Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:28 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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.

No, they "no's" want to use an angle from outside the far right hand post, to try and suggest a miss. Look again...both posts nearest that camera are screen left.

The decisive camera angle clearly shows the ball not travelling across the post...it's a clear goal. The other angle is just noise.

Again, I wanted a Saints win...

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:31 pm  

dboy wrote:

No, they "no's" want to use an angle from outside the far right hand post, to try and suggest a miss. Look again...both posts nearest that camera are screen left.

The decisive camera angle clearly shows the ball not travelling across the post...it's a clear goal. The other angle is just noise.

Again, I wanted a Saints win...

The clearest no camera angle comes from behind brough, in the centre of the stand the saints fans were in.

The clearest yes was from behind the sticks.

Bentham was closer to to the former rather than the latter. Neither were conclusive enough to rule out the other. Ergo, the on field decision should and would stand.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:38 pm  

Th'ump wrote:

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.

Spot on. Bentham was in the perfect spot to view the exact position of the ball as it passes the posts. Couldn't have been better placed. And that he was confident enough not to use the VR when he'd used him several times in the game previously speaks volumes.

At best it passed over the post, but neither of those angles prove conclusively that it passed inside the post while certainly the opposite angle hints strongly that it missed.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:40 pm  

dboy wrote:

No, they "no's" want to use an angle from outside the far right hand post, to try and suggest a miss. Look again...both posts nearest that camera are screen left.

The decisive camera angle clearly shows the ball not travelling across the post...it's a clear goal. The other angle is just noise.

Again, I wanted a Saints win...

The 'no's' want to use both. Had it been given I wouldn't haven't minded. In fact I'd say about 65% it was a goal. Just not stubborn enough to rule out both possibilities to dismiss one angle as simply "noise" whether or not it's as good as another proves this.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:55 pm  

absolutely shockingly biased refereeing today from bentham, a pretty good game determined by one man, not the 34 warriors on the field who all gave 100%
i feel absolutely gutted and dismayed tonight.

saints would have probably won the game with a man advantage anyway but mr bentham made sure that huddersfield wouldn't win today, even saints fans i spoke to were apologetic and slightly embarrassed.

what was a fairly decent game was decided by a referee which is not what the game is about.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:00 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.

We all on TV saw two camera angles of the DG attempt. One suggested that the ball went narrowly inside the uprights. The other suggested that the ball went narrowly outside the uprights.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough was successful because they wanted Huddersfield to win/wanted Saints to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests success to be correct and discount/discredit the other angle.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough missed because they wanted Saints to win/wanted Huddersfield to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests it missed to be the correct one and will discount/discredit the other view.

Some people despite which team they wanted to see win the game will take the view that two camera angles shown suggested two different situations and that the flight of the ball took it not very far from the upright, whichever side of the upright it was on when crossing the tryline. With conflicting evidence for both success/failure no definite conclusion could therefore be reached. The officials then have to make a call on a 50/50 incident, that is what the ref did.

You are clearly in the first group and to you the angle suggesting success is strong and clear and the angle which contradicts your view/wish is weak and wrong. To people in the second group the reverse will be true. Just because some people do not agree with you doesn't mean that they "can't or won't see what's in front of their eyes". It just means that they don't agree with you. Nothing wrong with that, this was a 50/50 decision after all.

I am in the third group, there were two contradictory angles and whether the ball went inside or outside the posts as it crossed the line there wasn't much distance between the ball and the upright from either angle to definitively confirm which side of the upright it was on. The ref made a call on what he thought happened and as he obviously couldn't be certain that it had gone between the uprights he couldn't award a point that would have won the match. He left the scores level. He could have asked the VR but given the two angles and conflicting evidence I doubt the VR would have been able to confidently award a match winning DG either.

Re: Phil Bentham cheat : Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:04 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

YOU ROBBONG GET BENTHAM.

YOU WENT TOP THE VR FOR EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DENY The GIants the game.

When you should have gone to the VR for the drop goal you did not.

YOU are a cheat, cheat cheat.

This has made my day. Put your dummy back in.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:07 pm  

meast wrote:

absolutely shockingly biased refereeing today from bentham, a pretty good game determined by one man, not the 34 warriors on the field who all gave 100%
i feel absolutely gutted and dismayed tonight.

saints would have probably won the game with a man advantage anyway but mr bentham made sure that huddersfield wouldn't win today, even saints fans i spoke to were apologetic and slightly embarrassed.

what was a fairly decent game was decided by a referee which is not what the game is about.

I feel your rage

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:07 pm  

the red fusilier wrote:

surprised no ones mentioned lomax taking robinson out in the air , i thought that would be a certain 10 mins

we said that at the time, it seems teams playing huddersfield are immune from red/yellow cards..wire should have had a player binned last week...nothing, but yet officials don't need a 2nd invitation to show a card to huddersfield players.

ferres had to go today so im not referring to that, although should that happen against us, you can guarantee it would be just a penalty and on report!!

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:11 pm  

wiganermike wrote:

You are clearly in the first group...

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Can't stand Hudds and a Saints win is far better for the competition in my opinion.

I am in the group of people who wants refereeing standards raised and refs and their paymasters be held accountable for their actions.