Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:59 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

They kinda are.

Oh right so the touch judges can't make a call as to whether the ball goes over the posts from directly behind the sticks either then because a skewed angle from the other side of pitch is just as relevant is it?

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:59 pm  

Re the Brough DG attempt

1. Should have sent it upstairs
2. Whatever the decision, either Hudds or Stains fan would be here now saying it was the wrong decision...

The TV shots were inconclusive to me.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:14 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Re the Brough DG attempt

1. Should have sent it upstairs
2. Whatever the decision, either Hudds or Stains fan would be here now saying it was the wrong decision...

The TV shots were inconclusive to me.

Pretty much.

If it was given the other way, we'd have the same posts and dicussion on here, the only difference is the aggrieved posters would have saints avatars and names and not huddersfield ones.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:17 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Re the Brough DG attempt

1. Should have sent it upstairs
2. Whatever the decision, either Hudds or Stains fan would be here now saying it was the wrong decision...

The TV shots were inconclusive to me.

There is the benefit of the doubt video decision available.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:33 pm  

Looked like a pretty good DG to me.

One thing that will haunt Broughy is his "Cheating c***ts" tirade that could be clearly seen on TV.

[Kosh]

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:48 pm  

Genuine question - has a DG ever been referred to the VR? Does anyone know if it's actually within the remit of the VR to rule on DGs? I can't recall a single instance and I've seen a few dodgier decisions that today's.

Also bear in mind that the ref has to have some doubt to even think about a referral. Given that the camera angle nearest to Bentham's position appeared to show the ball sailing over the post rather than between them he may have been 100% sure in his own mind that it missed.

If you want to point the finger at a single individual for Huddersfield losing then look no further than Ferres. He doesn't make that idiotic tackle then Huddersfield win.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:52 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Genuine question - has a DG ever been referred to the VR? Does anyone know if it's actually within the remit of the VR to rule on DGs? I can't recall a single instance and I've seen a few dodgier decisions that today's.

Also bear in mind that the ref has to have some doubt to even think about a referral. Given that the camera angle nearest to Bentham's position appeared to show the ball sailing over the post rather than between them he may have been 100% sure in his own mind that it missed.

If you want to point the finger at a single individual for Huddersfield losing then look no further than Ferres. He doesn't make that idiotic tackle then Huddersfield win.

Wasn't their one from lee briers vs Leeds at headingly many years ago referenced up to the vr?

You're correct, Bentham is clearly satisfied he is capable to make the call, there isn't a moment of indecision. Ultimately, if were calling for that, we might as well have every decision looked at, regardless of how confident the ref is in making the call.

If brough had hit it like Walsh, and it goes sailing through the posts, there wouldn't of been any doubt.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:55 pm  

broadybull87 wrote:

Posted the same on the hudds board, really hard to tell, unless you are with right above it or right under it

The nearest person to have that view was, oh yes the ref himself.

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:03 pm  

Bentham should be stood down for a game or two for todays decisions

Re: phil bentham : Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:12 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

If brough had hit it like Walsh, and it goes sailing through the posts, there wouldn't of been any doubt.

Did Walsh's go through though? From one angle I saw it from, it didn't.