Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:21 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

There's a few people getting confused. What the video showed is neither here nor there. A DG is awarded by the referee. It has to be based on what he thinks he sees, and as we saw from the different angles, what a ref sees with a DG is entirely dependent upon where he's standing.

You don't get many DGs at the level I referee, but they're easily the hardest decision to make. You're trying to get the line set, watch the PTB, keep the offside for the chargedown (everyone's pumped up because it's in the red zone), and suddenly some bugger kicks it, and you have to whip round and make a snap decision from wherever you happen to be standing. If you're lucky, it goes through the posts so you can see it go behind the nearest post and in front of the furthest. But if it goes over the top, you have to take your best shot. It's a little harder than sitting on an armchair watching a slow motion replay from plum behind the sticks.

FWIW I thought it was a goal. But if I'd been on the pitch, especially given the "other" angle, I could well imagine deciding it wasn't.

There are ALWAYS 50-50 decisions in every game - ball-steal or loose carry; quick markers or not square; offside or good linespeed - and part of our game is that occasionally the officials get one wrong. If it happens in the first sixty minutes, nobody cares. If it happens in a one-sided game, nobody cares. If it happens but doesn't lead to a score, nobody cares. The ref is just the ref and gets on with stuff.

If it happens in the last minute of a tight cup tie on telly, with thousands watching and results in a deciding call, then everybody cares and you're a "cheating c**t".

I feel for Bentham, to be honest. Could happen to any of us, and it's just one of those things. Other than that, I thought he had a pretty good game.

If this game wasn't a televised game with the benefit of the VR I'd agree with you. Unfortunately it was on TV and the option to make a more considered decision was there for them.

IMO Bentham is lucky that on some of the angles it is inconclusive. It really looks so close it might have been good or it might have been bad. But if all angles shows he got the call wrong then he would have cost Huddersfield the game. He really had no idea what the TV replays would show.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:31 pm  

The angle which suggests a doubt over the DG is filmed from the other end and from the right of the posts. There is no depth to the shot.

The camera in line clearly shows the trajectory of the successful DG.

Bentham messed up.

For the record...I hoped for a Saints win, but that decision was embarrassingly wrong.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:37 pm  

There was no camera angle in line with the kick. There was one behind the posts in which it looked like it might sneak in.
Then there was another angle that looked like it was arcing away from the post.

Neither were in line with the kick.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Parallax schmallarax, it was clearly a DG from the rear view cam that happened to be dead in line

It wasn't 'dead in line' though - well, not with where the kick left Brough's boot & the post. The camera is instead positioned halfway between the posts. Given the angle created by the camera, Brough & the post, the line the ball is perceived to have taken from this camera angle will be deceiving.

The camera at the exact same position at the other end (behind Brough), because of the different (narrower) angle created by the camera, Brough & the post, probably shows a truer representation.

The biggest problem with deciding whether it was a good drop goal or not is that the kick itself takes an arcing trajectory. It starts off inside the line of the posts, but ends up outside. As neither camera could pinpoint the exact position of the ball at the point it crossed the tryline (and both offered differing perspectives), we cannot be sure whether it was a drop goal or not. I actually think Bentham, with the vision perspective that being on the pitch and being able to ascertain where the ball is the moment it moves over the tryline can give, was better placed than any video ref.

It's the sort of decision that, if it goes against you, you think the world has dumped a great injustice on you. If the drop goal had been given, then Saints fans seeing the reverse camera angle showing the attempt missing would rightly have been just as angry as Huddersfield fans now are. And the same applies the other way (if it had been Saints making that DG attempt).

One thing is for sure, and that is that Huddersfield didn't deserve to lose and, like Luke Walsh said, Lady Luck shone on Saints.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:54 pm  

That fact that so many are split on whether it was/wasn't shows the decision to be acceptable (note the word 'acceptable' not correct).

If it is as clear as day then why are so many accepting of the call? And these people aren't saying it definitely missed.....just it didn't definitely go through.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:11 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

That fact that so many are split on whether it was/wasn't shows the decision to be acceptable (note the word 'acceptable' not correct).

If it is as clear as day then why are so many accepting of the call? And these people aren't saying it definitely missed.....just it didn't definitely go through.

So because some people can't, or won't, see what's in front of their eyes, those of us who can have to suffer?

On the clearest of camera angles, the DG was good, yet some people want to use the weakest of angles to try and validate their opinion.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:18 pm  

dboy wrote:

So because some people can't, or won't, see what's in front of their eyes, those of us who can have to suffer?

On the clearest of camera angles, the DG was good, yet some people want to use the weakest of angles to try and validate their opinion.

The people in the 'no DG' camp want to use both angles. The ones for it want to ignore one to validate theirs.

I know who is more in the 'won't see what's in front of their eyes' camp. And it's the 'I'll ignore the one that looks like a no DG because the first one looks so good' camp.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:22 pm  

i have a funny feeling that this thread may be a joynt's voluntary tackle type thing

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:22 pm  

Some seem to be arguing that because one angle was inconclusive we should ignore an angle which was conclusive. The angle from behind the posts was conclusive, the ball was kicked inside the posts, it carried on through the posts. Whatever the angle,had the ball missed, it would have needed to cross the line of the post on that angle. It didn't. Without doing so, it cannot have missed.

Yes it's a difficult decision to make in real time with one view, and yes the inconclusive angle is inconclusive, and yes I can well imagine Bentham having to make a best guess and it is a 50/50 decision for Bentham. But that decision didn't need to be made in real time, didn't need to be made with one view and didn't need to rely on an inconclusive angle.thats where the error was made. Bentham 'guessed' at a very tough decision when he had a video referee able to make the correct decision, with time and numerous angles, one very conclusive.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:27 pm  

The ball started on line and was veering away all the time, from the camera angles the beeb showed it was very difficult to see whether it was still on target at the point it passed over the post. Realistically the only way you could tell 100% would be if we had an overhead view, not sure a video ref would have been able to give a decision with any certainty from the angles we were shown.

FWIW I would have given it, but I would have been guessing somewhat, so it's hard to criticise Bentham too much for that decision.