Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:43 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

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!

How about 5,566 supporters instead?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:45 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

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.

your analogy is a judgment of depth, this isnt a judgement of depth. In your analogy you would struggle to see whether it crossed the line, but it would be very very easy to see if it went between the posts.

In this case there is no dispute that it is high enough to go over the crossbar, but whether it went between the posts. we can see that it did.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:55 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

your analogy is a judgment of depth, this isnt a judgement of depth. In your analogy you would struggle to see whether it crossed the line, but it would be very very easy to see if it went between the posts.

In this case there is no dispute that it is high enough to go over the crossbar, but whether it went between the posts. we can see that it did.

The position of the ball in relation to the posts will be different from a camera situated a few yards left of the post than from a camera directly in line, and so doesn't give a true reflection. Hence why the view was different from the other end, as it is further away and so the angle of difference is lessened.

It would also affect the impression as to when the ball crossed the posts, which is crucial if a ball is curving, and so it is also a question of depth.

The easiest way to do it would be to have lasers that point straight up the posts and so can detect if the posts are breached (not all laser beams have to be coloured). I'm not sure how planes would react to that, but that is the easiest and cheapest way.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:02 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The position of the ball in relation to the posts will be different from a camera situated a few yards left of the post than from a camera directly in line, and so doesn't give a true reflection. Hence why the view was different from the other end, as it is further away and so the angle of difference is lessened.

The easiest way to do it would be to have lasers that point straight up the posts and so can detect if the posts are breached (not all laser beams have to be coloured). I'm not sure how planes would react to that, but that is the easiest and cheapest way.

that angle from behind cannot have made a kick that missed, never cross the line of the post. The ball was kicked inside the post, and travelled on a trajectory inside the post never crossing the line of the post.

Had it been kicked outside the post and come in, the angle would cause difficulty in knowing when the ball crossed the line of the post, before or after the try line. Had it been kicked inside the posts and gone out the same issue would have arisen. But that question of depth of vision is not an issue for a ball which never crossed the line of the post.

Had the ball missed, whatever angle it is view from, the post would need to be on the inside (in that angle as we are looking at it, the left hand side) it never is.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:18 pm  

Like the different camera angles, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Someone could post pictures from the other end and an entirely different conclusion would be reached.

One thing is for certain: Bentham was in a perfect position to judge, in line with that post and looking up. Ian Smith comes up with some bizarre video decisions at the best of times. Can you imagine him trying to pick the bones out of that?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:28 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Like the different camera angles, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Someone could post pictures from the other end and an entirely different conclusion would be reached.

In isolation a picutre could be misleading. Within that video it cannot.

One thing is for certain: Bentham was in a perfect position to judge, in line with that post and looking up. Ian Smith comes up with some bizarre video decisions at the best of times. Can you imagine him trying to pick the bones out of that?

considering the clusterwhoopsie he and ganson made of managing to disallow a clear try for saints a few weeks back, i wouldnt trust Ian Smith to correctly find his shoelaces.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:51 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

Eh?
Where does it say that?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:59 pm  

You know a Ref's had a shocker when he runs off the pitch with a safety escort !!

Awful performance from Bentham, just awful !

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:11 pm  

Him wrote:

Eh?
Where does it say that?

It says it in the rules. The first one makes no mention of what should happen if it goes over the posts, simply that there is no height limit on them, they are inifinite. It would be quite possibly the most insane rule in all sports if the referee was supposed to guess what would happen if an oblique spheroid of indeterminate speed and rotation bounced of an imaginary cylinder of indeterminate rigidity. It would be a ridiculous rule. Even RL cannot have such a crazy rule, and even RL, if they did for some mental reason have such a crazy rule would have clear provision for it rather than a tenuous inference.

Hitting the post doesnt mean that the ball didnt go in, nor did it mean it did go in, that outcome has yet to be decided at the point of hitting the post. what happens next decideds that. Nowhere does it say we must assume the ball bounces back should any part of it hit this imaginary post. It provides no further clarification whatsoever.

The 2nd part doesnt even mention the posts.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:32 pm  

Dang, camera angles and what not, we are'nt talking faked moon landings, I want someone to tell me why the video-refs called a ball that went backwards a 'knock-on', dissallowing a perfectly good try!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets not go to the draw No 6 or No 9.....

London being able to create a Ghost Team to fulfil fixtures...

An investing Club Owner fined, for having a different opinion than the RFL....

This game is a 'kin shambles......

Bentham's performance was on TV, live on TV, and the Video refs compund his idiocy by being more idiotic!!.......

We ARE doomed!