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

If it was given then everyone would be arguing for the opposite point. Get over it, we won.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:03 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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.

the other one doesn't even dispute that ball go to the area behind the posts just whether it goes to the left of the post before going past it to the area behind the post before curling away again. The other angle proves it went through the post before curling away again.

You cannot have a view from dead on behind the posts that sees the ball take a trajectory through the posts and it not do so.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:05 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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

That isn't what I said. The other angle is irrelevant. We saw the ball go through the post from dead on behind them we cannot see that unless that happened.

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

The front on view of the DG is not anywhere near as central as the one from behind the posts so distorts where the ball is going (thus looks like it is going wide)
The camera angle from behind is far and away the most telling (like other angles used for tries).
This has the hallmark of a Saints (or big/top 4 team) to win at all costs officiating.
Absolutely no excuse to not go to the VR and as for the knock adjudged by Smith in the first half that is even worse. Even JD called this ffs!
The RFL and its officials are letting the sport down on a massive scale..

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:12 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

That isn't what I said. The other angle is irrelevant. We saw the ball go through the post from dead on behind them we cannot see that unless that happened.

You did say, it's back there on the previous page in black and white, go double check.

We saw another angle where it looked like it missed, we couldn't have seen that unless it happened......see how easy it is to debate it.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:12 pm  

Went wide for me. One angle shows it marginally heading over, but on the second angle it is clearly wide until it has long passed the uprights.

Very close, but wide. But why not go to the video ref - unless of course the ref had a great view and saw it clearly wide. Which would be the reasonable explanation.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:14 pm  

Bentham was in a good position to see it for himself. Im unsure if it went over or not as the shots seem to show different things.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:19 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

You did say, it's back there on the previous page in black and white, go double check.

We saw another angle where it looked like it missed, we couldn't have seen that unless it happened......see how easy it is to debate it.

No I didn't. And no, that angle showed it may have missed. The other showed it did go over.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

No I didn't. And no, that angle showed it may have missed. The other showed it did go over.

You said "there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over".......

But in the quote above you've just said "that angle showed it may have missed."

End of argument.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:26 pm  

I predict a smokey 'I'm right I'm right I'm right'-a-thon....