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

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

So basically FA is posting inaccurate (wrong) evidence?

Er, so no.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:07 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?

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.

Personally, I'm quite enjoying it. It's our game's Russian linesman.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:13 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Personally, I'm quite enjoying it. It's our game's Russian linesman.

Haha. I think the reaction on the whole has been farcical. It was nothing more than a 50/50 call that went the way of Saints. No conspiracy, bias, hidden agenda.

My opinion of Huddersfield as a club has plummeted in the last couple of days. Their behaviour has been embarrassing.

Having said all of that, you are right, it is quite entertaining!

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:14 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

Whilst I have no desire to get drawn into the "it was a drop goal" "no it wasn't" war of attrition currently occurring :-

Due to the nature of a rugby ball, slight S shape paths are more than possible, especially when the ball isn't kicked cleanly (and travelling end over end) - it is dependent on the way the air moves around the ball. In fact double S paths are even possible (but more than rare) if hit in the correct way.

I could post the background mathematics for this ... But I'm not going to. S shape paths are possible with a football (and becoming more and more common as free kicks become more and more technical)

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:19 pm  

MS: Is that what you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained.

MS: Is that what you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:26 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

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

like the ladies on a night out in St Helens

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:32 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Whilst I have no desire to get drawn into the "it was a drop goal" "no it wasn't" war of attrition currently occurring :-

Due to the nature of a rugby ball, slight S shape paths are more than possible, especially when the ball isn't kicked cleanly (and travelling end over end) - it is dependent on the way the air moves around the ball. In fact double S paths are even possible (but more than rare) if hit in the correct way.

I could post the background mathematics for this ... But I'm not going to. S shape paths are possible with a football (and becoming more and more common as free kicks become more and more technical)

But the S shape we are looking at here which would be necessary wouldn’t be slight, it would be pretty pronounced.

It would be (from Brough’s POV)the ball drifting from left to right, then making a pretty sharp right to left, then taking another pretty sharp turn and a more pronounced drift left to right. This would have also needed to happen at exactly the right time so that the ball curved over the top of the post then back in again after the post.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:32 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Whilst I have no desire to get drawn into the "it was a drop goal" "no it wasn't" war of attrition currently occurring :-

Due to the nature of a rugby ball, slight S shape paths are more than possible, especially when the ball isn't kicked cleanly (and travelling end over end) - it is dependent on the way the air moves around the ball. In fact double S paths are even possible (but more than rare) if hit in the correct way.

I could post the background mathematics for this ... But I'm not going to. S shape paths are possible with a football (and becoming more and more common as free kicks become more and more technical)

Simply though in this case the ball didn't move around to any appreciable extent (or, based on watching repeated video from different positions, at all) whether theoretically things are possible or not. In practice no such thing occurred. The ball was not seen to take any S bends or perform any unorthodox manoeuvres.

Also where is any war, or any attrition? It often baffles me why some people (usually ones not taking part in a discussion) are uncomfortable with discussion. Is there something wrong with discussion? Is it some alien concept? If you're not interested you are not obliged to take part, or even read, so what is the problem?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:33 pm  

Fully wrote: MS: Is that what you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained. The effect you linked to was more to do with top spin (but equally relevant) as the ball rotates around an unsymmetrical axis (owing to him not getting a clean strike of the ball.) The effect described above occurs in a minor way (aka not so predominantly as top spin, but still an affect on the ball) to pull it left or right, depending on the spin of the ball, the axis at any given point, wind, and speed of the ball. Basically S shapes are more than possible Angular momentum assumes the ball is travelling on an arch in both the vertical and horizontal (and I haven't seen the replay enough times to say either way) - however you can get around that by looking at the moments of inertia on the ball (the internal angular momentum) if the ball moves largely to the left of it's axis, more air will be blocked slowing down the left hand side of the ball, altering it's axis and repeating the process. who knew a maths degree would come in handy posting on a rugby league forum!

Fully wrote: MS: Is that what you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained. The effect you linked to was more to do with top spin (but equally relevant) as the ball rotates around an unsymmetrical axis (owing to him not getting a clean strike of the ball.) The effect described above occurs in a minor way (aka not so predominantly as top spin, but still an affect on the ball) to pull it left or right, depending on the spin of the ball, the axis at any given point, wind, and speed of the ball. Basically S shapes are more than possible Angular momentum assumes the ball is travelling on an arch in both the vertical and horizontal (and I haven't seen the replay enough times to say either way) - however you can get around that by looking at the moments of inertia on the ball (the internal angular momentum) if the ball moves largely to the left of it's axis, more air will be blocked slowing down the left hand side of the ball, altering it's axis and repeating the process. who knew a maths degree would come in handy posting on a rugby league forum!

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:34 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

But the S shape we are looking at here which would be necessary wouldn’t be slight, it would be pretty pronounced.

It would be (from Brough’s POV)the ball drifting from left to right, then making a pretty sharp right to left, then taking another pretty sharp turn and a more pronounced drift left to right. This would have also needed to happen at exactly the right time so that the ball curved over the top of the post then back in again after the post.

Yep. And all this without any camera shot noticing the ball doing these things.