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

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

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

Who the fsck are you though? What have you ever contributed that is of any use to man nor beast?

Let me guess - you're a Saints giraffe, and you don't like the evidence that it was a drop goal? Aww, poor love. Or is the stuff I post too hard for you? tell you what, when you're back at skule, ask your maths teacher to go through it with you!

I don't know why you are so upset, you did go through, you know?

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

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

Plots aren't wrong - I can assure you. I followed it through double and triple checking to make sure it is right.

Your plot of the yellow dot is actually wrong. When it's kicked it's in line with the Foxy Bingo logo and next bit is near the gentleman above, as shown here.

Point A



Point B



At no stage does it go through the marker you've put down (which is the gap between the logo and the F).

With the red line, I haven't accounted for the rebound off the window. Still that's irrelevant. You can just assume it hits the window in line with the yellow X.

I'd love to post lots of pictures for you but I'm going out to the football at 4:30pm. Funnily enough I'm going to the Galpharm but will gladly take a picture behind the sticks if this helps you?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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..

One thing in Bentham's favour over this example is that at least Bentham was at the right end of the ground.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:54 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Who the fsck are you though? What have you ever contributed that is of any use to man nor beast?

Let me guess - you're a Saints giraffe, and you don't like the evidence that it was a drop goal? Aww, poor love. Or is the stuff I post too hard for you? tell you what, when you're back at skule, ask your maths teacher to go through it with you!

I don't know why you are so upset, you did go through, you know?

There is no evidence though, that's the point. You have come up with all these silly little drawings and yet they prove nothing. You have tried and failed to prove it was a DG. Carry on if you like, folk will just carry on laughing at you.

Oh by the way, I am not upset in the slightest, it's the people like you who are going to great lengths to prove a point that appear to be most aggrieved.

Pick your dummy up and quit the nonsense, it's boring now.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:56 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

One thing in Bentham's favour over this example is that at least Bentham was at the right end of the ground.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:56 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!!??

This was an approach I was thinking about.
Looking from above and drawing two triangles. I'm pretty confident that you could consider Brough to be 23 metres away from the try line and 2 metres to the right of the post. If he hits the ball straight over the post, then the angle of the ball's path to the line perpendicular to the try line will be calculated by Tan X = 2/23
Then if we work out the position of where the ball strikes the glass and draw a line between that and the same post, then we work out the same angle on that side (call it Y). If Y > X, then (assuming the ball travelled in a straight line) then in must have gone through the posts, but if Y<X then it will have gone wide.
However, looking at the iPlayer, I'm finding estimating the perpendicular distance from the try line to the sign hard to estimate, perspective and the sloping effect of the seats.
If the ball hit the glass 2.5 metres to the right of the post, then the sign would have to 28.75 metres back to ensure the ball went straight over the post. If it were further back, it would imply a miss, closer a goal. I could quite believe that the sign is 30 metres back, but then my estimates of the other distances may be off.
How wide are a set of goal posts?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:56 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

Where was he stood? Oh yes, in perfect line with the trajectory of the ball and the left upright. You couldn't possibly have a better view to judge it.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:56 pm  

Fully wrote:

Plots aren't wrong - I can assure you. I followed it through double and triple checking to make sure it is right.

Your plot of the yellow dot is actually wrong. When it's kicked it's in line with the Foxy Bingo logo and next bit is near the gentleman above, as shown here.

Point A



Point B



At no stage does it go through the marker you've put down (which is the gap between the logo and the F).

With the red line, I haven't accounted for the rebound off the window. Still that's irrelevant. You can just assume it hits the window in line with the yellow X.

I'd love to post lots of pictures for you but I'm going out to the football at 4:30pm. Funnily enough I'm going to the Galpharm but will gladly take a picture behind the sticks if this helps you?

So basically FA is posting inaccurate (wrong) evidence?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:04 pm  

Fully wrote:

Plots aren't wrong - I can assure you. I followed it through double and triple checking to make sure it is right.

Your plot of the yellow dot is actually wrong.

I didn't add the yellow ball - it is just a copy of the OP's screen grab - I didn't change anything. The yellow ball I added was only the one on the glass that it hit.

I understand you think you're right, but as a ball can't weave around like that, then as a matter of common sense, something is plainly wrong.

Fully wrote:

I'd love to post lots of pictures for you but I'm going out to the football at 4:30pm. Funnily enough I'm going to the Galpharm but will gladly take a picture behind the sticks if this helps you?

I think what we could use is some image or measurement or something which shows the distance from the dead ball line to the glass screens, dunno if there's any way you can do that?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I didn't add the yellow ball - it is just a copy of the OP's screen grab - I didn't change anything. The yellow ball I added was only the one on the glass that it hit.

I understand you think you're right, but as a ball can't weave around like that, then as a matter of common sense, something is plainly wrong.

I think what we could use is some image or measurement or something which shows the distance from the dead ball line to the glass screens, dunno if there's any way you can do that?

Probably not as I'm in the wrong stand.

If you think I'm wrong plot the ball tonight with your tech. But I've only altered it's trajectory once, and that's - as I've pointed out - is when it swerves slightly to the left hence the jolt. As I was doing it on paint, this change probably isn't the smoothest but it definitely does and both angles show it clear as day. I find it really surprising that you can't seem to see it. The rest just goes up and falls behind with gravity as normal, just on a different route to the one you think.