Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:36 pm  

Dally wrote:

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

Maybe, just maybe, he had the best view of everyone in the ground and therefore was confident to not give the field goal. Just because players and fans think it's over doesn't mean he has to bow down to their thoughts and give the goal. Only 1 opinion matters here and it's the referee's. The games over and it's time to move on. Maybe Huddersfield should invest in taller posts, then we'd know for sure.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:53 pm  

CrusaderPete wrote:

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!

That was arguably worse than the drop goal decision. At least Bentham had the excuse of making a split second decision. I was utterly gobsmacked to hear Smith say "Yeah he's definitely lost it." Losing the ball is not in itself a knock on, you prat Smith, it must go forwards! Add to that the fact it went backwards of a Saints player the mind really does boggle!

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:01 pm  

Crackador wrote: ... This all revolves around why the two angles appear to show different outcomes, this is simple - perspective! And how people point to how the ball looks inside the sticks without even thinking of perspective just beggars belief. From this angle, we can see the moment the ball is kicked, it is roughly 6ft from the approximate spot of the post - using the pitch lines (I've gone over them in white). The yellow asterisk is where the ball would be on the try line (all measurements are of course approximate). So from behind the goal, the thing that is catching everyone out is how the ball looks inside the sticks for most of its journey. We can now use the same reference spots from the previous photo (I have changed the hue so the lawn lines appear sharper). We know the ball is 6ft outside the sticks, but look - it already appears inside the sticks from this point. The fact is that the ball needs to make up 6ft of ground. Here is the true perspective of the top of the sticks. At this point, given as I say I am not qualified to work out distance x time etc, we rely on common sense. Does the ball appear inside the corridor of the lines? Of course that is only one still and proves nothing, but I would say think about this perspective and the reference points I have given and watch the video yourself. I have examined it and I am very confident it didn't And that is why, on that angle ^ the ball looks to be sneaking in (if you imagine the lines not to be there)... ...but on this angle the ball appears wide. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I would hope others would think a bit harder about what they think they saw before berating Phil Bentham. I believe the ball missed by by a comfortable enough distance and Phil Bentham was stood in a perfect spot to see it. He is not stupid (banter aside) he would have known the connotations by going up to the video ref, if he was not 100% he would have used that, enormous pressure off his shoulders, but he also knows the video could give false impressions, so he must have been 100% confident.

Crackador wrote: ... This all revolves around why the two angles appear to show different outcomes, this is simple - perspective! And how people point to how the ball looks inside the sticks without even thinking of perspective just beggars belief. From this angle, we can see the moment the ball is kicked, it is roughly 6ft from the approximate spot of the post - using the pitch lines (I've gone over them in white). The yellow asterisk is where the ball would be on the try line (all measurements are of course approximate). So from behind the goal, the thing that is catching everyone out is how the ball looks inside the sticks for most of its journey. We can now use the same reference spots from the previous photo (I have changed the hue so the lawn lines appear sharper). We know the ball is 6ft outside the sticks, but look - it already appears inside the sticks from this point. The fact is that the ball needs to make up 6ft of ground. Here is the true perspective of the top of the sticks. At this point, given as I say I am not qualified to work out distance x time etc, we rely on common sense. Does the ball appear inside the corridor of the lines? Of course that is only one still and proves nothing, but I would say think about this perspective and the reference points I have given and watch the video yourself. I have examined it and I am very confident it didn't And that is why, on that angle ^ the ball looks to be sneaking in (if you imagine the lines not to be there)... ...but on this angle the ball appears wide. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I would hope others would think a bit harder about what they think they saw before berating Phil Bentham. I believe the ball missed by by a comfortable enough distance and Phil Bentham was stood in a perfect spot to see it. He is not stupid (banter aside) he would have known the connotations by going up to the video ref, if he was not 100% he would have used that, enormous pressure off his shoulders, but he also knows the video could give false impressions, so he must have been 100% confident.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:12 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.

I'm sorry, but no, that's simply incorrect. To go over the crossbar the ball HAS to go between the posts. The crossbar isnt infinitely long horizontally. The rules don't even mention the posts due to this fact. Anything less that the complete ball going BETWEEN the sticks (regardless of height assuming above the cross bar) - aka, over the posts isn't a goal, or drop goal.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:14 pm  

If the ball was kicked from the left of the posts and appears, from behind the posts, to go between the sticks, then I don't see how it's physically possible to have gone wide. The ball must have travelled from left to right (from the kicker's perspective) in order to appear in between the posts to the camera behind the posts so it physically must have gone between them.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:19 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

I'm sorry, but no, that's simply incorrect. To go over the crossbar the ball HAS to go between the posts. The crossbar isnt infinitely long horizontally. The rules don't even mention the posts due to this fact. Anything less that the complete ball going BETWEEN the sticks (regardless of height assuming above the cross bar) - aka, over the posts isn't a goal, or drop goal.

That begs the question why they don't simply state that the ball must go in between the posts, since they have gone to the trouble of stating that the posts extend infinitely upwards. I wonder whether the crossbar is assumed to extend the full width of the structure.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:24 pm  

Maybe they should not allow posts to go infinatley upwards in future.

If you kick it too high the decison goes against. Or as someone else has said, put lights on the posts. If the beam is broken it's not a goal.

Just watched it again on the replay and there are 3 or 4 saints players saying it was to the left. The Huddersfield fans don't really get onboard until the first replay which is the one from behind. They then kick off and probably don't watch the second replay, because by the time it's done Saints are on the halfway line.

If the drop goal was ruled as given, then it still leaves over a minute of play so it is not a guaranteed win.

As for calling the ref a cheat, I think that's a bit cheap. Why would they cheat, for what possible benefit??? They can be wrong, but not cheats.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:26 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

That begs the question why they don't simply state that the ball must go in between the posts, since they have gone to the trouble of stating that the posts extend infinitely upwards. I wonder whether the crossbar is assumed to extend the full width of the structure.

It's a more logical way? By nature, it's possible to go between the posts, without going over the cross bar - it's impossible to go over the crossbar without going between the sticks.

The rules also don't know about advances in technology - for all the laws state, posts could disappear in a month, and be replaced with laser light to judge whether it's gone over. But the crossbar needs to remain (source of the laser light in said example) - the posts act as little more than a guide for the officials to be sure.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:42 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Maybe they should not allow posts to go infinatley upwards in future.

If you kick it too high the decison goes against. Or as someone else has said, put lights on the posts. If the beam is broken it's not a goal.

Just watched it again on the replay and there are 3 or 4 saints players saying it was to the left. The Huddersfield fans don't really get onboard until the first replay which is the one from behind. They then kick off and probably don't watch the second replay, because by the time it's done Saints are on the halfway line.

If the drop goal was ruled as given, then it still leaves over a minute of play so it is not a guaranteed win.

As for calling the ref a cheat, I think that's a bit cheap. Why would they cheat, for what possible benefit??? They can be wrong, but not cheats.

They can't cheat? A bit naive?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:05 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

They can't cheat? A bit naive?

For what benefit?