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

sod it, Hawkeye in future and coloured laser beans coming out to the top of the posts so you can see the colour on the ball if it goes over the top of them.

or GPS the ball. short of introducing go go gadget posts.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:59 pm  

No need for expensive gadgets; just accept that the ref was in the best position to judge the kick. He did just that and concluded that it was not a goal.
We should praise the Saints defence for creating the conditions in which Brough, an excellent kicker, did not, on this occasion, get it right.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:10 pm  

Simeon Stylites wrote:

No need for expensive gadgets; just accept that the ref was in the best position to judge the kick. He did just that and concluded that it was not a goal.
We should praise the Saints defence for creating the conditions in which Brough, an excellent kicker, did not, on this occasion, get it right.

Praised for being offside?

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:20 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

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!

Congratulations for displaying your incomplete knowledge of the knock on rule.

As you say, the ball goes backwards off the Saints leg. The fact the ball has been lost and makes contact with the Saints player's leg is enough to give a knock on, regardless of where is then bounces or rolls.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:29 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Pictures

Well that shat on some people's parade.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:02 pm  

I have seen two camera angles, on one it looks good, on the other it doesn't. If Bentham had gone to the video ref it would have probably been referred back to the referee's call seeing as the replays were inconclusive. So Huddersfield wouldn't have got the decision anyway.

It was a 50/50 call that didn't go their way. There's no bias, no conspiracy and no need for talk of protests and other such ridiculous suggestions.

I've lost a lot of respect for Huddersfield over he last 24 hours. Clapping Ferres off the field, the reaction on here to the DG decision and finally the statement from Thewlis, it's all extremely embarrassing. The club as a whole has reacted pathetically.

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

bewareshadows wrote:

...

I see the point you are trying to make, but unfortunately your perspective lines on your first image are hopelessly inaccurate, and as you base your case on them, your conclusions are fatally flawed.

Also you don't need to struggle with the difficulties of perspective from that camera, when the direct shot shows you that the ball set off inside the post and stayed on that line, eliminating the need for perspective drawings. Simply put, the ball could not have kept to a very clear inside line as we all saw it do AND gone outside that line.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:45 pm  

The ball didn't stay on that line. It swerves to the left of the post (i.e. over the post/wide).

I've watched it several times back and forth and it's impossible to tell without an horizontal angle.

The camera angle behind the stick is not pointing straight when he initially kicks it. Had it done so and fully zoomed out it would have been a more conclusive view in whether it had or hadn't.

As it zooms out it gives the illusion it's going over however the balls line clearly curves over the post. This is visible on BOTH views.

It's a matter of opinion in terms of at what point the ball goes over the posts. I'm firmly in the it hit the post smack on camp, which IMO is why Bentham ruled that it wasn't over.

There is NOTHING in the rules to state that a drop kick that hits a trajectory of that exactly over the post is or isn't a goal. In that sense, I guess a lot of this comes down to interpretation and the ref interpretation in this case is that if there's reasonable conclusions to suggest the ball would have hit the post and bounced back (if posts are assumed to be infinitely up) then it's not a drop goal. Whereas had the majority of the ball gone inside the post, it would be a drop goal.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:03 pm  

I don't argue it was not a drop goal, neither do I argue that it was. I just argue that is was not a clear drop goal. Therefore those saying it's definately a drop goal are just ignoring any percentage of doubt.

I'm 60:40 it was a drop goal, but if you told me that someone had worked out the answer and I had to bet my life one way or the other. Then strap myself to an electric chair to see if I guessed right. I would not take that bet. Stuff it I would not take that bet for £1000.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:32 pm  

Peckerwood wrote:

Congratulations for displaying your incomplete knowledge of the knock on rule.

As you say, the ball goes backwards off the Saints leg. The fact the ball has been lost and makes contact with the Saints player's leg is enough to give a knock on, regardless of where is then bounces or rolls.

Rather than me displaying incomplete knowledge of the knock on rule, you appear to be trying to comment on a game you didn't even watch. The ball was kicked out of the player's hand you tusk!