The problem is all the cameras can only see in 2D and a drop goal that is travelling on an angle will eventually be seen passing between the posts.
Its similar to a spinner in cricket pitching off stump and the ball going down the leg side.

The best person to judge would have been Bentham and Brough but Brough turned his back and didn't follow the flight of the ball, Bentham looks as though he judged that the ball needed 20 metres travel and called it outside of the post, the ball carried on another 20 metres and was inside the posts. I assumethe camera at the back of the stand picked up the latter in a 2D viewpoint.

Its fairly simple if you work in computer 3D but I,m not sure if the video ref has the capability to work it out. You would need a camera at the touch line to work out the time the ball leaves the foot and crosses the try line, lets say it was 1.5 secs. You would then go to the camera at the back of the post and freeze frame the ball 1.5secs after the ball as left the foot, if the ball appears inside the vertical post line then it is a goal.

I thought it went over at the game but having watched it back on tv I can't be 100% sure if it did or didn't.

Let’s be honest no one here would bet their life on it one way or the other, and as it can’t be settled 100% goal or not, I suggest we just say, these things happen and just move on. Right or wrong the only thing for sure is Saints are through to the next round, and hudd are out, end of, but it’s good fun to try to out argue each other on here. After all that’s what these boards are all about!

Clear drop goal, because the available video clearly shows where the ball landed.



Can't have hit that point without having gone within the posts.

The interesting thing from that photo above is the position of the cameraman behind the posts. Dead centre of the posts. That was the camera shot that appeared to show it being a drop goal. The one that appeared to show it missing was over 120 metres away.

Regardless of whether it actually went over or not, my and St. Petes point was that it should have been referred to the video ref. Had it been a try or a 40:20 it would have been and that is where it was wrong.

Do you think the video ref would have given it? On two camera angles, there are arguments both ways.

Who gets the [ibenefit of the doubt[/i?
Would the VR rather say no drop goal and go to golden point if they're not sure?

I don't know if it would have been given, but that isn't the point, St. Pete or I were making. It SHOULD have been referred to the video ref. just as a try or 40:20 would have been. We (as fans) complain all the time about lack of consistency. That should have been a no brainer. Bentham had used the video ref on numerous occasions during the game, why not for the drop goal.

I appreciate that, but what do you think the decision would have been ?

FWIW I think based on the "behind the sticks" camera, in the short time available they would probably on balance have had to give the DG. But they wouldn't have had time to notice stuff like where the ball lands.

If it had been given I fully expect Saints would have got the ball from the kick-off and equalized with their own DG, or a wide-to-West try, and am confident they would have gone on to win in Golden Point time.

That would depend on the rules. Is the a benefit of the doubt on drop goals? If so, it would have been given.


Bentham was silly not to go to the screen after using it for "non important" decisions during the game and it would have took him out the firing line.

[url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/huddersfield/drop-goal-referee-bentham-says-video-call-would-not-have-spared-huddersfield-1-6547688According to this article, the video ref would have referred it right back to the on-field ref as the camera angles were inconclusive[/url

Shame really that this was the one live match where the ref hadn't been wearing the head camera. After all the mocking done by the likes of Stevo et al, the headcam would have been a really valuable resource to show one way or the other to everyone else as it would have followed Bentham's eyeline.

I believe that the referee only goes to the video ref when he is unsure of what his decision should be.
Unlike you he was sure that the drop goal attempt was wide. This being the case he had no need to go to the camera. He also had a clear view of the Walsh drop goal which of course he gave.
Post meant for Rogues

I'll be running it through some software I have that will pin point the moment the ball went past the point of the points using a comparative algorithm from the 2 angles we have.

This should then allow me to draw lines up from the posts, on both angles, to show where the ball is relative to the posts at the point it would pass the cross bar. If I get time to do it that is!

Looking at where the ref is positioned then you would have to say he had a good view of it and called it as he saw it.Brough has turned his back so is in no position to say he got it.

And the Lunt no try from non existent knock on early doors? Hohia voluntary tackle? Stinks

Lunt stretches out to try and put the ball down, loses control and it hits lomaxs leg?

Hohaia didn't even play the ball because the hooter went. A voluntary tackle only occurs if said player plays the ball.

Have you ever considered it stinks because you want it to?

Agree with both those, but the ball steal equalising penalty was very contentious.

It was, but the hand was in there even if it was a soft one.

That penalty was very similar to the one Savelio was pinged for against Leeds. I don't think either warranted a penalty.

This. For me, the only decision Huddersfield can feel aggrieved by is the Walsh incident (who played the situation like a pro) - but stuff like that goes on every week!

I disagree, that was a clear penalty for me.

McGilvary tackles Walsh, the ball comes free but Walsh regathers it before it hits the ground. McGilvary then tries to rip the ball off Walsh after the tackle has been completed which is a clear penalty. If anything he was lucky not to get sent to the bin for a professional foul due to it being after a break.

I'll throw it in there as we are questioning the ref. I did not think the Huddersfield first try was a try. If you watch the first replay. The huddersfield players left arm comes off the ball as it is stuck between his knee and the Saints player.

But when they go to the reverse angle it shows the ball on the deck and the video ref says he can see his left arm on the ball. He can't it's a Saints players arm.

Now it may have been a try but there are only 2 things for certain. His left arm was not on the ball. The ball did get on the floor but there was no definitive evidence of whether he kept his right arm on the ball. If he did not then he lost the ball as his left arm comes off when the ball is above the ground.

As for the Lunt no try, can't understand why anyone would question that, he losses the ball on lomax's leg. Therefore knock on.

Agree totally.

Didn't Lomax also get pinged for a ball steal in the second half which was 1 on 1?

What about the blatant forward pass in the build up to your 3rd try?

Decisions go for and against you.

Stop whinging like a b!tch about it. I've lost respect for Huddersfield this week after the comments coming out of the club including a pathetic statement.

Yupp!!

As always only the last dubious call is taken as the key call. That ball steal could have lead to a try for us and so the drop goals would be irrelevant.

Fans always go on about the last call and miss the 200 calls that are questionable before it.

All taken in isolation can be seen as key to the game. Take Saints v Leeds our penalty try that was never looked at, for a dubious knock on call. But it was not key in that we took control and continued to play to the final whistle.

Huddersfield could have won had they made 6 tackles and took it to golden point. They instead switched off and did not pin us down. Even if they took the drop goal there were 120 seconds left, plenty of time for a short kick off and our own try or drop goal.