I've had time to analyse the footage now and after running it through some software that is very similar to the hawkeye software you see used in cricket and tennis, the correct decision was given. The ball did miss the uprights, here's the images of the exact moments the ball crossed level with the crossbar.

Behind the sticks:

[url=http://s1069.photobucket.com/user/BackrowSaint/media/BehindSticks_zpsc7a0e08b.png.html[/url

In front of the sticks:

[url=http://s1069.photobucket.com/user/BackrowSaint/media/FrontSticks_zpsfb851a13.png.html[/url



I believe the issue with the behind angle looking like it went over is depth perception. Upon analysing the results I found that it looks like the ball crossed the point of the posts much earlier than it actually did. The ball when it left Brough's foot was travelling in the correct direction to go over the posts, when it reached halfway between brough's foot and the posts it had actually drifted enough to clip the posts 1/3 of the way across. By the time it reached the point of the posts it had drifted wide. This drift coupled with the false depth perception was the reason the ball looked like it went over when in actual fact at the real point of the ball reaching the try line it has drifted wide.

People wanted conclusive evidence, it doesn't come much more conclusive than that. I understand a lot of fans probably won't accept it out of blind ignorance because it doesn't suit them but the correct call was given.

Their "protest" thread is equally amusing. It's the claim that they're a "small club" so get victimised by refs against the "big clubs" ... Remind me where they finished last year?

Their ultimate argument is saints would be like this if it were the other way around. I'd be more concerned about why with 2 minutes to go we let them get from a 20 metre tap to within dropgoal range! Control your controlables and all that

Whatever software it is, (what is it?) it bears no relation to Hawkeye because you simply do not have the different camera angles to combine, GPS like, into a position in 3D space. There is no way to triangulate in three dimensional space from 2D images especially with no side on view, with any degree of accuracy and certainly not to pinpoint the position of this ball.

Secondly even if you were able to work out the precise frame in which the ball crossed the plane of the posts, you could not tell from the reverse view image which side of the post the ball was on unless the camera was precisely in line with posts and original kicking position, which we know it is not.

Finally, your shot from behind the kicker does not take into account that the camera is to the right of the vertical plane of the ball. Therefore you are entirely reliant on having correctly guessed the exact frame when ball and plane of posts co-incided. The evidence I have posted tends strongly to suggest your estimate is not correct.

I have no axe to grind and am just interested in this as an academic exercise (you may have noticed

) and I am afraid that your evidence is flawed and therefore not conclusive at all.

Let's put this to bed now. It was 100% a drop goal as we won by a drop goal. It's getting boring now.

There's three images, the two replay images and the original side on image of the live in play which is used to triangulate the images, though 3 angles is not ideal I completely agree, it's all I had to work with. The software isn't published and is something I'm working on in conjunction with a field leader at my institution so I can completely understand people not considering it credible if you wish to do so!

I can't go into too much detail (as I'm sure you understand, with it not being published) but it works, in a very basic form, by pin pointing an object and following it's path from differing angles, of which there was 3 but ideally could have done with 4.

In this circumstance the object was the ball, the front and reverse angles provided the trajectory in an 'x plane' whilst the side on angle provided a 'z plane', I had no 'y plane' to work with due to no angle from the top (spider cam would have been perfect in mapping any mid air movement the ball made and I could have actually provided a clear projection of the ball).

As it were I could only work out the frame in which the object passed a certain point. By analysing the flight of the ball from the side angle, until it went out of view, I could apply a simple SDT algorithm and find a time frame of which the object would have passed the point. By then comparing it against the front and rear angles and applying the same SDT algorithm you can get this point more accurately (I had to speed the replays up into real time by comparing the flight of the ball against the real time side angle which was a massive pain).

When I had found the frame which the ball crossed the plane of the points I plotted the line of the posts indefinitely and compared the relative position of the ball, which was outside the line of the posts. I completely understand what you're saying about the relative position of the camera but I don't think it makes too much difference in this circumstance, unless my calculations are way out and the ball is at least a couple of metres before or past the point of where I think it should be, which I don't think any error would be that large.

When I say the software is like hawkeye, it's in that it uses differing angles to analyse flight of an object, it doesn't use the same algorithms and as you've quite rightly pointed out a flight projection isn't possible due to the lack of angles but you can perform an accurate SDT object analysis from the 3 available angles.

Please do point out anything that you think may be wrong in the analysis as it'll help to hopefully get a more accurate and conclusive result. I just wish there was an angle from the other side or top as well as I could map that without any problem!

I actually find it quite interesting trying to find a conclusive answer when arguments are reasoned and justified such as FA's.

I read the newspaper Monday morning and it said it missed and then showed the draw for the next round and we was in it so that's good enough for me

Boots n All just showed an analysis of it that the sky techs have been working on. Strangely enough there stills from behind the post are at what appears to be the exact same point as mine so they've obviously reached very similar conclusions in their calculations.

They also played a video with an indefinite post stretched up and the angle from behind showed that the ball doesn't once cross the outward plane of the post from leaving Brough's foot.

Job done then. After all that we were too generous, it was not a drop goal, Brough turned his back too soon, I expect a full retraction by all Huddersfield fans around the same time the Bradford ones put theirs in over the none voluntary tackle from Joynt.

It is getting boring now?





So, there's this guy. Let's call him Pete. Pete goes on forums. Presumably gets the concept of threads.

There's this thread. It's called "Was it a drop goal for Brough". (This contains a clue to the contents).

Pete doesn't want to talk about the Brough incident any more. Because it is boring him now, and he got better shiit to do with his time. So what does he do?

I'll tell you, because I don't think you'd guess. He goes to one of the few places where he can [iguarantee[/i that the topic of discussion will be boring to him, namely the "Was it a drop goal for Brough" thread! You may not be surprised, but he finds it boring. I am not sure whether Pete was surprised. I sense he may have been, as I detect a tad of irritation because he then wastes more of his time, when he could have exited the thread and done something interesting, posting to the people who obviously [iaren't[/i yet bored by it that he is bored by it. Because, I think, he believes this knowledge will in some way be a useful thing for those people to share.

Personally I find rugby union quite boring. Maybe I should go take in a match at the weekend so I can tell the people there I'm bored?

Brilliant, Pete! You gave me a laugh, anyway.

But is was not a drop goal.....

That's the problem. As much as the Huddersfield lot want to believe it was a drop goal and they were hard done to, it's been shown time and again not to have gone over (even by the sky lot, who let's be honest love to jump on any controversy) - so now it's just two sides digging their feet in, arguing the same points over and over.

It wasn't given as a drop goal, it's been show to, within the balance of probabilities be the correct decision. There's nothing more to it.

I just think a little bit of lateral thinking and repeat viewing can only bring one conclusion and that is that the ball went wide. I have been absolutely convinced having analysed it in depth that it went wide, indeed I think its ludicrously obvious and I'm glad this is now being proven.

Reading some of the inept one dimensional posts that say the goal was good, is a bit like witnessing somebody that's never watched cricket before, give an unqualified and incorrect verdict on an LBW. Once you understand angles and perspective, it becomes far easier to judge, and the loud mouthed knee jerkers become far more irksome.

But it was a good drop goal ...

The odd thing is, as an expert in angles and perspective, you think you could read a one dimensional post. My limited understanding was you'd need a minimum of 2 dimensions to be able to read it.

There is no such thing as one dimensional????

And you, sir, made me laugh.


Brilliant.

In the context of a post on a forum? Well, it would need length, for a start. Each letter occupies some.

But there's your one dimension used up. In terms of height, my word processing software only goes down to 1 pt and that's hard to see. But that still does have that second dimension. With a magnifying glass, perhaps. But the software doesn't have a zero pt. If it did, that I imagine it would be tough to read

The rest of this post is in one dimensional text:

time is one dimensional

Quite boring now

At the end of the day, it wasnt a good drop goal because it wasnt awarded...in order for the drop goal to be good, the referee has to put his hand up in the air and not wave it away (see Bentham's reaction to Walsh's effort for clarification)

It is getting a bit tedious now, but if you want to continue on your one man crusade to prove it was a drop goal (that will change absolutely sweet FA in terms of the result) then feel free to continue...although if I am correct in assuming you are a Bradford fan I would maybe be more concerned about the future of my club and if they will still exist beyond this year rather than getting my knickers in a twist over a drop goal that went wide

Well said Wakey
Ferocious does go on a bit ( Well more than a bit really)

:2hpbhoia
Thanks. We didn't know, and nobody had made that banal point before, as if it were a novel insight. No, really they haven't.

:2hpbhoia
I wasn't going to bother with you, but clearly need to repeat that I DON'T CARE if it was a DG or not, nor am I on any "crusade", nor would i have the slightest problem if someone proved it was. It's a technical discussion and as I have already said I am perfectly amenable to reasoned debate about any of the points arising. The mods seem happy to let people like you attempt to mod the threads and have a go at me, and that is their choice, so I choose to respond to correct the erroneous stuff aimed personally at me. I'd prefer not to have to but that's how it is.

:2hpbhoia

I do not need your permission.

:2hpbhoia
I can multitask.


Where exactly can you point to where I have done that? You can't. You are making it up.

The thing is, I make posts that seem to interest people, because people reply to them , and ask me questions. If I feel like it, I reply to them. You don't get to say who talks to whom.

However I now leave the floor for any further trolls or flamers as I can't add to that.

The more I've watched it, the more I believe the camera shot from behind the sticks Brough is kicking toward is an optical illusion, caused by 1) Brough being outside the line of the posts when he kicks it; 2) the camera being halfway between the posts and zoomed in toward the ball, amplifying the illusion