It’s one of England’s most important goals, helping the Three Lions win what is their only major trophy to date.
But for 58 years, Geoff Hurst’s strike in the 101st minute of the 1966 World Cup final has been shrouded in debate.
Hurst’s explosive shot – which cannoned back down off the crossbar – was judged to have crossed the line by officials.
But ever since, fans and pundits from all over the world have repeatedly asked the question: Did or didn’t it cross the line?
Now, in an attempt to settle the debate for good, MailOnline spoke to scientists about ‘the most controversial goal in football history’.
Scientists give their verdict on whether England’s third goal in the 1966 World Cup final actually crossed the line
England captain Bobby Moore holds aloft the World Cup (Jules Rimet trophy) with his teammates at Wembley Stadium, July 30, 1966
In the classic match, England were winning 2-1 in the 89th minute before West Germany defender Wolfgang Weber scored a dramatic late equalizer.
At 2-2 after 90 minutes, the final was forced into extra time – and, not to be disheartened, the Three Lions pressed forward for a winner.
After 11 minutes of extra time gone, England midfielder Alan Ball swung in a cross from the right which was received by Hurst, who swivelled and shot from close range.
The ball smashed the underside of the crossbar and hurtled downwards onto the turf – but where exactly it landed is still debated today.
In the modern game, the ball’s position in relation to the goal line is constantly tracked by seven cameras – so any tight call is deemed a goal (or not a goal) in mere seconds.
But back in 1966 no such technology existed, and only a limited number of TV cameras captured the event for us to scrutinize nearly 60 years on.
Dr Key Bray, a theoretical physicist and former science consultant to Southampton FC, told MailOnline that part of the problem today is the lack of camera angles.
Seven cameras pointing at each goal are mounted on the roof and collectively give a precise location of the ball in relation to the goal line
‘Frankly I don’t believe any analysis or conclusions derived from the famous video of the goal,’ said Dr Bray, who authored the 2012 article ‘When is a goal not a goal?’
‘One camera is insufficient and a three-dimensional rendition can only be achieved using two or more cameras.
‘My belief is that we can’t say with any certainty that the ball completely crossed the line, but the officials awarded the goal so that’s that.’
In the mid-1990s, Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman at the University of Oxford’s department of engineering science published a paper tackling what they called ‘arguably the best known and most controversial goal in football history’.
Studying many frames from just two cameras, they created an approximate 3D projection to plot the vertical projection of the ball onto the ground.
In the mid-1990s, Ian Reid and Andrew Zisserman at the University of Oxford’s department of engineering science published a paper tackling the controversy
In football, the whole of the ball needs to cross the whole of the line – but this can often be too close for the ref to call. Pictured, modern-day technology gives an accurate determination in mere seconds
The duo concluded the ball struck the ground on the line and was ‘at least three inches from being a goal’, even when considering ‘worst possible errors’.
Professor Zisserman told MailOnline: ‘When we worked on this in 1996 we determined that the ball did not cross the line.’
However, they also flagged a lack of viewing angles and the potential motion of the cameras (not in a fixed position) – issues that may have affected the conclusion.
Dr Kyle Ferguson at Ulster University’s Centre for Sports Enterprise in Northern Ireland said any research ‘cannot definitively answer the question’.
‘There have been many industry reviews and television have attempted to use technology to answer it,’ Dr Ferguson told MailOnline.
‘Technology today allows us to review the game and check each play.
‘However, the game back then was decided by referees and their best guess which left the game open to subjectivity but allowed the game to flow and decisions not to be reviewed.
‘Maybe the question is not was it a goal but which is the better game – the 1960s or the 2020s.’
Pictured, Geoff Hurst (bottom left) falls to the ground after taking the shot, while England teammate Roger Hunt looks on. After it rebounded up from the turf, Hunt could have put the ball in the net to make the goal unequivocal – but he didn’t do so as was sure the ball had crossed the line. From this TV camera footage, it does look like Hunt may have been right
Although he’d fallen over after taking his shot and couldn’t see, Geoff Hurst later said he was sure the ball crossed the line due to the reaction of his teammate, centre forward Roger Hunt.
Hunt – who was about five yards away and facing the goal with a good view of the ball – instantly threw his arms in the air to indicate a goal instead of trying to put in the rebound.
‘Instinctively if you’re a great striker, you attempt to put it in, ‘ said Hurst, who is now the only surviving member of England’s World Cup winning squad.
‘But he [Hunt] put his arm up and shouted “it’s a goal” and that’s good enough for me.’
Hurst of course went on to score one more goal in the match and remains the only man to have scored a winning hattrick in a World Cup final.
So Dr Reid points out, the result of the match ‘does not change’, regardless of what conclusion you make about the controversial goal.
