Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:52 pm  

Clearly the ball went over from the view directly behind the sticks, other views are not relevant
I think Brough got under the skin of the ref questioning every decision that in the end when he asked for the screen the ref just waved him away.
Shouldn't have done though.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:53 pm  

I just don't see the massive injustice, in this. The drop goal, at best was 50/50 IMO. Brough had 3 previous attempts to nail it. Sending off, obviously a sending off. Only dodgy call was saints levlling 2 point penalty, i thought the player lost it.

However, early in the 2nd half, while attacking the hudds line a saints player had the ball reefed one on one with a huddersfield player stood in front of this picking up the loose ball, so that should have been a penalty to saints for offside, right under the sticks, but it was play on. So those 2 cancel each other out.

It was desperatly agonising for hudds, but no injustice in my book.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:55 pm  

surprised no ones mentioned lomax taking robinson out in the air , i thought that would be a certain 10 mins

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:55 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Parallax schmallarax, it was clearly a DG from the rear view cam that happened to be dead in line (so issues of schmallarax don't enter into it) and any fair minded person viewing that shot KNOWS it was a DG and if they say different thrust are on the wind up.

I don't know but I will bow to your knowledge of optics,lenses and parallax to categorically PROVE that it was a drop goal.
Somehow ....
Anyway the decision was made that it wasn't a drop goal and guess what. It's history and life moves on.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:56 pm  

mrpurfect wrote:

Clearly the ball went over from the view directly behind the sticks, other views are not relevant

They kinda are.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:57 pm  

the red fusilier wrote:

surprised no ones mentioned lomax taking robinson out in the air , i thought that would be a certain 10 mins

There were several hits in the air today. Lomax immediately pulls out, but shouldn't of been in the position in the first place (easy to say, hard given he was after the ball) penalty was sufficient - same as the couple of hits makinson took.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:59 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

They kinda are.

They aren't, there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over, that angle and that view cannot exist if that ball doesn't go over

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:59 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The problem with judging a forward pass is that it is judged in relation to a moving player, the movement of the ball in relation to he moving player changes the direction the ball looks to move from the angle it is viewed.

With a drop goal, the view from behind the goal shows the ball on a trajectory going through the posts and it carries on on that path. It cannot do so and miss.

Yes and from another view it doesn't look like one. So which do we go for and why?

It's still the same problem, different results from different angles. Neither 100% certain. Even the first one that looks more like a goal could've hit the inside of the post and bounced away.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:01 pm  

The problem isnt this incident in isolation, its the fact theres yet another thread discussing the referee instead of 80 mins of rugby league thats just been played. Its wrong. Understandable but wrong and a sad state of affairs

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:02 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

They aren't, there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over.

Apart from the reply from the other end which didn't look like it went over of course,