Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:01 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

But then once the conspiracy theorist have had their say for a few days, some clever folks from Sky will come along and let everyone know their knee jerk reactions where just that and ........ you know the rest of the story.

I didn't get to see Boots'n'all till yesterday, but tbf, all they said was from one angle it looks like a dg, and from the other it doesn't.

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:25 am  

New day new controversy!!

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:30 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I didn't get to see Boots'n'all till yesterday, but tbf, all they said was from one angle it looks like a dg, and from the other it doesn't.

They showed a still of when the ball crossed the try line with the posts extended upwards. It shows the ball going to the left of the post ie missing.

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:44 am  

Him wrote:

:? They showed a still of when the ball crossed the try line with the posts extended upwards. It shows the ball going to the left of the post ie missing.

But were still guessing at which precise frame the ball was crossing the line. If the frame they used was too late, then the ball could look wide of the post, yet not be wide of the posts. That's a perspective issue that isn't intuitive. Why can't they use that software like the BBC use, which converts the TV picture to a 3D frame which can be tilted and viewed from different angles? Like MOTD uses for goal line controversies, and like they use in snooker so you can view the position of the balls from any perspective?

I don't know why, I presume they need particular cameras in particular positions as well as the software, but I am sure if they did have that software to define the position of the ball then we would have seen it. If they don't have the software then they can't do it.

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:11 am  

They said that the Sky team worked for hours to get the position of the ball when it crossed the try line.

So there are 3 choices here:
- the drop goal missed
- the sky video team are incompetent
- Sky are in on the conspiracy

Why would you assume anything except the first choice? Is it because that would prove you wrong?

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:07 pm  

St Helens beat Huddersfield in the Cup 8/4/14.

That will NEVER change time has moved on

NEXT!!!

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:15 pm  

Watching Cas get dudded in the st's knock on try you would have to say st Helens do seem to get the rub of the green!

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:11 pm  

Him wrote:

They said that the Sky team worked for hours to get the position of the ball when it crossed the try line.

So there are 3 choices here:
- the drop goal missed
- the sky video team are incompetent
- Sky are in on the conspiracy

Conspiracy?? Have you been on the sherbet?

I would consider any workings out by anyone to inform us. If they just announce the result, though, without saying how they arrived at it, how can I or anyone check their workings out if I want to test their theory/calculations/conclusions?

How do you know whoever did it is NOT "incompetent"? He or she may have started off with one simple but crucial basic mistake and that led to a suspect result. All I say is you and I have no grounds on which to judge the competency or otherwise of what Sky did. If they told us or showed us their methods, then I'd know and could assess. Maybe they will. I would be very interested and if they had a convincing proof of any conclusion then great! Why would I have any problem with that? I wouldn't!

Him wrote:

Why would you assume anything except the first choice? Is it because that would prove you wrong?

FFS. If one thing is fair to say then that is I have assumed nothing. I have tried to provide ways of working it out and produced my calculations and reasons. The entire point of the discussion is to TEST any assumptions, theories or propositions. Why would you have an issue with that?

Your final question is absurd, since I neither have any desire to be "proved right", and since I really don't crave your approval. I just like a technical discussion. During which, incidentally, I have been persuaded to revise my original conclusions, which fact in itself blows a hole in your question, doesn't it?

Re: phil bentham : Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:29 pm  

I've been told to stop being theoretical and just let people spout off, so in that respect, it was a try, it was not a knock on and the ref got the call right.

Re: phil bentham : Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:11 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

Watching Cas get dudded in the st's knock on try you would have to say st Helens do seem to get the rub of the green!

As a Cas fan there is no-one to blame for that defeat apart from the players. I do not have any complaint against the officiating. Saints have now done 3 Yorkshire teams in the last minute, they deserve nothing but credit.