There are certainly a lot of opinions, assumptions, and rhetoric on this board about the goal. The problem is that those are not facts.

I took the time to analyze the digital imagery using high-tech digital measurements to seek out the actual facts.

Fact #1: The ball has a diameter of 9”, which is standard. Of course, who knows what the Rawlings ball is???

Fact #2: The goal line is the black line and measures 4” wide as measured from the available digital media imagery posted on this board

Fact #3: The ball can impact the white area beyond the goal line by a distance of less than 4.5” (the radius of the ball) and not be a goal as the entire ball would not have crossed the goal line. See image below.



Fact #4: The goal posts are not aligned properly with the goal line as evidenced by this digital imagery and are approximately 2" behind the goal line.



Fact #5: This misalignment of the goal posts backward increases the distance the ball may strike within the white area and still not be considered a goal to a minimum of less than 6.5” because the entire ball has not cleared the imaginary line between the goal posts. See image below.



Fact #6: The distance between the back of the black goal line and the black crumb flying into the air where the ball struck is 4.8” as evidenced by the image below. This image was blown up to the individual pixel level to be able to accurately measure the distance.



Conclusion: If the goal posts had been properly aligned the goal would have been a good goal; however, since the goal posts were not properly aligned and extended backward off the line, the result is no goal.

The margin for error on the officials making the correct call here is very high with only .3” separating goal/no-goal based on the line; and, that margin becomes even higher (actually it becomes 100% margin for error since they called it a goal) when the goal posts are accounted for and the fact that the AR was not in a good position to see the play down the line.

I believe that now, this puts this goal/no-goal issue to rest since the facts, not opinions, clearly indicate that it was not a goal.

Given the complexity of this decision and the fact it ultimately decided a championship after 104 minutes of a very tough match for both teams, there is no way the officials could have seen with absolutely certainty to the extent acceptable to call this a goal. The AR was about 35 yards away and a good five yards off the goal line , which would radically skew his perception of the play. I do not know a single person that could determine the correct call with a margin for error of about 9/32 from that distance and angle. And yet, notwithstanding those facts, he still clearly and repeatedly indicated no goal. Somehow though, that did not matter and they got it wrong. The whole situation was handled very poorly.

Which, goes back to my original point that this crew performed absolutely horribly regardless of the outcome. That is what is getting lost here. Poor decisions, out-of-position, improper performance of duties, failure to properly inspect the field…the list goes on and on. There needs to be inquiry and there needs to be consequences.