player in white ??Henry Irving said:

0 -
That is Ed Stewart the keeper.
The other player is not but so looks like Dave Hill from Slade2 -
You would think any decent museum would have the answers to these pressing questions easily to hand 😉0
-
Def not Ray Clemence...Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:Is it Bonetti, I thought it was Ray Clemence?0 -
I've found this photo of Ed Stewart (at Selhurst?). The same shirt, but different shorts

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/133533087309?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&toolid=10001
1 -
unfortunately we're indecent.Lordflashheart said:You would think any decent museum would have the answers to these pressing questions easily to hand 😉0









