Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:14 pm  

If we accept that there might be such a thing as a Hokey Cokey ball, though - why did it not make any of these movements whatsoever as it rose up from Brough's boot? Where at least the video evidence seems crystal clear from my composite?

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:18 pm  

One point: Broughy is left-footed, so any arc would be outside of the post and then in, making it feasible to miss and still hit that sign.

*ducks*

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

Of the point where the ball struck the "Fantastic" is closer to the posts (not dead ball line) than Brough was then I stick with what I saw at the time -

Can you get that sentence translated to English please?

it was clearly, without doubt a goal.

I have doubts over it. IMO the pictures are inconclusive. I think Sky possibly have the tech to prove whether the ball was a goal or not, I am sure that there are dozens of land surveyors in West Yorks who could determine from the position of the ball and where it hit whether it was a goal. I think the Hudds players could work it out themselves after training.

But I don't trust your judgement.

As to Bentham's positioning - why do people think it was perfect? From my experience looking up from so close it is the worst place to judge from. Should have gone to the VR. No excuse.

The VR wouldn't have been able to rule on it. Bentham would have had to make the judgement if the game wasn't televised, so we've got to have some degree of trust in his decision making ability.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:22 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

One point: Broughy is left-footed, so any arc would be outside of the post and then in, making it feasible to miss and still hit that sign.

*ducks*

Not if hitting it with the outside of his foot with the intention of curving it back through the centre of ( or near enough) the posts.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If we accept that there might be such a thing as a Hokey Cokey ball, though - why did it not make any of these movements whatsoever as it rose up from Brough's boot? Where at least the video evidence seems crystal clear from my composite?

Speed of the ball? As the ball leaves Broughs foot, it's travelling at it's maximum velocity, which means other forces acting on the ball are minimal - as the ball reaches the top of it's trajectory, the initial (kicking) force is minimal, meaning smaller forces acting on the ball have greater influence on the ball direction

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

like the ladies on a night out in St Helens

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:16 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Speed of the ball? As the ball leaves Broughs foot, it's travelling at it's maximum velocity, which means other forces acting on the ball are minimal - as the ball reaches the top of it's trajectory, the initial (kicking) force is minimal, meaning smaller forces acting on the ball have greater influence on the ball direction

But we simply do not see any change or changes of direction to left or right. Watching the video shows a ball behaving perfectly normally, no swerving or any noticeable or unusual changes in trajectory are seen on any angle.

The video from behind Brough follows the ball until just AFTER the moment when it starts to descend. At that point it is way past the posts, and hasn't behaved in any unpredictable way yet. It is also clearly bang on line to end up where it de facto does end up.

the video from the back of the posts similarly shows no erratic or unusual movements, just a steady rise, and fall.

I don't therefore see any reason to introduce considerations of any additional forces, S bends, swerves or anything else into the equation since there is zero evidence from what we can observe of any such things, and since Occam would hate it.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:50 pm  

the ball waggles a bit I think that is clear but nothing as pronounced as some are stating and certainly not to move it from its trajectory which is also clear from the footage and from the stills produced.
For it to be within the posts, move outside the posts before it reached them and then bend back to where it landed on the glass window would take some fantastical (get it..lol..I'll grab me coat) movement in the air as to be a double banana shot.

Bentham looking up from his position isn't in the best place, he's too close to the posts really and by the time he looks up he sees the ball too late and already high above the upright and already through, he hasn't seen the trajectory, he's guessed it and because it is a tough call he's gone with a no goal when clearly process says he must/should go to the VR.
In any other scenario within the game he would go to the VR yet he failed to do so on such a crucial decision where he didn't have the best of views or wasn't able to turn to view quickly enough.
It's still a goal that was incorrectly disallowed, all the clear evidence shows it was a goal, dismiss the front on view (as a VR would to get the best/clearest view of any incident) because it is too angled hence why you go to the angle that IS clear!

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:12 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.

You were presenting evidence and I didn't wade in, I asked an important question. How do we know at what point the ball is level/crossing the goal-line?

You admitted you didn't know but then said the evidence is overwhelming......well it isn't. The evidence is incomplete is you can't solve a key issue.

You are the one who has gotten angry and feisty with everyone who questions your findings. I asked how evidence can be overwhelming yet you admit you don't know the answer to a key part of the problem. A totally valid question but you just screamed back something along the lines of me being childish and you should be left alone to talk to the other grown-ups.

Re: phil bentham : Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:18 pm  

Cracking thread this!