Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:30 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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.

No, there is no trick of sight from the angle of behind the goal. It goes over. That angle is not a trick of sight. The trajectory in relation to the camera, it takes shows it could not have been

It is possible for another angle to not be as clear. I readily admit there is one. That however would be a trick of sight. And the problem there isn't whether it goes behind the posts but whether it's trajectory takes it through the posts or to the side of the posts and then behind them, the other angle obviously clarifies that.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The shot from behind conclusively proves it was a DG. It set off on a line inside the post and never deviated from that line. The VR if honest would 100% have had to give it. Bentham was under the posts and in a poor position to judge, and the more important Q would be why on earth he didn't just ask the VR? I don't understand that. If I were a Shudds fan I'd be very upset

Yes, 100%

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 pm  

Just heard on good authority that Nigel Wood is in a right panic, They've got the carpet lifted but nobody can find the brush!

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Ferres is the man to blame.

On the kick, looked good on one angle, looked like it slid by on the other. Ref can only give what he sees. Pretty sure the tech wizards at Sky could conclusively prove that either way.

Except that isn't true is it. We have the VR.

Re: Phil Bentham cheat : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:40 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Nah. The only decision that he got wrong was the one under the sticks to level it up. The Walsh one was a clear pen, tackles him, humps him, then tries to steal the ball, all whilst denying Walsh a quick play the ball.

Walsh lost the ball so he has every right to go for it. Walsh had no right to stand up and strike him.

Re: Bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:47 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Take the emotion away and re read that. The sending off came off the back of a stream of penalties, by the way Huddersfield were lucky to keep all their players on during that spell. There was only one borderline call, the penalty under the posts for the equaliser. All the others were blatant.

The point is Bentham had lost the confidence of the Huddersfield players at that point and effectively he briefly lost control. When players feel hard done to and unfairly treated they get frustrated and more aggressive. If it weren't for that string of penalties I do not believe Ferres would have been sent off and a player potentially badly injured. There can be serious repercussions of poor referreeing. If Ferres gets banned so should Bentham, IMO.

Re: Bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:50 pm  

Dally wrote:

The point is Bentham had lost the confidence of the Huddersfield players at that point and effectively he briefly lost control. When players feel hard done to and unfairly treated they get frustrated and more aggressive. If it weren't for that string of penalties I do not believe Ferres would have been sent off and a player potentially badly injured. There can be serious repercussions of poor referreeing. If Ferres gets banned so should Bentham, IMO.

So Bentham in some peoples opinions makes some iffy (but hardly shocking calls) so that means Ferres is led to pile driving Lomax WWE style?

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:53 pm  

As to JD's MOM "just for the drop goal"!!! There were several better players on the field. The game was decided by one man - and he didn't have a number on his back - he should have got MOM.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:54 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

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.

The only equipment you need in this case is a pair of working eyes (or even one will do); and a functioning TV set. I do know a lot about optics, lenses and parallax as it goes, but noe of that knowledge is needed or relevant when the view from behind the posts just happened to be dead in line, so we can watch the ball set off heading inside the post, and never deviate from that line. It is very simple. I haven't tried to complicate it or call on specialists or whatever, it couldn't be simpler.

Leaguefan wrote:

Somehow ....
Anyway the decision was made that it wasn't a drop goal and guess what. It's history and life moves on.

"Guess what"?
Thanks. Up until we read that, we all thought that life had been placed entirely on pause, and none of us realised that the decision was "history". No, really we didn't.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:58 pm  

HKR Smithy wrote:

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

The same kind of debate that happens in pretty much every sport where referees and tight games are involved?

IMO the only true solution to whether it went over would have been netting, which would have needed to be a lot higher than the posts, or an expensive camera system like PL football has. RL is not going to implement either, so we just have to deal with it.

It is just a game at the end of the day. And IMO even if Bentham was proved right over the call there'd still be plenty of people who insisted otherwise.

Huddersfield should just use this "injustice" as a spur for them to win the Grand Final.