What we can,t be sure of is if the drop goal stood would it had been the definitive final outcome of the game.
Saints kept there composure played the full 80 mins had one chance of a drop goal attempt and took it, Giants had 4 attempts and the rest is history.

I've just watched it and I can't make my mind up.

I understand the point about going to the VR, but there's no conclusive angle that shows it definitely was a goal, or that it definitely wasn't. So how would the VR have decided it?

Bentham was stood in a great position, so surely it's the refs call in that case.

I think Bentham should have gone to the screen 100%.

At the ground I wasn't sure but watching the TV replays the screen showed an inconclusive decision for me, therefore no goal.

I think Giants fans (and others who clearly want us out) should lay them blame for the defeat with the brain fart from Ferres.

His stupidity was the defining moment of the 80 minutes for me.

Giants will miss him and Brough for the next few weeks.

Over or not it would not be enough to make the win solid.

Personally I though the spear tackle is what killed the game for Huddersfield. Without it I thought we looked very rough as a team and they would have won without a drop goal.

I've looked and looked and basically I can't decided. As we get 2 versions one is over one is not and we have no idea where the ball is in relation to the ground. All the Huddersfield fans are sat on the sides and so have very poor angles, Saints fans are miles away.

Brough turns his back before it goes over. The ref says no, Walsh says yes.

I still think we were lucky to win, but I'll never be able to say for certain after watching it about 10 times it's still debatable.

I was listening today and its definite yes he could have gone to the Video.Was it that close to call in all your opinions?if so Bentham made an error by not using the technology.It was permissible to use

Well at the end of the day my opinion is that i am still unsure. How some can say it is clearly one or the other is plain ignorant. We had two camera angles, one showing it go over; one not. However, Bentham saw something none of us saw and so i feel if he didn't think suitable to go the VR then it mustn't have gone over or he is biased and wanted Saints to win. I am a firm believer that no refs are like that though. It's their job and i bet they go out there hoping to get every call right.

on the balance of things it probably was a goal. Will anyone care by August? doubtful

It may become to Hudds what Joynts "tackle" was to Bradford

On first viewing I thought it went over, the more I watch it, the more unsure I am.

Of course ref's aren't biased ,but its what you get on these forums

I'm 80:20 that it did. I can't see why they couldn't come up with some technology to prove it either way though. For example send a beam of light up from the posts see if that's breached.

I'm not suggesting we need this technology at games, but just to prove whether it was or it wasn't. I'd love to see someone prove it wasn't just to show all the reactionists crying foul on here and twitter.

We didn't have that technology available to us at the time though. It wasn't Sky but the BBC and the BBC had two camera angles available and they were inconclusive as one showed it just about going over to the left while the other showed it just about missing the left upright. That's all Ian Smith would have had available to him as video ref.

It makes me laugh when I see people like Rogue's with his say what you see attitude or Danny Brough's "What's missing about that?" opinion. Whilst I wish I could clear this up using elaborate mathematical equations and physics, I think a basic knowledge of geometry and common sense will do.

This all revolves around why the two angles appear to show different outcomes, this is simple - perspective! And how people point to how the ball looks inside the sticks without even thinking of perspective just beggars belief.

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/wideexplaination_zpsc0384ba9.jpg.html[/url

From this angle, we can see the moment the ball is kicked, it is roughly 6ft from the approximate spot of the post - using the pitch lines (I've gone over them in white). The yellow asterisk is where the ball would be on the try line (all measurements are of course approximate).

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/behindgoal_zps4184ad6a.jpg.html[/url

So from behind the goal, the thing that is catching everyone out is how the ball looks inside the sticks for most of its journey. We can now use the same reference spots from the previous photo (I have changed the hue so the lawn lines appear sharper). We know the ball is 6ft outside the sticks, but look - it already appears inside the sticks from this point. The fact is that the ball needs to make up 6ft of ground.

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/perspective_zps2945fe98.jpg.html[/url

Here is the true perspective of the top of the sticks. At this point, given as I say I am not qualified to work out distance x time etc, we rely on common sense. Does the ball appear inside the corridor of the lines? Of course that is only one still and proves nothing, but I would say think about this perspective and the reference points I have given and watch the video yourself. I have examined it and I am very confident it didn't


And that is why, on that angle ^ the ball looks to be sneaking in (if you imagine the lines not to be there)...


[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/circled_zps9658a94d.jpg.html[/url

...but on this angle the ball appears wide.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I would hope others would think a bit harder about what they think they saw before berating Phil Bentham. I believe the ball missed by by a comfortable enough distance and Phil Bentham was stood in a perfect spot to see it. He is not stupid (banter aside) he would have known the connotations by going up to the video ref, if he was not 100% he would have used that, enormous pressure off his shoulders, but he also knows the video could give false impressions, so he must have been 100% confident.

A lot of grounds that double up as footy grounds tend to have smaller posts to make life easier to swap round,

they made a good point on the radio, what if that game decided who stayed in the league?? Could happen could kill a club going down because the posts weren't tall enough to make the right call

Brilliant Crackador

Great post Crackador, might want to post that here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=567315&view=unread&tsmp=1396822530#unread

Great post Crackador, might want to post that here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=567315&view=unread&tsmp=1396822530#unread

I was pretty much in line with the left upright. My reaction immediately was to say it would have hit the post had it been tall enough.

Anyway, I will check my newspaper in the morning if its not in I guess it missed.

My view no drop goal, I did say to the guy next to me that you couldn't say to much if it had been given but I truly believe it was wide.

Ref not using video ref, he was in a good spot and happy it was wide, I don't think for a second he was thinking about the angles the VR would of had he saw it go wide so did his job and called it.
He did use the VR in the game a number of times Sean Lunt with 3/4 players around him for a grounding hard to see live, one for offside form a kick again can be difficult to check the whole line at the point of the kick.

If he had used VR for the goal one shot goal the other wide, never happened before so would it be given benefit to the attack??

Wembley here we come

Spot on - how would the video ref have decided whether it went over or not. Two angles different outcomes.

and the video ref did not necessarily get earlier calls correct.........

There's more Huddersfield supporters posting on that thread than were at the game. It was embarrassing how empty their ground looked.

that's a different issue

Rogues suggested the best angle to adjudicate was from the camera behind the goal as it was central when clearly the best angle was a straight line from Brough through the post and beyond into the stand....as demonstrated by the images and lines by a previous poster.

I though Brough was pretty good in his post match interview; I've had enough of players and coaches regurgitating the usual platitudes ("we lost our go forward"...."They're a good side"...."We've plenty to work on for next week"icon_wink.gif and I thought he was retrained enough yet still showed how frustrated and disappointed he was with the ref's (correct) decision.... I think he's more than entitled to speak out at that point

Huddersfield probably the better team but some good defence from Saints.

I'd suggest if they had a camera behind the sticks, but mounted ether very high(looking down) or ground level (looking up), it may have given us a more conclusive shot.

Only problem with that is it's at least 2 more cameras at a game that would only be any good in this situation, would the beeb or sky consider money well spent?

I genuinely don't think the footage was conclusive.

From behind the goal it looked over and from the other angle (behind Brough) it looked wide. I'd have been upset if it had it gone against us though, no doubt.

Through all the furore of this incident it's worth pointing out that Huddersfild's 3rd try came from a blatant forward pass, yet nothing is mentioned. The drop goal incident has also taken the focus off one of the worst tackles you are likely to see from Ferres.

After all the debate, I decided to go looking for the rules.

Firstly,



This is pretty well known. The more important ruling comes from the general rules of kicking a goal (which for the purposes of definition covers both goals and drop goals)



important bit highlighted. Even if we accept the ball goes over the post, there is no evidence that the whole ball goes over the crossbar (aka the bit between the sticks) - ergo over the sticks is no drop goal. Correct decision. QED