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.

There are two camera angles, one where it looks in, one where it looks out. Understandable for the referee to be mistaken under those circumstances. If he was. We've got hindsight and pictures and we still can't really decide for sure.

The thing is the whole incident has clouded the real issue and allowed Huddersfield to lay the blame on someone else's shoulders.

They are leading at home with time ticking and look fairly comfortable and one of their players does a horror challenge, the kind that can paralyse a player or worse and he rightly gets sent off. They go on to lose the game.

There is your real talking point. Maybe with 13 men they wouldn't need the drop goal in the first place. Direct your anger at the thug Ferres whose actions were not in doubt.

But at least all these controversies have got people talking about the cup again.

The critical piece is where is the ball when it passes over the 'line of' the crossbar. That isnt clear either

I would have said it was good, but obviously its nowhere near clear cut and different angles suggest a different outcome.He really should have sent it upstairs to the video ref but i have no doubt that we would still have the 15 page debate but just with a change of name for the thread title!

This is true, the problem with judging any tv picture is the lack of depth. However this only affects the view from behind Brough as the ball looks to be outside, moving to inside the posts. Its just very difficult to see or be sure at what point the ball crosses the line of the post from outside to in. Its hard to see whether it is before (drop goal good) or after (drop goal no good) the try line. Here we need the depth to know when that line was crossed.

On the angle behind the goal however, this isn’t an issue because the ball never crosses that line. The ball starts inside, goes on a trajectory inside, and stays inside the posts. It doesn’t deviate from that path. We don’t need to judge when the ball crosses the line of the post because it never does. That’s why that angle is conclusive.

Again, Benthams mistake wasnt to get the call wrong, it was a difficult call. It was to not recognise the difficulty of that call and ask for the help available to him. Thats a bigger error because it is a mistake of process, not a mistake of judgment. He has guessed at a decision he didnt need to and got it wrong.

All of this would have been avoided if Huddersfield had invested in taller posts

Or a big net.

Make your mind up, you say retaliation isn't penalised usually, then backtrack and say Saints should have been penalised (laughable) after the Ferres incident for running in and retaliating.

Right now you appear not to know what your talking about.

Clueless.

Yes it was Jermaine Mcgilvray.

Walsh attempts get up and is held down once more, it was a clear penalty to Saints. As for retaliation, its never punished anymore. Especially for a push at the play the ball. Fielden used to do it at every single play the ball once he was tackled, throughout his career.

Fair Enough.

The pen could go either way for me though TBH, and its not really worth the aggro but FWIW Hudds are going for the ball and Walsh nearly lost control at no point does the player "hold him down", and at no point does Walsh attempt to "get up" he is clawing for the ball which is between his legs and he is hardly in control of, keeping the ball is Lewis' priority, not getting up. I thought Lewis was out of order, you can defend him all you like it won't change my mind, but it will make you look a one eyed supporter.

Your obviously a St's fan so i think i will take my balanced neutral view over your ridiculously one sided one any day.

Was not the ref closer to the posts than the kicker and arguably had a better view? The ref seemed immediately convinced.

McGilvray was lucky not to be put in bin for 10 minutes for holding down like he did, have seen a few players sin binned for similar (think Jamie Shaul was sent against Warrington for less earlier this season IIRC) and that could have seen Huddersfield down to 11 after what Ferres did

The drop goal debate can go on and on, even with the video referee looking at it one angle suggests it went over and another suggests it misses so would be a hard call to make. This didnt cost Huddersfield the game IMO, they had 6 tackles to contain Saints in their own half and out of range for a drop goal and failed to do so...they also had 3 earlier drop goal attempts charged down by Saints players, whereas Walsh was able to convert a drop goal on his first effort. This says to me that late in the game the Saints players efforts were more than the Giants and seemed to want the win more in how they finished.

In all honesty if the boot was on the other foot and Walsh's drop goal had been waved away like Brough's was I would be of the same opinion as most Giants fans that it should have been given but I do think it would have been harsh to give it when it wasnt clear and would have decided the game...tough call for Bentham to make and was always going to upset one set of fans whether he gave it or not. But as said above, Huddersfield still had a chance to stop Saints going down field and kicking a drop goal which they didnt do and that is as much to blame for their loss yesterday than anything else

There wasn't a single person or camera in a better position that Bentham at the point the ball went over the posts, at the base of the left-hand post, looking up. I can't imagine how Ian Smith would have coped with trying to work it out, given the differing camera angles, and the impossibility of working out when it had passed the posts.

So match officials errors are why Huddersfield still can't get a decent attendance?! Thats a cracker

Bentham was in the best position to judge given that two camera angles show two different outcomes

I assume the debate about the DG is tongue-in-cheek as there can be no doubt whatsoever that it went in.

The ref messed up and there needs to be an enquiry as to why (fatigue?) and more particularly why the video ref wasn't used when the players reacted BEFORE the decision as though it was a DG and then after too?

Have you and others not thought that the reason he didn't go to the video referee was because Phil was confident that the ball missed the goal.

cant believe what i have read about the mcgillvary/walsh incident !

jerry tackled walsh, walsh lost the ball in contact on the ground, jerry appealed for a knock which i could see sat directly across from the tackle...and got up with his arms out then got shoved by walsh

surley this is pen to giants...but no... as usual it goes against us

he didnt hold him down at all

The Matthew Ridge last minute drop goal attempt in the RLWC semi final of 1995 against Australia at the same venue was more clear cut.

When those who say it definately went over are saying this, have they watched it from both sides. How anyone can be definate when 2 different perspectives give 2 different answers is beyond me.

Also the drop goal would not have ensured the win. Dropping someone on their head will ensure getting sent off.

All pictures from one side and the angle on the Saints speccies would suggest that there is an angle at play here.

Why was he "confident" when 25 players and 7,150 spectators thought it was in? Was he tired?

There is a limit to the tricks angles can play. A ball cannot start inside the post, continue on a trajectory inside the posts, not deviate from that path, and it have not gone through the posts regardless of what angle it is viewed from.

The problem with those images is a question of depth, we dont know whether the ball has passed, is passing or is to pass the try line. That isnt a problem on the whole video because we have many reference points to judge the depth.