Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:21 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Maybe you can't read, then? As I explained it, the ball hit the glass and dropped down, the final image simply shows where it landed. I agree that where it may have bounced after it hit the seat would not be helpful. Which is why I didn't bother with that.
Anyway instead of making silly comebacks, now that I've explained it, the footage is there for anyone who wants to check my conclusions.

As for this point - sorry, I got confused by your image. I thought you were showing a blurred image of the ball on the grass.

With Brough kicking from outside the left hand post aiming to get the ball on a right trajectory you would expect it to hit somewhere to the right of where he kicked it and carry on going right after it's flown over the post, depending on distance between the posts and the hospitality window, plus speed of the kick. Ball could easily travel an extra foot right after it misses

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:27 am  

Fully wrote:

It's inside the post because of the angle of the camera and because you assume that it has reached the line.

But I didn't assume that at all! My images show the line the ball set off, and kept to. That's my point.

Fully wrote:

The ball, as I've pointed out swerves back left (through speed or just the way it was kicked).

But it does not swerve left. It cannot have swerved left to end up where it did. Unless you suggest it swerved left, but then swerved back to the right?

Fully wrote:

FWIW, here's my image of when I think it is over the post.

Yes but you "thinking" that's when it is over the post is based on nothing at all. Whereas my analysis of the ball's trajectory has a known starting point and a known end point, and they if correct prove that unless it did a banana shot, it was a valid drop goal.

And your argument ignores the rest of my evidence. Why, because you can't explain it?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:30 am  

Fully wrote:

As for this point - sorry, I got confused by your image. I thought you were showing a blurred image of the ball on the grass.

With Brough kicking from outside the left hand post aiming to get the ball on a right trajectory you would expect it to hit somewhere to the right of where he kicked it and carry on going right after it's flown over the post, depending on distance between the posts and the hospitality window, plus speed of the kick. Ball could easily travel an extra foot right after it misses

Could it, though? Why? If it swerved left, how could it then go right?

Anyway the position where it hit the glass, as viewed from behind Brough, is yards inside the left post. Not a foot.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:34 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It might be a cameraman. But it also might be a man dressed in a Batman costume.

So there was a cameraman, which we know because he filmed the incident, but he was invisible from the other cameras. And there was no other person visible either, but somehow a Batman apparition happened to be where the cameraman ought to be.

OK, that sound plausible.

Here's Batman's view of the ball narrowly missing him.



Ask yourself this - we know the cameraman is bang in the middle line of the pitch; you can see how close the ball is to him, to his right. Can it seriously be suggested that it is heading more than half the posts width to his right? I don't think so!

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But I didn't assume that at all! My images show the line the ball set off, and kept to. That's my point.

But it does not swerve left. It cannot have swerved left to end up where it did. Unless you suggest it swerved left, but then swerved back to the right?

Yes but you "thinking" that's when it is over the post is based on nothing at all. Whereas my analysis of the ball's trajectory has a known starting point and a known end point, and they if correct prove that unless it did a banana shot, it was a valid drop goal.

And your argument ignores the rest of my evidence. Why, because you can't explain it?

The angle from behind is flawed. It's not directly behind the posts.

By swerved, I don't mean it suddenly went drastically in the opposite direction. By swerved I mean it starts off at a certain speed to the right. If it was a straight line you would expect it to maintain that speed in movement (visually from the camera's perspective) from left to the right as it rises and falls. Someone with science may be able to confirm that the speed of the ball forward has to be equal to the momentum of the ball being kicked to the right for a perfectly straight line on an angle (physics wasn't my strong point).

It doesn't. What actually happens is that Brough kicks it and it takes off but as it flies through the air the momentum of the ball to the right lessens and it actually moves forward faster than it does right meaning the appearance is of the ball arcing its trajectory more to the left over the post.

Because it still has some right momentum (just less of it) it continues travelling to the right after the post and indeed lands behind the posts, giving the impression you have.

As people have pointed out, it's hard to prove or disprove at which point the ball crosses the goal posts from those angles. Taking pictures of the ball rising means zip unless you can match it up with an angle from the touchline conclusively showing the exact time the ball crosses the posts. Which you can't. And neither can I. Neither can anyone else. Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one. I chose that moment based on counting the view from behind Brough as to the point I believed it crossed the line, and doing the same from the reverse angle. My view is that the majority of the ball was outside the post.

And if you want to take another picture, have a look at where Bentham is located when the ball is kicked. Around 3 ft from the left hand post and he turns his head to see the post before the ball goes over his head. He has a miles better than you or I.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:43 am  

I've watched the incident on BBC iPlayer.

From the two angles they show I honestly don't know whether it's over or not. I don't think the VR would be able to judge either. It all depends on the exact point the ball crosses the goal line and I don't think the VR would be able to determine that. All the imaginary pics of people proving the ball wasn't going wide are rendered useless when I see the TV pictures showing the ball continuing to go wider than the posted pictures claim they did.

IMO the best way to judge the kick would be to determine the exact point that kick was placed from, the exact place of impact where the ball hit the glass and measure whether the path is to the left or right of that line.

But the VR doesn't have that option and he'd have been guessing and handing it back to the ref IMO.

I'm not totally sure on the call, but for me I'd say the refs position was probably the best.

HOWEVER, watching the penalty incident where the game was pegged back to 16-16. No EFFING way should that have been a pen to Saints. 5th tackle, Saints player drops the ball because of a loose carry. Giants player's hand was in but making no play whatsoever towards the ball or interfering. The Saints player just dropped it trying to play it too quick. There was no way he should have been giving a pen for that.

So on the drop goal I give Bentham the benefit of the doubt. On the penalty I think Bentham's a complete bent *******.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:33 am  

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you.....drumroll.....Joynt's Voluntary Tackle, The Sequel.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:44 am  

It missed, the ref said so

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:34 am  

I suppose we need to know where the camera that picks up the "Fantastic" was relative to the posts. But, it seems that the picture confirms was was bleeding obvious at the time - it clearly went in and by some way.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:28 am  

Given what we have available I would say the best method would be to get the behind the posts view and the side on view (I assume there would be one). Run the two pieces of footage simultaneously and stop it at the point when the ball reaches the goal line on the side on clip. Then you should be able to tell from behind the posts whether it was online or not.