Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:48 am  

I used to love the old "Spot The Ball" competition in the Yorkshire Post, but alas, I never won. You lot must have cleaned up every week.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:07 am  

cravenpark1 wrote:

When is this going to stop the ref gave what he thought was right if he was wrong we can not do any thing about it now for god sake get on with life

Strangely, earlier, on the Hull KR forum,

cravenpark1 wrote:

I know they can not do it for all matches but why can they not use the video at TV games and the ref says can I see that please if in the case he said he did not see it and then make a decision

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:56 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Heheh, don't be ashamed, it's perfectly normal!

There's nothing normal around here.

That is the fatal flaw in your argument. You ignore perspective. As it nears the cameraman, the ball inevitably moves well outside the line of the posts and so drawing vertical lines from the illustrated position does not help. I did previously explain this issue, and also posted an image which shows this, here it is again:

Of course, with the ball so close and to the side of the camera it will appear outside the upright. Also, I disagree the ball travels in a perfectly straight line. It's common for rugby balls to deviate in flight and it looks to me that as Brough is stepping sideways as he kicks it, he slices it marginally and it does travel in a very slight 'S' pattern.

Even taking camera perspective into account, the following is true from the pics I posted:
Pic 1: the ball is left of the upright, by 2-3 metres. It has to be; Brough is left of the upright and kicks it on his left.
Pic 2: the ball is still left of the upright, by approximately the same margin.
Pic 3: the ball is in line with the upright (this is before it crosses the goal line).
Pic 4: the ball is outside the upright, and remains outside.

Even if passes the goal line as early as pic 3, it's missed (or hit the post). However I am of the opinion it hasn't crossed the goal line at this point, which is vital because if it passes it at any point later, it has to have missed - for the reason it is clearly already outside the upright, having passed the line of the upright. If it was a successful DG, it would appear to be inside the upright at some point and it doesn't.

Anyway, regardless of graphics or us lot overcomplicating things, Bentham is in the absolutely perfect position to view the ball as it crosses the goal line, whereas TV angles can be deceptive and I doubt the video ref would have made a call. I see no reason not to believe Bentham made the correct call. It is extremely marginal, but correct.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:19 am  

This thread is brilliant. I'm hoping it becomes as legendary as the 'Joynt Voluntary Tackle' thread from back in 2002.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:28 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

OK I have now done a composite of the path of the ball, and as this is the actual path, as per video, and not a "plot" it indisputably shows that the ball travelled with none of the deviations your effort suggests.

But it does! And it's clearly visible on your own depiction above.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:40 pm  

Cronus wrote:

There's nothing normal around here.

So true!

Cronus wrote:

Of course, with the ball so close and to the side of the camera it will appear outside the upright.

Yes, and so you understand the point, but what you still fail to take into account is that
a) the ball "appearing" to be so far to the right, relative to the post, on a 2D image, is an optical illusion and
b) the exaggerated effect of the illusion as the ball gets very near is exaggerated the nearer it gets - but exists, to an exponentially increasing extent, from the moment the ball leaves the boot.

This is key, because you base your conclusions on which instant you "think" the ball was over the post (which in fairness has to be a guess, even on a 3D screen or in real life unless you have synchronised end-on and goal-line cameras) but I base my conclusions partly on the fact that if the ball from brough's boot to crossing the plane of the posts had already moved from not between the posts, then it could not have ended up where it did without swerving.

Also, I disagree the ball travels in a perfectly straight line. It's common for rugby balls to deviate in flight and it looks to me that as Brough is stepping sideways as he kicks it, he slices it marginally and it does travel in a very slight 'S' pattern.

And I have posted a number of composite images, none of which show any swerve on the ball. The most recent composite in particular shows to all intents and purposes a steady and standard parabolic curve. There is no EVIDENCE of any such movement so even if it happened, it cannot have been anything other than insignificant, if we cannot observe it.And if you watch the videos, none of these appear to show the ball swerving about either.

Anyway I think i have done all the work I need to do, the final piece in the jigsaw was the Eureka moment when I realised that from the shot of the ball approaching the camera, we can actually work out with precision how far from the centre line of the pitch it ended up.

The only way to move forward would be to accurately plot a line from the (known) point of the kick to the (also known) point of impact with the glass wall, on a scale plan, and see if that line takes the ball inside, over or outside the post. If inside, then if you think about it, it MUST HAVE been a DG unless the ball set off outside the posts, passed outside the posts and only then curved right. And my composites I think visibly completely rule out any such movement having occurred.

Unless and until someone is able to complete the task by doing such a simple plan, I don't think I can do any more work that would add to what I have said, and so far as nobody has produced any credible evidence against my workings out, I remain convinced that the ball must have passed just inside the post - just like it appeared on live TV.

But i might.. If I think of owt else!

[Durham Giant]

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:47 pm  

The Yellow Giraffe wrote:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/huddersfield/drop-goal-referee-bentham-says-video-call-would-not-have-spared-huddersfield-1-6547688

Everyone can stop crying now.

If you read it and thought about it rather than being on your little subtle wind up you would realise the fault in his arguement.

Bentham said i am adamant it did not go over

then says

The only thing that would have helped would have been taller posts

.

Therefore he is not adamant it did not go over because he is accepting some doubt because the posts were not high enough and that would have helped him to be more adamant.

How adamant was he 70, 80 90%.

If there was doubt go to the VR even if it had been referred back to him. That is why i am annoyed.

All that rubbish about refs have to make decisions we dont want to go the VR all the time.

He went to the VR on how to start the game and should he give a penalty for a marginal contact to a player in the air when Lawrence tackled Lomax.

Yet on a huge fundamental decision he did not want to go to the VR.

Bullshit Mr Bentham and you know it.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:53 pm  

FA - thanks for posting that image.

I've redone my expert "paint" analysis on the picture and this is proof in my favour.

The ball clearly deviates.

As per last image, red line for straight based on the plot points you've put on and if it didn't deviate at all.

Yellow for the ball points you've put on. There is a slight deviation that takes it over the post in the majority.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:01 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Therefore he is not adamant it did not go over because he is accepting some doubt because the posts were not high enough and that would have helped him to be more adamant.

How adamant was he 70, 80 90%.

If there was doubt go to the VR even if it had been referred back to him. That is why i am annoyed.

All that rubbish about refs have to make decisions we dont want to go the VR all the time.

He went to the VR on how to start the game and should he give a penalty for a marginal contact to a player in the air when Lawrence tackled Lomax.

Yet on a huge fundamental decision he did not want to go to the VR.

Bullshit Mr Bentham and you know it.

Not necessarily.

In his opinion, from his view - better than anyone elses, imagining the posts extending indefinitely upwards he believes the ball missed/was no drop goal. There is no doubt in that decision whatsoever.

What he's saying is that if taller posts existed then it would have put all this to bed with no controversy. It's just a matter of fact, not an highlight of doubt.

He has also confirmed that the video ref - because of the element of doubt from the video - would have reverted it back to him from three foot away from the posts so it would have been the same outcome.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:41 pm  

Fully wrote:

FA - thanks for posting that image.

I've redone my expert "paint" analysis on the picture and this is proof in my favour.

The ball clearly deviates.

As per last image, red line for straight based on the plot points you've put on and if it didn't deviate at all.

Yellow for the ball points you've put on. There is a slight deviation that takes it over the post in the majority.

Unfortunately though your system of "joining the dots" to make a plot is not being done accurately enough. I appreciate your effort but this is producing a result which you may want, but which is demonstrably wrong.

Neither of your "plots" is a real-life trajectory.

To prove this, here is the image with nothing but A PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE placed so that it just grazes the left of the ball images as they rise. Not a plot. No estimates, just a computer generated standard straight line.




This clearly shows that for most of the illustrated rise, the speed of the ball forwards relative to the movement to the right, is so much greater that the rightward apparent motion is hardly visible. It only starts to become apparent right at the very top of the ball's rise. That is because it's upward motion relative to the camera is rapidly decelerating, whereas the movement on the horizontal vector along which Brough kicked it (which of course appears on a 2D image like movement to the right) maintains a constant rate. Your yellow and red lines are just demonstrably inaccurate.

Anyway enough of all that. For a bit of fun, I have drawn 2 images which show the path of the ball from the point of the kick, to the known point of impact, if it had gone in a straight line, like a bullet. Had Brough kicked it in a straight line like a bullet, of course, we couldn't be having the pleasure of this excellent thread.

The first image shows the trajectory coming across the front of the post

The second image shows the same trajectory but photoshopped so it looks like it is behind the post.

As I say, that was just for fun, but it does have a serious side, and I find the "front of the post" version appears more convincing than the other, not least because the "behind the post" version appears to need the ball to be not "through" the post but appears to pass the post at least a foot to the left. Though as ever with this discussion it certainly isn't clear cut. But the first version, "in front of the posts", appears to show the ball passing narowly inside the post, and appears to back up the view from behind the posts. It looks right.