And the balls hits glass, bounces down off a chair and bounces to the left hand side of the posts so I don't know what your last photo is of.

EDIT: It lands next to the O of Foxybingo

I don't.



The evidence is overwhelming

You don't know, yet the evidence is overwhelming???

Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds?

The point of the image is to clearly show that the ball's line was inside the post.

The point of the rest of the images was to clearly show the ball kept on that line and did not "drift left" from Brough's point of view.


Maybe you can't read, then? As I explained it, the ball hit the glass and dropped down, the final image simply shows where it landed. I agree that where it may have bounced after it hit the seat would not be helpful. Which is why I didn't bother with that.
Anyway instead of making silly comebacks, now that I've explained it, the footage is there for anyone who wants to check my conclusions.

I know how ridiculous you and your attempt to be clever sounds







Run along son, the grown-ups are trying to discuss something seriously.

If the ball is always rising then the first pic doesn't prove anything. As people are pointing out, you don't know when the ball is crossing the goal line so we could be seeing that ball still in front of the posts but heading wide.

It's inside the post because of the angle of the camera and because you assume that it has reached the line. The ball, as I've pointed out swerves back left (through speed or just the way it was kicked).

FWIW, here's my image of when I think it is over the post.

It might be a cameraman. But it also might be a man dressed in a Batman costume.

No, no attempt to sound clever. It's just there in black & white, you clearly said you didn't know then followed that up by saying the evidence is overwhelming.

How can evidence be overwhelming yet at the same time you don't know? Surely a grown up can explain properly to a key question, or will you resort to childish responses again?

You clearly contradicted yourself and aren't grown up to admit it.

As for this point - sorry, I got confused by your image. I thought you were showing a blurred image of the ball on the grass.

With Brough kicking from outside the left hand post aiming to get the ball on a right trajectory you would expect it to hit somewhere to the right of where he kicked it and carry on going right after it's flown over the post, depending on distance between the posts and the hospitality window, plus speed of the kick. Ball could easily travel an extra foot right after it misses

But I didn't assume that at all! My images show the line the ball set off, and kept to. That's my point.


But it does not swerve left. It cannot have swerved left to end up where it did. Unless you suggest it swerved left, but then swerved back to the right?


Yes but you "thinking" that's when it is over the post is based on nothing at all. Whereas my analysis of the ball's trajectory has a known starting point and a known end point, and they if correct prove that unless it did a banana shot, it was a valid drop goal.

And your argument ignores the rest of my evidence. Why, because you can't explain it?

Could it, though? Why? If it swerved left, how could it then go right?

Anyway the position where it hit the glass, as viewed from behind Brough, is yards inside the left post. Not a foot.

So there was a cameraman, which we know because he filmed the incident, but he was invisible from the other cameras. And there was no other person visible either, but somehow a Batman apparition happened to be where the cameraman ought to be.

OK, that sound plausible.

Here's Batman's view of the ball narrowly missing him.



Ask yourself this - we know the cameraman is bang in the middle line of the pitch; you can see how close the ball is to him, to his right. Can it seriously be suggested that it is heading more than half the posts width to his right? I don't think so!

The angle from behind is flawed. It's not directly behind the posts.

By swerved, I don't mean it suddenly went drastically in the opposite direction. By swerved I mean it starts off at a certain speed to the right. If it was a straight line you would expect it to maintain that speed in movement (visually from the camera's perspective) from left to the right as it rises and falls. Someone with science may be able to confirm that the speed of the ball forward has to be equal to the momentum of the ball being kicked to the right for a perfectly straight line on an angle (physics wasn't my strong point).

It doesn't. What actually happens is that Brough kicks it and it takes off but as it flies through the air the momentum of the ball to the right lessens and it actually moves forward faster than it does right meaning the appearance is of the ball arcing its trajectory more to the left over the post.

Because it still has some right momentum (just less of it) it continues travelling to the right after the post and indeed lands behind the posts, giving the impression you have.

As people have pointed out, it's hard to prove or disprove at which point the ball crosses the goal posts from those angles. Taking pictures of the ball rising means zip unless you can match it up with an angle from the touchline conclusively showing the exact time the ball crosses the posts. Which you can't. And neither can I. Neither can anyone else. Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. I chose that moment based on counting the view from behind Brough as to the point I believed it crossed the line, and doing the same from the reverse angle. My view is that the majority of the ball was outside the post.

And if you want to take another picture, have a look at where Bentham is located when the ball is kicked. Around 3 ft from the left hand post and he turns his head to see the post before the ball goes over his head. He has a miles better than you or I.

I've watched the incident on BBC iPlayer.

From the two angles they show I honestly don't know whether it's over or not. I don't think the VR would be able to judge either. It all depends on the exact point the ball crosses the goal line and I don't think the VR would be able to determine that. All the imaginary pics of people proving the ball wasn't going wide are rendered useless when I see the TV pictures showing the ball continuing to go wider than the posted pictures claim they did.

IMO the best way to judge the kick would be to determine the exact point that kick was placed from, the exact place of impact where the ball hit the glass and measure whether the path is to the left or right of that line.

But the VR doesn't have that option and he'd have been guessing and handing it back to the ref IMO.

I'm not totally sure on the call, but for me I'd say the refs position was probably the best.

HOWEVER, watching the penalty incident where the game was pegged back to 16-16. No EFFING way should that have been a pen to Saints. 5th tackle, Saints player drops the ball because of a loose carry. Giants player's hand was in but making no play whatsoever towards the ball or interfering. The Saints player just dropped it trying to play it too quick. There was no way he should have been giving a pen for that.

So on the drop goal I give Bentham the benefit of the doubt. On the penalty I think Bentham's a complete bent *******.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you.....drumroll.....Joynt's Voluntary Tackle, The Sequel.

It missed, the ref said so

I suppose we need to know where the camera that picks up the "Fantastic" was relative to the posts. But, it seems that the picture confirms was was bleeding obvious at the time - it clearly went in and by some way.

Given what we have available I would say the best method would be to get the behind the posts view and the side on view (I assume there would be one). Run the two pieces of footage simultaneously and stop it at the point when the ball reaches the goal line on the side on clip. Then you should be able to tell from behind the posts whether it was online or not.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the ball suddenly deviated from that line before it reached the post?

Hudds had spent the entire game messing round at the play the ball, so with a few minutes left and down to 12 men, when Bentham saw the ball come out it was probably fair to assume that a Hudds player had his hands on it.

Maybe a mistake, but in the context of Huddersfields tactics upto that point they can hardly complain.

Correct. Bentham was the only person who was ideally placed to see where it went.

All this debate about camera angles and trajectories is irrelevant if Bentham was stood directly underneath it and saw it pass outside the post.

Assume ? Is that how they're refereeing games now ? Thought they could only give what they SEE.

Even Bentham can only say what impression he had in the fleeting instant it was happening, that is all he has to go on. Sadly the evidence at least extremely strongly suggests, if I can put it at its mildest, that he was wrong.

Your statement is based on the quaint idea that Bentham is incapable of making a mistake. I am sure he himself would not claim that. Your statement presupposes that in 80 minutes, and a few thousand incidents, every single thing the ref decides is factually correct. With respect, do you need me to explain to you why that is a silly view?

All we know is Bentham THOUGHT it had missed, and sadly we don't have any way of replaying what he saw. But of course he DID have the option of using the video replay system and I must say I don't understand why on such a hotly disputed call he chose not to use it, what would have been the detriment?

I'm still uncertain.

The first set of pictures from FA does show it drifting to the left slightly and is not conclusive. On the other hand, the striking of that sign seems to make it nailed on.

On the other hand, the one sent in by Fully, with the posts drawn straight up, does seem to suggest that it drifted towards the posts.

I'm still no more certain, other than Bentham was in a very good position to judge, looking up.