This. And ignoring the constant lying on and niggling at the play of the ball by Saints made for a shocking spectacle by Bentham.

Utter, utter bull$hit!

If you watch the video again, you'll see Bentham is perfectly parallel in line with the upright in question. He is the only one, man or camera, who is in the best position to judge whether the ball passed through the uprights or not.

As the two camera angles are inconclusive, its fair to say Bentham is the only person with any right to judge.

The problem with Bentham's position was that he was too close to the posts. The kick went so high that he would have been looking straight up, and I'm not sure that the posts would have even been in his field of vision.

From different camera angles, sometimes it is not possible to judge what has happened, irrespective of what it was. The video ref has the benefit of viewing various cameras to objectively make the correct decision. When judging the grounding of the ball the VR will request a number of different cameras to see if it has been grounded. The fact that the previous ones he has viewed do not show the ball being grounded, is irrelevant, if the subsequent camera can clearly show a correct grounding (even without the benefit of the doubt).

The forward camera angle is inconclusive, primarily because, due to the lack of depth perception, and the slightly angled position of the camera, it is impossible to judge when the ball passes over the try line (and therefore the posts). However, back to my previous point, just because one angle is inconclusive, that doesn't mean that all the other evidence should be disregarded. In fact the opposite is true, the only conclusive evidence is provided by the camera behind the posts, and it went over, it should have been given. I would like to think that had it gone to the VR it would have been given.

BTW, debates like this have gone on in other sports for so long they have become part of the game. In fact they are part of what makes football, football. With a world cup on the horizon, All I can think of is Russian linesmen, 'The Hand of God' and Frank Lampard's goal. Perhaps we need a few more of these contentious decisions to get everyone talking about the game.

This really is a non-debate. Every week for the televised games we have to endure endless slo-mo replays of tries to establish is an errant fingernail fragment knocked the ball on, if a loose cotton thread from someones jersey applied downward pressure or a stray lace from a wingers boot brushed the touchline for a nanosecond.

And what does the patron saint of idiocy do, for a genuinely game-changing event? Ignores technology, common sense and the foam coming from Danny Brough's mouth and lords it up like a folicly-challenged John Holdsworth.

The VR ref might not have had any better angles to work with but he could have frozen the shot and at the very least do Huddersfield the courtesy of a brief check, if only to appease them.

Maybe Bentham was on a promise. I sincerely doubt it, so I can only assume arrogance and/or idiocy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with regard to fan's frustrations. We've seen Bentham go to the VR for decisions my visually impaired cat could have given, yet for tight calls, nothing!

Takes some explaining doesn't it?

Not really. If he saw it and was sure it missed, why should he send it upstairs?

You've never been a ref then, have you?

As a ref you can only ever call what you see. If you are not in the best position, then you turn to the players and say 'sorry lads I didn't see it'. In my experience most players accept this, and don't mind the odd bad decision. Shake it off and get on with the game. Decisions even themselves out, unless you are no longer in the competition.

Point is; why was he (Bentham) so sure it hadn't gone over? I think it did, but my opinion maters not a jot. His however does, and I'm not convinced he could have been sure it hadn't gone over. Therefore it should have gone to the VR.

I agree with mark_m, the shocking drop goal decision aside, Bentham was truly awful. I think you've got to take a lot out of Brough's reaction, it was automatic and instinctive, Bentham took a few seconds to think about it and looked at the Saints player waving his arms around (no it wasn't Wellens) he then gave the "no" drop goal signal.

I think the biggest joke of the weekend was somebody quoting Tommy makinson saying Saints having best backline in SL. Not one of them would get in our team, they do however have a great pack and fine half back in Walsh.

Looking at the kick on the superleague show ,one camera angle showed it being a goal,another showed it going over the top of the post. Maybe the only sure way would be to make the posts taller & hang a net between the posts from the top to the crossbar. The net would then catch the ball if the kick was successful. We could even have one of the officials at either end dedicated to watching for drop goals. Better still,drop the stupid golden point idea which is only there to satisfy tv schedules anyway.

There are many times at a match I have moaned and groaned at the referee for not appearing to have the mettle to make a decision and referring the decision "upstairs". Therefore I should be grateful for the fact that Bentham saw it within his remit to make a decision and stick to it.

Unfortunately, in this case (for me) it was the wrong decision. Drop goal! Huddersfield robbed.

Unlucky, move on. Saints vs Wire final?

On the first 3rd of the season form, I'd find it very difficult to put Myler ahead of Walsh for selection if I was able to call on either.

Apparently he said in an interview with the Yorkshire Post that he has the backing of the video ref Ian Smith (not surprising there) and that video evidence showed inconclusive.

Which begs the question; if he said the VR wouldn't have helped Danny Brough if it had have been referred upstairs, then how can Bentham be happy with his decision and the VR be happy with the decision when the evidence was inconclusive in that they can't tell if it went over or not?

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

If the VT is inconclusive then shouldn't the goal have been awarded?
This is the case with a try.

In which case, Bentham does not have the backing of the video ref.

If the VR is inconclusive the on field decision stands (whatever that may be, try or no try) - if there is "by balance of probabilities" evidence to suggest a try is scored, benefit of the doubt is awarded. If "beyond reasonable doubt" is established then a try is awarded.

huh?....what decision?
You don't go the the VT if you have awarded something unless they have changed the rules lately?

Maybe I phrased it wrong - if the video is totally inconclusive then the VR will ask for an on field decision (what the ref would give if there was no video ref) which will then become the decision.

That's Refscall, which was used in the NRL up to a couple of years ago. They don't have the facility in Super League, so the VR can't hand it back over to the referee.

I think what Mr Bentham and Mr Smith are trying to do is cover their backs by saying that the replays were inconclusive so as to say that even if Bentham went upstairs, the decision would stand.

I think there was enough evidence "by balance of probabilities" (as you put it) that the kick *could* have been given as benefit of the doubt.

I saw your post on the VT topic about the same thing saying that the argument died off 10 pages prior to what the current page is. I assume you've decided to come over here to try and get some decent debate, as you've had enough of the squabbling between FA and others on there?

I can see that decision making Hudds stronger.
I glad we played them last week now.

or could we being seeing the start of one of those now infamous Huddersfield slumps, that they seem to have, every season (last season being an exception)

I think had they had played bad Lefty I would agree with that.
But when your robbed I would have thought it would make you incensed.

Bentham screwed up. End of, and the referee's are simply closing ranks as you'd expect.

In terms of Huddersfield, this is now the first major test of Paul Anderson's coaching acumen. Indifferent league form, out of the cup and a certain Brian Noble updating his CV.

Fortunately for Anderson, Ken Davy is a decent fella and a level-headed chairman but it will be interesting if their league form doesn't pick up particularly at home. If Koukash was his boss, he'd have been sacked before Walsh's drop goal had landed.

Phil Bentham is to Saints what Billy Thompson was to Hull.