Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:32 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

All pictures from one side and the angle on the Saints speccies would suggest that there is an angle at play here.

There is a limit to the tricks angles can play. A ball cannot start inside the post, continue on a trajectory inside the posts, not deviate from that path, and it have not gone through the posts regardless of what angle it is viewed from.

The problem with those images is a question of depth, we dont know whether the ball has passed, is passing or is to pass the try line. That isnt a problem on the whole video because we have many reference points to judge the depth.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:36 pm  

Apologies if this has already been asked, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages. Why don't we insist on taller posts? In RU (for obvious reasons) they're bloomin' massive and I remember ones of similar height in RL, at least much of the time.

To me it looked a clear 1 point from 1 view, and not so clear from the other (the other being from the same side the ref was viewing). Horrible call for the ref to have to make. He may have got it wrong, but he's got a pretty good excuse if so.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:39 pm  

marvwoodburn wrote:

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.

Give over you worm. A one eyed supporter ? It was a penalty all day long to Saints and the only reason this is up for debate is because the ref took to long making the decision and the linesman gives it. Jermaine is on top of Walsh claiming for the knock on (which is holding down).

The only major decision he got wrong was the Brough drop goal.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:57 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

Apologies if this has already been asked, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages. Why don't we insist on taller posts? In RU (for obvious reasons) they're bloomin' massive and I remember ones of similar height in RL, at least much of the time.

To me it looked a clear 1 point from 1 view, and not so clear from the other (the other being from the same side the ref was viewing). Horrible call for the ref to have to make. He may have got it wrong, but he's got a pretty good excuse if so.

Maybe something to do RL being played on soccer grounds. It seems the shared stadiums have smaller posts. Probably for ease of building, dismantling and storage.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:14 pm  

Dally wrote:

Why was he "confident" when 25 players and 7,150 spectators thought it was in? Was he tired?

Given this thread, I dont think there were 7,150 supporters who thought it were in. Even if it were unanimous, the lack of understanding of the rules shown in this thread would still cast doubt over the decision!

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:16 pm  

With technology these days the VCR should be able to review and be 100% sure.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:39 pm  

Can anyone say conclusively whether it's true if the ball goes over the post that it's counted as in?
Because I can't seem to see anything in the rules that says this.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:41 pm  

Him wrote:

Can anyone say conclusively whether it's true if the ball goes over the post that it's counted as in?
Because I can't seem to see anything in the rules that says this.

After all the debate, I decided to go looking for the rules.

Firstly,

the laws of the game wrote:

For the purpose of judging a kick at goal, the goal posts
are assumed to extend indefinitely upward

This is pretty well known. The more important ruling comes from the general rules of kicking a goal (which for the purposes of definition covers both goals and drop goals)

the laws of the game wrote:

A goal is scored if the whole of the ball at any time during
its flight passes on the full over the opponents’ cross bar
towards the dead ball line after being kicked by a player
(and not touching or being touched in flight by any other
player)

Highlighted the important bit ...

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:40 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

After all the debate, I decided to go looking for the rules.

Firstly,

This is pretty well known. The more important ruling comes from the general rules of kicking a goal (which for the purposes of definition covers both goals and drop goals)

Highlighted the important bit ...

The first one is a reference to the kick not being ruled out for going too high and being ruled out for going over the height of the post.

The second one refers to the whole ball going over the cross bar, not the posts. i.e it being blown back or bouncing off the crossbar and back out, and is irrelevant in this context.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:41 pm  

Any use of camera angles sited in the middle of the posts in fatally flawed. Camera angles are curved, to give as wide an angle as possible. The camera referred to in the pictures posted above are a few yards to the left of the post concerned and so can give a false positive (or negative). The only camera angle you could use would be one directly behind the actual post, not in the middle of the two.

To give an analogy, imagine trying to decide if a football has crossed the goal line using a camera that looked along the six-yard box. You'd never get right if the ball was in the air. It's the same here.

The only person in line with the actual post, and looking up, was Bentham.