We all on TV saw two camera angles of the DG attempt. One suggested that the ball went narrowly inside the uprights. The other suggested that the ball went narrowly outside the uprights.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough was successful because they wanted Huddersfield to win/wanted Saints to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests success to be correct and discount/discredit the other angle.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough missed because they wanted Saints to win/wanted Huddersfield to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests it missed to be the correct one and will discount/discredit the other view.

Some people despite which team they wanted to see win the game will take the view that two camera angles shown suggested two different situations and that the flight of the ball took it not very far from the upright, whichever side of the upright it was on when crossing the tryline. With conflicting evidence for both success/failure no definite conclusion could therefore be reached. The officials then have to make a call on a 50/50 incident, that is what the ref did.

You are clearly in the first group and to you the angle suggesting success is strong and clear and the angle which contradicts your view/wish is weak and wrong. To people in the second group the reverse will be true. Just because some people do not agree with you doesn't mean that they "can't or won't see what's in front of their eyes". It just means that they don't agree with you. Nothing wrong with that, this was a 50/50 decision after all.

I am in the third group, there were two contradictory angles and whether the ball went inside or outside the posts as it crossed the line there wasn't much distance between the ball and the upright from either angle to definitively confirm which side of the upright it was on. The ref made a call on what he thought happened and as he obviously couldn't be certain that it had gone between the uprights he couldn't award a point that would have won the match. He left the scores level. He could have asked the VR but given the two angles and conflicting evidence I doubt the VR would have been able to confidently award a match winning DG either.

This has made my day. Put your dummy back in.

I feel your rage

we said that at the time, it seems teams playing huddersfield are immune from red/yellow cards..wire should have had a player binned last week...nothing, but yet officials don't need a 2nd invitation to show a card to huddersfield players.

ferres had to go today so im not referring to that, although should that happen against us, you can guarantee it would be just a penalty and on report!!

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Can't stand Hudds and a Saints win is far better for the competition in my opinion.

I am in the group of people who wants refereeing standards raised and refs and their paymasters be held accountable for their actions.

The reaction of the players suggested it was good - they were on their way back for the KO before PB ruled it out...

haven't seen a re-run yet but it wasn't just the drop goal that got our backs up, he gave saints everything in the last quarter.
as i've said, no problem with the ferres red card, but how can a player stand up and shove the marker and get a penalty? how can a player lose the ball and get a penalty under the posts?
i might change my mind once i've watched it back but right now i feel that my team have 'been had'.

i should also add, congratulations to st helens and good luck for the next round.

When it happens to a big club, it gets 13 pages; when it happens to us, nobody gives a toss.

At risk of enraging Huddersfield fans, I repeat what has been said to me; "It evens itself out over a season - get over it."

More sensibly - it really is time that the officials were made significantly more accountable for their actions; the lack of such is creating arrogance, complacency and contempt for both players and fans of the game.

Ignore the part about wanting a Hudds win then (a minor point anyway), but you are definitely in the group which wants to discount the camera angle from behind Brough because it suggests that the attempt was wide and thus contradicts your opinion (you labelled it the weakest of angles). You cannot pick and choose which angles to use and which to ignore because they don't support your opinion. You have to use all the evidence presented and draw conclusions based upon all of it. This incident was, no matter how much you wish to protest against it, a 50/50 decision with conflicting evidence sufficient to support either side of the argument but with no evidence to conclusively prove either that it was successful or that it missed. You only think that Bentham needs to be "held accountable" because you don't agree with his decision. Half the evidence suggests you were right, half the evidence suggests he was right. Nothing is there to prove it either way.

It wouldn't have been a try though because for some reason Bentham hurriedly blew instead of letting the play pan out and then going to the VR.

The camera angle suggesting a miss is not in-line, it's offset and gives a skewed and unreliable view.

The better view clearly shows a good DG.

The refs have to up their game.

Or players their accuracy?

Yes. Players should never make mistakes, give penalties or commit foulplay, so the refs have nothing to call on.



A member for 13 years, 8k posts and i've yet to read one this isn't complete dog turd.

Whoops!!!

aye, well he had four shots to get his eye in. Walsh needed one.

DG would be better employed looking at the shambles in claret and gold today as to why they lost

Can't wait for the second half of the season that

Really!
I know people are upset about the manner of the loss but I thought Bentham had a good game today

the only thing I thought he did wrong was the pen where lewis retaliated.

Linesman tells Betham that Jermaine would not let go and penalty for lying on was given. Saints had made a half break and Jermaine held down for far too long. People push at the play the ball atleast 10 times a game.

It wasn't Jermaine but never mind.
Not like that they don't but whatever keeps you happy.
Usually what happens in rugby league is retaliation is penalised.

That might be what they tell the kiddies, but no it isn't.

I actually thought that after the red card Huddersfield should have had the penalty, because a few Saints players went in and had a dig even though the ref was in there dealing with it. But Saints were given the penalty and had the benefit of the Giants player sent off.

IMO Saints should have lost the penalty because of what their players did. That would cause retaliation to be treated properly, but right now most retaliation is pretty much allowed.

Sorry for crappy pics
I'm convinced that the trajectory of the ball at no point wavers beyond the inside of the posts at any point, after it has gone past the posts maybe as the ball is gaining height for some time past the posts and the wind may have gotten hold of it..
At the very very worst/squinted back end shot it goes over the upright which is a successful goal kick is it not?
In baseball in a few grounds now they've stopped putting the pitcher's camera angle at 10-15 degree off centre due to fans 'seeing' what they thought were 'balls' (outside the hitting zone) being called as strikes by the Ump'. That's because of the false trajectory that the angle was creating to viewers at home.

I just don't think you can tell by that camera angle. On the last picture the ball is obviously still inside the post, but it doesn't look like it has reached the goal line yet to me.

Another point that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, is that Bentham might have prevented Hudds winning in normal time, but he didn't make them lose. Had they fronted up in defence rather than feeling sorry for themselves and crying to the ref then Saints wouldn't have got into drop goal range themselves.

You seem to be saying that both camera angles have equal weighting. They don't. One is straight, the other is skewed. You must take that into consideration when assessing what they purport to show.

I actually thought that Brough's premature celebrations, before the ball had reached the posts, didn't do himself any favours. It had that look of a player trying to convince the ref. You often see it when players try to convince the ref that they've grounded the ball correctly when they know they haven't.