Speaking for myself I want to discuss a rugby topic on a rugby forum, because it is one that intrigues me. However I am not a Hudds fan nor a Saints fan so am looking at it from an academic standpoint. Therefore I don't have anything to "get over", nor do I want the result changing, nor am I finding any difficulty at all in "moving on": I don't have any issue from which to "move on".

If you don't want to take part in the discussion then why bother coming in? If you don't think there should be discussion then why are you on a discussion forum?

Or...... He might have thought "that little turd has been in my ear all bl**dy game, so why should i start listening to him now"
Just a thought

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6547688 Everyone can stop crying now.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6547688 Everyone can stop crying now.

Why did bentham not consult a psychatrist to confirm that he was mentaly capable of making a decision

Cos his spelling is well-good?

That's the thing. So many people seem unable to to even consider that perhap - just perhaps - Bentham was in the perfect position to view the ball [ias it passed the post[/i and was therefore able to make the call without the video ref. You know, stood pretty much in perfect line with the trajectory of the ball and the post as he was.

FA

You are wrong (entirely IMO - your opinion is your opinion) and here's why. The ball does slow/swerve/alter it's route - whichever term you like - and I've drawn it on to prove it.

I have watched back the clip behind Brough in slow motion and plotted points as to where the ball is at any point.

I've then drawn these on with a big X and edited the lines to go perfectly in the middle of all those X's - look what happens.

I've then drawn a big red line for what would happen to the ball in a perfect line in line with the window and also your point, as you suggest, if it didn't change its course. The ball would go over if that was the case but it would also go over the steps in the upper tier and down to the right of where it hits the window in the doorway of the hospitality.

Then watch the video from the main footage of the game. The ball crosses the posts at a point when the ball is out of sight in the upper tier. I'd suggest slightly below the second upper most X, which is over the left of the post, as pointed out by my other image.

as if Bentham or any other ref is going to own up and say yeah, I made a right fecking mess of that and cost a team the game because I didn't bother checking with the VR (whom is also not in a month of Sundays go with yes I would have given it!)
This is a club (RFL) that is corrupt/incompetent from the top down. To think Bentham is going to change his mind now on such a contentious issue is bonkers, he won't and he hasn't, pretty predictable really.
The actuality is that it was a clear DG, the result as stands is that it wasn't...

Those saying it didn't go over from one angle is like saying that a try isn't a try from one inconclusive angle, hence why the VR choses another much clearer one to decide. Going by the behind the posts shot it is clear and always has been clear it was a successful kick..

No..no, it really isn't. The angle proves nothing.

All those who are saying it wasn't a goal would soon change your minds if it was your team it happened to !!

it was a drop goal, simple as, to physics and trajectories, it wont over the bar and inside the post !!

It is good you have taken the time to prepare evidence, but I think your plots must be wrong simply because we all know that a ball in flight could not weave about like your yellow line, nor, so far as we can see watching the video in real time, is there any weaving, zigging or zagging apparent.

Also the ball is actually on the image, immediately after it left brough's foot, and sadly your yellow line does not go through the known location of the ball, which isn't open to debate.

Your red line is also wrong as you have assumed the ball travelled till it landed in the seats, but it didn't, its first point of contact was the glass under the sign, which is where your red arc needs therefore to end.

If you can post your stills from which you think you have plotted the crosses then tonight I will make them into a composite as a check on your theory.

Why has anyone else on here changed their minds? Why should a ref change his mind because a few people on here are convinced in a conspiracy, and like to blow up every minor (and major) issue in the game? I didn't think it went over (due to the camera angle from behind the saints fans) - and I'm yet to see anything convincing enough to suggest otherwise. Unless someone a) posts specific dimensions between the player, posts, and ingoal, or b) the bbc release the footage with a side camera angle (to determine precisely when the ball crosses the try line) there is absolutely nothing clear cut about it being a drop goal, and bearing in mind the rules about the whole ball having to go over the crossbar not the post, on balance of probability the correct decision was made.

The ref called what he saw (and regardless of what you or anyone else says, HE had the best view of it) - the VR has come out and said if it had been referee upstairs, the on field decision would of stood, and at least half the population agree (including the rfl, because he hasn't been quietly dropped for this week as is usual when a ref makes a major bad call) agree with that decision. Just because it doesn't sit well with you doesn't mean it was wrong.

At that point in the game, the game wasn't lost - in fact it was 16-16. What lost Huddersfield the game was letting saints go from a 20 metre tap to 30metres from goal

Perhaps he wasnt in this magical spot and the video evidence which contradicts him is better evidence.

This isnt true. That rule makes no mention of the posts whatsoever. That is your own assumption. I can only ask you again, if a set of posts are made out of 1 solid peice (as you said the Hudds post were) what makes the intersection where post meets crossbar, post rather than crossbar? Wouldnt it simply be both?


Did he? have you seen his view of it? Has anyone? Are we supposed to ignore the fact he admits he lost track of it for a period of its flight? considering how notoriously inaccurate human memory is, why is Benthams memory of the event better than a video recording?

Just because Bentham has come out and said 'i was right and my view was better than other views which i didnt see' and the VR has come out and said ' i dont know' doesnt make Bentham right. He was wrong. The ball went through the posts. We can see that happening.

Ever helpful, here's a ground plan, I've drawn (very) approximate lines for glass boxes, dead ball line, and Brough's position but it does look as if the glass box is appreciably closer to the dead ball line than Brough's kicking position. Certainly it is not further back and I actually think Brough kicked from a little bit further back than I have sketched..

How long are you going to carry on bombarding us with your amateurish Paint creations before you give up and go away?

Your posts seem to contain a lot of words and phrases such as "approximate," "roughly" and "not entirely accurate."

It's hardly scientific is it? You're making yourself look very silly now.

Just remind us all who you support. I actually agree with most of the unbiased fans on this forum who say it Was a GOAL. Had the positions been reversed you would have had steam coming out of your ears, so don't defend Bentham just because he gave you the win.

If FA has done that on Paint i wouldnt call it amateurish. Its pretty bloody good. I think its actually a picture.

The point remains, it looks shoddy, amateurish and desperate.

Who the fsck are you though? What have you ever contributed that is of any use to man nor beast?



Let me guess - you're a Saints giraffe, and you don't like the evidence that it was a drop goal? Aww, poor love. Or is the stuff I post too hard for you? tell you what, when you're back at skule, ask your maths teacher to go through it with you!

I don't know why you are so upset, you did go through, you know?

Plots aren't wrong - I can assure you. I followed it through double and triple checking to make sure it is right.

Your plot of the yellow dot is actually wrong. When it's kicked it's in line with the Foxy Bingo logo and next bit is near the gentleman above, as shown here.

Point A



Point B



At no stage does it go through the marker you've put down (which is the gap between the logo and the F).

With the red line, I haven't accounted for the rebound off the window. Still that's irrelevant. You can just assume it hits the window in line with the yellow X.

I'd love to post lots of pictures for you but I'm going out to the football at 4:30pm. Funnily enough I'm going to the Galpharm but will gladly take a picture behind the sticks if this helps you?

One thing in Bentham's favour over this example is that at least Bentham was at the right end of the ground.

There is no evidence though, that's the point. You have come up with all these silly little drawings and yet they prove nothing. You have tried and failed to prove it was a DG. Carry on if you like, folk will just carry on laughing at you.

Oh by the way, I am not upset in the slightest, it's the people like you who are going to great lengths to prove a point that appear to be most aggrieved.

Pick your dummy up and quit the nonsense, it's boring now.

This was an approach I was thinking about.
Looking from above and drawing two triangles. I'm pretty confident that you could consider Brough to be 23 metres away from the try line and 2 metres to the right of the post. If he hits the ball straight over the post, then the angle of the ball's path to the line perpendicular to the try line will be calculated by Tan X = 2/23
Then if we work out the position of where the ball strikes the glass and draw a line between that and the same post, then we work out the same angle on that side (call it Y). If Y > X, then (assuming the ball travelled in a straight line) then in must have gone through the posts, but if Y<X then it will have gone wide.
However, looking at the iPlayer, I'm finding estimating the perpendicular distance from the try line to the sign hard to estimate, perspective and the sloping effect of the seats.
If the ball hit the glass 2.5 metres to the right of the post, then the sign would have to 28.75 metres back to ensure the ball went straight over the post. If it were further back, it would imply a miss, closer a goal. I could quite believe that the sign is 30 metres back, but then my estimates of the other distances may be off.
How wide are a set of goal posts?