Ball comes out in a tackle. The ref hasn't seen a knock on or it stolen, what does the ref do?
He has to take a guess at what happened. If he saw a defenders hands around the ball and an arm suddenly move back in a quick motion then he'd probably give a penalty. If he didn't see that he'll probably give a knock on. But it's still a guess, and it's ALWAYS going to happen. RL is unlike football or union where the ref can just wave play on if he hasn't seen anything. We have regular situations where a decision HAS to be made one way or another regardless of how good a view the ref had.

But it is. You can clearly see this, as the far posts in the image are bang in the middle of the near posts. the camera is set up precisely level with the centre spot.


No, you wouldn't. Unless the cameraman is completely in line with the ball's path. From the image I posted showing the ball as it approached the camera, you can see that he was almost exactly in line, but not quit, because it endes up a (short) distance to his right.

This means that the closer the ball gets to him, it will have an apparent motion from left to right (from his point of view) which will at first be almost unnoticeable until, if it gets level with him, it is exactly 90 degrees to his right. As I said before, if you drew a path of the ball as seen by the cameraman, it would for that reason be a narrow parabolic path. It would not be a straight up and down vertical path.


It's not your forte, but you're over-complicating it. What happens is that the ball goes up but at an ever decreasing rate, until eventually gravity wins and the ball starts to fall back to ground at an ever decreasing rate. Viewed from above, the ball would set off fast, and then decelerate at an even rate as it lost forward speed due to air resistance.

Viewed from the side, the combination of these effects is broadly like the image below. That is for a golf ball, and is not the same as for a rugby ball, because a golf ball generates lift and so continues to rise for longer, but in general terms it is the same sort of path. Similar is true for a bullet, a cricket ball or any unpowered ballistic object.




But it is harder to disprove the laws of physics, and if we know where the ball started off, and where it ended up, we can draw virtual lines, can't we. The question is not whether we can prove at what point in any image the ball passed the goal line, indeed that would still not tell us much if anything. The question is whether we can work out whether the ball's trajectory was inside or outside the posts. We can, and I did.

It would have been interesting to see it from sky's "ref cam", although as that points with the head and not quite the eyes it may still have missed given the height.

Obviously I'm biased, but I do wonder whether Bentham was just very, very certain that it was wide, which was why he didn't ask for the VR.

A head cam shot may indeed have been brilliant, for once.

Of course, so i'd be interested what you make of the evidence I have posted, in particular the clearest evidence of where the ball hit the "back wall".

And what if he doesn't see anything, except the ball coming out?

Unless you want every single decision in the game referred to the video referee, then the on field referee is going to have to use his skill, knowledge and judgement to make the 50:50 calls. When the ball comes out in the tackle the ref has to make a call - he cant just ignore it.

all that proves is where the ball hit the wall, it doesn't prove anything about the route it took to get there.

It hit here:



What other route could it reasonably have taken?

From page 22 -

The first picture with the multiple balls and the green line lends itself to the possibility of it going wide, as the ball is getting closer and closer to your green line.

The "back wall" pictures are a more stimulating as the "Fantastic" sign is well between the sticks. I'd like to have a look from the camera at the rear of Brough in order to draw a line along the ground between him and the fantastic sign. Apologies if you've posted that on a different page.

He wasn't stood far too the side of the posts, and the sign is between the posts (although quite far back).

I think its more likely he just got caught up in the moment and forgot. How often is the ref asked to make that kind of decision, and how often does he refer it to the VR? I think he just got caught up in his usual process, looked at it, thought it went wide, blew for it. Never crossed his mind to go to the VR.

This is a big mistake for a ref btw, it’s a failure of process not judgement. Any ref, even the bestest in the world ever can make a mistake of judgement, none at his level should make a mistake of process.

That "Fantastic" shot may be misleading. The ball when it is close to the camera suggests that it is travelling at some lick, and I just can't see how it could have dipped to the "Fantastic" sign but be in the shot as it was so close to the camera. That suggests that it hits something higher and bounced down. In fact, the shot of the ball close to the camera may be it on the way down rather than going up.

on the 2nd angle behind brough, you can see it hit that sign, it looks to be doing the same thing on the other angle from behind aswell but the BBC cut from that shot a bit earlier.

You don't need to guess, the iPlayer video is there to be watched.

The ball was dropping quite steeply at that point, accelerating rapidly to ground and having spent much of its forward momentum, and the shot you refer to is, of course, of the ball going down - how could it be going up?

There is nothing higher to hit. Unless you count the stand curved roof, which is many, many metres higher and was simply not a factor. But again, you don't need to speculate about any of this - just watch the video.

The "Fantastic" sign shot does seem to make it nailed on, unless Broughy put a real curl on it, although the shots from the Saints end, and your early pics, suggest that the curl was the other way.

I'm not sure if you are really that stupid, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, OF BLOODY COURSE I don't "know". I can never "know". The only way I could "know" is if I had been in the perfect position from which I had videoed the incident and was able to review what i thought I had seen.

That is why we need evidence. That's how it works. My theory was that initially the ball seemed from the back shot to be on a line inside the post. It was that view that intrigued me. So, I collected evidence to test that theory and found a lot. I did not find any evidence that does not support my theory. And some of it, such as where the ball hit the back, cannot to me be explained away. So having done the spade work yes, I think the evidence is conclusive. And so I "rested my case".


I have been rationally analysing and discussing a specific issue and presenting evidence for people to consider. You on the other hand are just wading in with half-baked bull and trying to get in some sort of ing contest argument. Why? I will leave others to judge who's the "grown up".


Now that I have explained to you how it works, as a self-proclaimed "grown up", no doubt you will apologise. Whether or not you do, I for one would appreciate you sticking to the topic and not trying to start some flame war like some drunken tap room bigmouth.

Returning to the topic, I have found an image showing a view directly down the pitch of the stadium towards the relevant end. I have superimposed in the correct location the view of Brough having just kicked the ball, which appears yellow. I have also superimposed on the back wall a yellow ball in the position where it struck the glass.



This composite, incidentally, clearly illustrates how the lines of perspective drawn on it by the original poster are completely wrong.


Here is an enlargement of the centre of that image. (the lines of the seats etc don't precisely line up simply due to the zoom of the two cameras being different, one is a wide angle view, the other a zoomed view so a perfect alignment can't be done)



I think it supports the original theory that the ball maintained a line just inside the post, and it does not support the proposition that the ball swerved or drifted to the left.

Well after reading most of the rubbish on the drop goal that was or never was is it not time to put it to bed no matter what people say it will not change the result it stands so get over it for god sake move on

what happened to benefit of the doubt to the attacking team??

Asked why he did not make use of the replays, he said: “I was in the right position to make the call so got a good view of the kick and it always stays left of the post. To be honest, it didn’t occur to me to go to the video referee as I’d made the decision.

“We’ve reviewed it (Monday) and the video referee says – with the two different camera angles available – it was inconclusive so, even if I’d asked him, he’d have had to come back to me to make the call anyway.

So after reading that statement what process has he failed in? He has stated it always stays left of the post, so why would he then go to the video ref? if you think we should go to the video ref for everything then you might as well watch a game that lasts 3 hours. Phil has done nothing wrong in this incident.

What was the view like from the grassy knoll?

He has to go on what he can see, surely. As soon as you allow him to start filling in the gaps you have all sorts of problems and prejudices.If all he knows for sure is that the ball has been lost in a forward direction then he is compelled to give a knock on.

The ref did not go to the video ref - despite his poor position to judge from - and this despite it being the match winner (if it goes over). Given the number of times they go to the Video Ref for less important and obvious decisions you have to ask why not this time? Was he really that sure, was there an "agenda", did he not realise he could, maybe he didn't have confidence in the VR after the knock-on decision?

I guess that's asked then. Bentham says he was in the right so he must be.

He is wrong and proven wrong by the camera footage as we have seen from FA's posts. He thought it went left of the post, thats fine, he could not be sure. He was wrong.

The issue regarding Smith is irrelevant, the fact Smith admits he isnt competant to be a VR and wouldnt have made a decision is irrelevant. Bentham had no idea what the camera angles showed, he didnt know that one was inconclusive and one clearly showed the ball going over.

As Bentham admits, it never occured to him to consult the VR, the fact the VR is saying he wouldnt have made a decision does not mitigate Benthams mistake, its PR fluff and its a big reason the disciplinary process and officiating in RL is held in such low esteem by its fans.


There would be nothing wrong with Bentham saying, from my view it looked to be going wide, in hindsight I should have sent it upstairs. Everyone could accept that.

Instead we have this idiotic PR defence that Bentham’s had some special view that no-one could replicate therefor we should all just accept it and ignore all the video evidence which clearly contradicts him.

My guess is that he really was that sure.

If he thought the ball was always wide when the players thought it was in - isn't he experienced enough to have thought - I'm tired and so may have perceived it wrongly? I ought to go to the VR in such an important situation? If not, why not? As to the video evidence being inconclusive .... they're having a giraffe.

Does anyone know how far behind the goal the "Fantastic" sign is relative to the distance in front of the posts from which Brough kicked it? If it's further behind than in front maybe the ref got it right!!??