Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:24 pm  

All those who are saying it wasn't a goal would soon change your minds if it was your team it happened to !!

it was a drop goal, simple as, rubbish to physics and trajectories, it wont over the bar and inside the post !!

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:31 pm  

Fully wrote:

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.

It is good you have taken the time to prepare evidence, but I think your plots must be wrong simply because we all know that a ball in flight could not weave about like your yellow line, nor, so far as we can see watching the video in real time, is there any weaving, zigging or zagging apparent.

Also the ball is actually on the image, immediately after it left brough's foot, and sadly your yellow line does not go through the known location of the ball, which isn't open to debate.

Your red line is also wrong as you have assumed the ball travelled till it landed in the seats, but it didn't, its first point of contact was the glass under the sign, which is where your red arc needs therefore to end.

If you can post your stills from which you think you have plotted the crosses then tonight I will make them into a composite as a check on your theory.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:32 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

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...

Why has anyone else on here changed their minds? Why should a ref change his mind because a few people on here are convinced in a conspiracy, and like to blow up every minor (and major) issue in the game? I didn't think it went over (due to the camera angle from behind the saints fans) - and I'm yet to see anything convincing enough to suggest otherwise. Unless someone a) posts specific dimensions between the player, posts, and ingoal, or b) the bbc release the footage with a side camera angle (to determine precisely when the ball crosses the try line) there is absolutely nothing clear cut about it being a drop goal, and bearing in mind the rules about the whole ball having to go over the crossbar not the post, on balance of probability the correct decision was made.

The ref called what he saw (and regardless of what you or anyone else says, HE had the best view of it) - the VR has come out and said if it had been referee upstairs, the on field decision would of stood, and at least half the population agree (including the rfl, because he hasn't been quietly dropped for this week as is usual when a ref makes a major bad call) agree with that decision. Just because it doesn't sit well with you doesn't mean it was wrong.

At that point in the game, the game wasn't lost - in fact it was 16-16. What lost Huddersfield the game was letting saints go from a 20 metre tap to 30metres from goal

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:33 pm  

Cronus wrote:

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.

Perhaps he wasnt in this magical spot and the video evidence which contradicts him is better evidence.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:38 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

bearing in mind the rules about the whole ball having to go over the crossbar not the post,

This isnt true. That rule makes no mention of the posts whatsoever. That is your own assumption. I can only ask you again, if a set of posts are made out of 1 solid peice (as you said the Hudds post were) what makes the intersection where post meets crossbar, post rather than crossbar? Wouldnt it simply be both?

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

HE had the best view of it

Did he? have you seen his view of it? Has anyone? Are we supposed to ignore the fact he admits he lost track of it for a period of its flight? considering how notoriously inaccurate human memory is, why is Benthams memory of the event better than a video recording?

Just because Bentham has come out and said 'i was right and my view was better than other views which i didnt see' and the VR has come out and said ' i dont know' doesnt make Bentham right. He was wrong. The ball went through the posts. We can see that happening.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:38 pm  

Dally wrote:

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!!??

Ever helpful, here's a ground plan, I've drawn (very) approximate lines for glass boxes, dead ball line, and Brough's position but it does look as if the glass box is appreciably closer to the dead ball line than Brough's kicking position. Certainly it is not further back and I actually think Brough kicked from a little bit further back than I have sketched..

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:41 pm  

How long are you going to carry on bombarding us with your amateurish Paint creations before you give up and go away?

Your posts seem to contain a lot of words and phrases such as "approximate," "roughly" and "not entirely accurate."

It's hardly scientific is it? You're making yourself look very silly now.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:44 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Why has anyone else on here changed their minds? Why should a ref change his mind because a few people on here are convinced in a conspiracy, and like to blow up every minor (and major) issue in the game? I didn't think it went over (due to the camera angle from behind the saints fans) - and I'm yet to see anything convincing enough to suggest otherwise. Unless someone a) posts specific dimensions between the player, posts, and ingoal, or b) the bbc release the footage with a side camera angle (to determine precisely when the ball crosses the try line) there is absolutely nothing clear cut about it being a drop goal, and bearing in mind the rules about the whole ball having to go over the crossbar not the post, on balance of probability the correct decision was made.

The ref called what he saw (and regardless of what you or anyone else says, HE had the best view of it) - the VR has come out and said if it had been referee upstairs, the on field decision would of stood, and at least half the population agree (including the rfl, because he hasn't been quietly dropped for this week as is usual when a ref makes a major bad call) agree with that decision. Just because it doesn't sit well with you doesn't mean it was wrong.

At that point in the game, the game wasn't lost - in fact it was 16-16. What lost Huddersfield the game was letting saints go from a 20 metre tap to 30metres from goal

Just remind us all who you support. I actually agree with most of the unbiased fans on this forum who say it Was a GOAL. Had the positions been reversed you would have had steam coming out of your ears, so don't defend Bentham just because he gave you the win.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:45 pm  

If FA has done that on Paint i wouldnt call it amateurish. Its pretty bloody good. I think its actually a picture.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:47 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

If FA has done that on Paint i wouldnt call it amateurish. Its pretty bloody good. I think its actually a picture.

The point remains, it looks shoddy, amateurish and desperate.