Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:36 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Except London broncos board that is........it's hard to blame the ref when your average loss is down to shipping 50 points a game!

I think complaints about the ref has a near perfect direct correlation with how likely a teams fans thought they were going to win beforehand

I don't think the refs have gotten any worse this year, but the average fans reaction when their team loses a game they thought they could win, it's somehow the refs fault/ the rfl are biased against them (and them specifically) - which is why it seems like there's a thread like this seemingly every week. Maybe it's something to do with the league seeming to matter? But nobody seemingly wants to take any sort of responsibility for their own teams failings

Of course 50:50s can be debated, by the very nature of professional sport there's going to be times where decisions are made on the basis of millimetres - and it's very easy to make a decision when you've watched the replay 50 times and had 3 days to discuss it, look up the relevant rules and draw a conclusion. The judgement phil Bentham made doesn't make him a bad referee.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:53 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

.. The judgement phil Bentham made doesn't make him a bad referee.

Maybe not, but I have been provided with an image from the game by a Saints fan with access to secret processing software, this classified piece of kit is capable of "peeling off" the secret RFL cloaking device. Here is the result, from the moment the ref looked atthe drop goal attempt - before and after processing. I think you'll agree with me that Shudds fans have every right to be aggrieved.

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Re: phil bentham : Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:57 pm  

I think there is a difference between at the game and then on here.

At the game, if it's marginal, you have to call forwards, it's part of putting pressure on the ref. If they are going to make a mistake you want it in your favour.

That's why the home team 'tend' to do better.

Where there maybe a point is that teams with lower crowds may get less of those calls, because to put it bluntly, the pressure is less.

So at home yes we get more calls than the away team, but on home turf, you should be doing fine or at least 50/50 and if your not then it's down to your side giving away daft penalties.

On here I tend to call it as I see it, without the blinkers on, but if we are just going to keep up the sideline fan reaction on here, then there is no point having a discussion as we will stick to our own party line regardless of what is shown.

For example every huddersfield fan has seen the non-drop goal, even those who were never there.

But no one has watched boots and all therefore no retraction of the OTT reactions.

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:06 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Maybe not, but I have been provided with an image from the game by a Saints fan with access to secret processing software, this classified piece of kit is capable of "peeling off" the secret RFL cloaking device. Here is the result, from the moment the ref looked atthe drop goal attempt - before and after processing. I think you'll agree with me that Shudds fans have every right to be aggrieved.

TRANSLATION = I was wrong to scream so heavily that it was a clear goal, but instead of admit it I'll post something else to deflect attention away from my previous wrong claims in the hope they'll got lost in the maze.

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:54 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

TRANSLATION = I was wrong to scream so heavily that it was a clear goal, but instead of admit it I'll post something else to deflect attention away from my previous wrong claims in the hope they'll got lost in the maze.

Oh dear, I have upset you haven't I?

No, I haven't seen any better or more convincing explanation than mine, although there have been many good points giving plenty of food for thought. Kinda the point of a discussion forum, I think.

But I have absolutely zero need to be "proved right", on the contrary, I really did not care nor do I now care whether it was a goal or not. Though I reckon I proved it was. I would have assumed that I'd perhaps be amongst the last people to be accused of my "claims" (to use your term) being lost in the maze, it would have to be a bloody big maze!

I am perfectly amenable to someone proving it was not a DG or anything else; and perfectly amenable to all rational discussion. Although sadly that of course rules you out. But try not to get so upset, I only humiliate you good naturedly, and you really shouldn't let the fact it was a goal upset you so, it can't be good for your blood pressure.

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:40 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Oh dear, I have upset you haven't I?

No, I haven't seen any better or more convincing explanation than mine, although there have been many good points giving plenty of food for thought. Kinda the point of a discussion forum, I think.

But I have absolutely zero need to be "proved right", on the contrary, I really did not care nor do I now care whether it was a goal or not. Though I reckon I proved it was. I would have assumed that I'd perhaps be amongst the last people to be accused of my "claims" (to use your term) being lost in the maze, it would have to be a bloody big maze!

I am perfectly amenable to someone proving it was not a DG or anything else; and perfectly amenable to all rational discussion. Although sadly that of course rules you out. But try not to get so upset, I only humiliate you good naturedly, and you really shouldn't let the fact it was a goal upset you so, it can't be good for your blood pressure.

You've amused me to be correct

I've (and I'm not alone) found your picture upon picture 'evidence' quite amusing as you're so desperate to prove something that was always going to be unprovable to anyone on here.

But if it makes you feel better to hope you've "upset" people with your 'hard hitting evidence' then so be it, it's pretty much all you've got to cling to.

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:37 am  

Rank amateur troll wannabe ThePrinter wrote:

...pathetic attempt at flame ..

No cigar, not close, please go try to wind up somewhere else. I am not interested.

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:29 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Except London broncos board that is........it's hard to blame the ref when your average loss is down to shipping 50 points a game!

Then it becomes the ex-CEOs fault doesn't it?

Re: phil bentham : Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:32 am  

Claret and Gold hat on, I thought it was a goal after watching the replays, though after noting some of the graphics presented on here I can't say I'm quite as convinced.

Some players seemed to think it was, some seemed to think it wasn't, Bentham should have gone to the screen as he did for so many other decisions etc. etc. Without reading every single post it seems to have been done to death.

However, and this may be one more task for the computer experts with their lines, little has been made of the fact St Helens players were frequently, if not routinely, offside during Huddersfield's attempts at the drop goal, one particular example being Walmsley who was clearly offside under the posts when Brough tried his third kick. And it was Walmsley who, on that occasion, charged it down. I fail to appreciate how this did not go unpunished by the match officials.

Had the officials had the backbone to act on these infringements we may have had a different story, though with Brough's erratic kicking this season nothing can be taken for granted. It could have spared me, as a Giants fan, a heartbreaking end to the game, though I confess this was assuaged by reading some of the arguments on here.

The real positive for me was that we played with more energy and enthusiasm than we have in so many games this season, though with a relatively short turnaround I fear a similar result, if not scoreline, tonight.