Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:16 am  

There are two camera angles, one where it looks in, one where it looks out. Understandable for the referee to be mistaken under those circumstances. If he was. We've got hindsight and pictures and we still can't really decide for sure.

The thing is the whole incident has clouded the real issue and allowed Huddersfield to lay the blame on someone else's shoulders.

They are leading at home with time ticking and look fairly comfortable and one of their players does a horror challenge, the kind that can paralyse a player or worse and he rightly gets sent off. They go on to lose the game.

There is your real talking point. Maybe with 13 men they wouldn't need the drop goal in the first place. Direct your anger at the thug Ferres whose actions were not in doubt.

But at least all these controversies have got people talking about the cup again.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:21 am  

You seem to be saying that both camera angles have equal weighting. They don't. One is straight, the other is skewed. You must take that into consideration when assessing what they purport to show.

The critical piece is where is the ball when it passes over the 'line of' the crossbar. That isnt clear either

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:21 am  

I would have said it was good, but obviously its nowhere near clear cut and different angles suggest a different outcome.He really should have sent it upstairs to the video ref but i have no doubt that we would still have the 15 page debate but just with a change of name for the thread title!

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:08 am  

Mr. Zucchini Head wrote:

I just don't think you can tell by that camera angle. On the last picture the ball is obviously still inside the post, but it doesn't look like it has reached the goal line yet to me.

This is true, the problem with judging any tv picture is the lack of depth. However this only affects the view from behind Brough as the ball looks to be outside, moving to inside the posts. Its just very difficult to see or be sure at what point the ball crosses the line of the post from outside to in. Its hard to see whether it is before (drop goal good) or after (drop goal no good) the try line. Here we need the depth to know when that line was crossed.

On the angle behind the goal however, this isn’t an issue because the ball never crosses that line. The ball starts inside, goes on a trajectory inside, and stays inside the posts. It doesn’t deviate from that path. We don’t need to judge when the ball crosses the line of the post because it never does. That’s why that angle is conclusive.

Again, Benthams mistake wasnt to get the call wrong, it was a difficult call. It was to not recognise the difficulty of that call and ask for the help available to him. Thats a bigger error because it is a mistake of process, not a mistake of judgment. He has guessed at a decision he didnt need to and got it wrong.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:18 am  

All of this would have been avoided if Huddersfield had invested in taller posts

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:21 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

All of this would have been avoided if Huddersfield had invested in taller posts

Or a big net.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:23 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

That might be what they tell the kiddies, but no it isn't.

I actually thought that after the red card Huddersfield should have had the penalty, because a few Saints players went in and had a dig even though the ref was in there dealing with it. But Saints were given the penalty and had the benefit of the Giants player sent off.

IMO Saints should have lost the penalty because of what their players did. That would cause retaliation to be treated properly, but right now most retaliation is pretty much allowed.

Make your mind up, you say retaliation isn't penalised usually, then backtrack and say Saints should have been penalised (laughable) after the Ferres incident for running in and retaliating.

Right now you appear not to know what your talking about.

Clueless.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:33 am  

marvwoodburn wrote:

It wasn't Jermaine but never mind.
Not like that they don't but whatever keeps you happy.
Usually what happens in rugby league is retaliation is penalised.

Yes it was Jermaine Mcgilvray.

Walsh attempts get up and is held down once more, it was a clear penalty to Saints. As for retaliation, its never punished anymore. Especially for a push at the play the ball. Fielden used to do it at every single play the ball once he was tackled, throughout his career.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:10 am  

LFC Saint wrote:

Yes it was Jermaine Mcgilvray.

Walsh attempts get up and is held down once more, it was a clear penalty to Saints. As for retaliation, its never punished anymore. Especially for a push at the play the ball. Fielden used to do it at every single play the ball once he was tackled, throughout his career.

Fair Enough.

The pen could go either way for me though TBH, and its not really worth the aggro but FWIW Hudds are going for the ball and Walsh nearly lost control at no point does the player "hold him down", and at no point does Walsh attempt to "get up" he is clawing for the ball which is between his legs and he is hardly in control of, keeping the ball is Lewis' priority, not getting up. I thought Lewis was out of order, you can defend him all you like it won't change my mind, but it will make you look a one eyed supporter.

Your obviously a St's fan so i think i will take my balanced neutral view over your ridiculously one sided one any day.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:11 am  

Chris Dalton wrote:

There are two camera angles, one where it looks in, one where it looks out. Understandable for the referee to be mistaken under those circumstances. If he was. We've got hindsight and pictures and we still can't really decide for sure.

The thing is the whole incident has clouded the real issue and allowed Huddersfield to lay the blame on someone else's shoulders.

They are leading at home with time ticking and look fairly comfortable and one of their players does a horror challenge, the kind that can paralyse a player or worse and he rightly gets sent off. They go on to lose the game.

There is your real talking point. Maybe with 13 men they wouldn't need the drop goal in the first place. Direct your anger at the thug Ferres whose actions were not in doubt.

But at least all these controversies have got people talking about the cup again.

Was not the ref closer to the posts than the kicker and arguably had a better view? The ref seemed immediately convinced.