Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'm not sure if you are really that stupid, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, OF BLOODY COURSE I don't "know". I can never "know". The only way I could "know" is if I had been in the perfect position from which I had videoed the incident and was able to review what i thought I had seen.

That is why we need evidence. That's how it works. My theory was that initially the ball seemed from the back shot to be on a line inside the post. It was that view that intrigued me. So, I collected evidence to test that theory and found a lot. I did not find any evidence that does not support my theory. And some of it, such as where the ball hit the back, cannot to me be explained away. So having done the spade work yes, I think the evidence is conclusive. And so I "rested my case".

I have been rationally analysing and discussing a specific issue and presenting evidence for people to consider. You on the other hand are just wading in with half-baked bullshit and trying to get in some sort of pissing contest argument. Why? I will leave others to judge who's the "grown up".

Now that I have explained to you how it works, as a self-proclaimed "grown up", no doubt you will apologise. Whether or not you do, I for one would appreciate you sticking to the topic and not trying to start some flame war like some drunken tap room bigmouth.

Returning to the topic, I have found an image showing a view directly down the pitch of the stadium towards the relevant end. I have superimposed in the correct location the view of Brough having just kicked the ball, which appears yellow. I have also superimposed on the back wall a yellow ball in the position where it struck the glass.



This composite, incidentally, clearly illustrates how the lines of perspective drawn on it by the original poster are completely wrong.


Here is an enlargement of the centre of that image. (the lines of the seats etc don't precisely line up simply due to the zoom of the two cameras being different, one is a wide angle view, the other a zoomed view so a perfect alignment can't be done)



I think it supports the original theory that the ball maintained a line just inside the post, and it does not support the proposition that the ball swerved or drifted to the left.

Does anyone know how far behind the goal the "Fantastic" sign is relative to the distance in front of the posts from which Brough kicked it? If it's further behind than in front maybe the ref got it right!!??

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:52 pm  

cravenpark1 wrote:

Well after reading most of the rubbish on the drop goal that was or never was is it not time to put it to bed no matter what people say it will not change the result it stands so get over it for god sake move on

Speaking for myself I want to discuss a rugby topic on a rugby forum, because it is one that intrigues me. However I am not a Hudds fan nor a Saints fan so am looking at it from an academic standpoint. Therefore I don't have anything to "get over", nor do I want the result changing, nor am I finding any difficulty at all in "moving on": I don't have any issue from which to "move on".

If you don't want to take part in the discussion then why bother coming in? If you don't think there should be discussion then why are you on a discussion forum?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:54 pm  

Dally wrote:

If he thought the ball was always wide when the players thought it was in - isn't he experienced enough to have thought - I'm tired and so may have perceived it wrongly? I ought to go to the VR in such an important situation? If not, why not? As to the video evidence being inconclusive .... they're having a giraffe.

Or...... He might have thought "that little turd has been in my ear all bl**dy game, so why should i start listening to him now"
Just a thought

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:57 pm  

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6547688 Everyone can stop crying now.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6547688 Everyone can stop crying now.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:58 pm  

Why did bentham not consult a psychatrist to confirm that he was mentaly capable of making a decision

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:01 pm  

redex113 wrote:

Why did bentham not consult a psychatrist to confirm that he was mentaly capable of making a decision

Cos his spelling is well-good?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:04 pm  

The_smiling_ref wrote:

Quote from today's Yorkshire Post [url]http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/huddersfield/drop-goal-referee-bentham-says-video-call-would-not-have-spared-huddersfield-1-6547688[url]
Asked why he did not make use of the replays, he said: “I was in the right position to make the call so got a good view of the kick and it always stays left of the post. To be honest, it didn’t occur to me to go to the video referee as I’d made the decision.

“We’ve reviewed it (Monday) and the video referee says – with the two different camera angles available – it was inconclusive so, even if I’d asked him, he’d have had to come back to me to make the call anyway.

So after reading that statement what process has he failed in? He has stated it always stays left of the post, so why would he then go to the video ref? if you think we should go to the video ref for everything then you might as well watch a game that lasts 3 hours. Phil has done nothing wrong in this incident.

That's the thing. So many people seem unable to to even consider that perhap - just perhaps - Bentham was in the perfect position to view the ball as it passed the post and was therefore able to make the call without the video ref. You know, stood pretty much in perfect line with the trajectory of the ball and the post as he was.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:08 pm  

FA

You are wrong (entirely IMO - your opinion is your opinion) and here's why. The ball does slow/swerve/alter it's route - whichever term you like - and I've drawn it on to prove it.

I have watched back the clip behind Brough in slow motion and plotted points as to where the ball is at any point.

I've then drawn these on with a big X and edited the lines to go perfectly in the middle of all those X's - look what happens.

I've then drawn a big red line for what would happen to the ball in a perfect line in line with the window and also your point, as you suggest, if it didn't change its course. The ball would go over if that was the case but it would also go over the steps in the upper tier and down to the right of where it hits the window in the doorway of the hospitality.

Then watch the video from the main footage of the game. The ball crosses the posts at a point when the ball is out of sight in the upper tier. I'd suggest slightly below the second upper most X, which is over the left of the post, as pointed out by my other image.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:15 pm  

as if Bentham or any other ref is going to own up and say yeah, I made a right fecking mess of that and cost a team the game because I didn't bother checking with the VR (whom is also not in a month of Sundays go with yes I would have given it!)
This is a club (RFL) that is corrupt/incompetent from the top down. To think Bentham is going to change his mind now on such a contentious issue is bonkers, he won't and he hasn't, pretty predictable really.
The actuality is that it was a clear DG, the result as stands is that it wasn't...

Those saying it didn't go over from one angle is like saying that a try isn't a try from one inconclusive angle, hence why the VR choses another much clearer one to decide. Going by the behind the posts shot it is clear and always has been clear it was a successful kick..

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

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Going by the behind the posts shot it is clear and always has been clear it was a successful kick..

No..no, it really isn't. The angle proves nothing.