Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:13 pm  

I've had time to analyse the footage now and after running it through some software that is very similar to the hawkeye software you see used in cricket and tennis, the correct decision was given. The ball did miss the uprights, here's the images of the exact moments the ball crossed level with the crossbar. Behind the sticks: In front of the sticks: I believe the issue with the behind angle looking like it went over is depth perception. Upon analysing the results I found that it looks like the ball crossed the point of the posts much earlier than it actually did. The ball when it left Brough's foot was travelling in the correct direction to go over the posts, when it reached halfway between brough's foot and the posts it had actually drifted enough to clip the posts 1/3 of the way across. By the time it reached the point of the posts it had drifted wide. This drift coupled with the false depth perception was the reason the ball looked like it went over when in actual fact at the real point of the ball reaching the try line it has drifted wide. People wanted conclusive evidence, it doesn't come much more conclusive than that. I understand a lot of fans probably won't accept it out of blind ignorance because it doesn't suit them but the correct call was given.

I've had time to analyse the footage now and after running it through some software that is very similar to the hawkeye software you see used in cricket and tennis, the correct decision was given. The ball did miss the uprights, here's the images of the exact moments the ball crossed level with the crossbar. Behind the sticks: In front of the sticks: I believe the issue with the behind angle looking like it went over is depth perception. Upon analysing the results I found that it looks like the ball crossed the point of the posts much earlier than it actually did. The ball when it left Brough's foot was travelling in the correct direction to go over the posts, when it reached halfway between brough's foot and the posts it had actually drifted enough to clip the posts 1/3 of the way across. By the time it reached the point of the posts it had drifted wide. This drift coupled with the false depth perception was the reason the ball looked like it went over when in actual fact at the real point of the ball reaching the try line it has drifted wide. People wanted conclusive evidence, it doesn't come much more conclusive than that. I understand a lot of fans probably won't accept it out of blind ignorance because it doesn't suit them but the correct call was given.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:18 pm  

Blobbynator wrote:

What about the blatant forward pass in the build up to your 3rd try?

Decisions go for and against you.

Stop whinging like a b!tch about it. I've lost respect for Huddersfield this week after the comments coming out of the club including a pathetic statement.

Their "protest" thread is equally amusing. It's the claim that they're a "small club" so get victimised by refs against the "big clubs" ... Remind me where they finished last year?

Their ultimate argument is saints would be like this if it were the other way around. I'd be more concerned about why with 2 minutes to go we let them get from a 20 metre tap to within dropgoal range! Control your controlables and all that

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:45 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

I've had time to analyse the footage now and after running it through some software that is very similar to the hawkeye software you see used in cricket and tennis, the correct decision was given....

People wanted conclusive evidence, it doesn't come much more conclusive than that. I understand a lot of fans probably won't accept it out of blind ignorance because it doesn't suit them but the correct call was given.

Whatever software it is, (what is it?) it bears no relation to Hawkeye because you simply do not have the different camera angles to combine, GPS like, into a position in 3D space. There is no way to triangulate in three dimensional space from 2D images especially with no side on view, with any degree of accuracy and certainly not to pinpoint the position of this ball.

Secondly even if you were able to work out the precise frame in which the ball crossed the plane of the posts, you could not tell from the reverse view image which side of the post the ball was on unless the camera was precisely in line with posts and original kicking position, which we know it is not.

Finally, your shot from behind the kicker does not take into account that the camera is to the right of the vertical plane of the ball. Therefore you are entirely reliant on having correctly guessed the exact frame when ball and plane of posts co-incided. The evidence I have posted tends strongly to suggest your estimate is not correct.

I have no axe to grind and am just interested in this as an academic exercise (you may have noticed ) and I am afraid that your evidence is flawed and therefore not conclusive at all.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:49 pm  

Let's put this to bed now. It was 100% a drop goal as we won by a drop goal. It's getting boring now.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

snip

There's three images, the two replay images and the original side on image of the live in play which is used to triangulate the images, though 3 angles is not ideal I completely agree, it's all I had to work with. The software isn't published and is something I'm working on in conjunction with a field leader at my institution so I can completely understand people not considering it credible if you wish to do so!

I can't go into too much detail (as I'm sure you understand, with it not being published) but it works, in a very basic form, by pin pointing an object and following it's path from differing angles, of which there was 3 but ideally could have done with 4.

In this circumstance the object was the ball, the front and reverse angles provided the trajectory in an 'x plane' whilst the side on angle provided a 'z plane', I had no 'y plane' to work with due to no angle from the top (spider cam would have been perfect in mapping any mid air movement the ball made and I could have actually provided a clear projection of the ball).

As it were I could only work out the frame in which the object passed a certain point. By analysing the flight of the ball from the side angle, until it went out of view, I could apply a simple SDT algorithm and find a time frame of which the object would have passed the point. By then comparing it against the front and rear angles and applying the same SDT algorithm you can get this point more accurately (I had to speed the replays up into real time by comparing the flight of the ball against the real time side angle which was a massive pain).

When I had found the frame which the ball crossed the plane of the points I plotted the line of the posts indefinitely and compared the relative position of the ball, which was outside the line of the posts. I completely understand what you're saying about the relative position of the camera but I don't think it makes too much difference in this circumstance, unless my calculations are way out and the ball is at least a couple of metres before or past the point of where I think it should be, which I don't think any error would be that large.

When I say the software is like hawkeye, it's in that it uses differing angles to analyse flight of an object, it doesn't use the same algorithms and as you've quite rightly pointed out a flight projection isn't possible due to the lack of angles but you can perform an accurate SDT object analysis from the 3 available angles.

Please do point out anything that you think may be wrong in the analysis as it'll help to hopefully get a more accurate and conclusive result. I just wish there was an angle from the other side or top as well as I could map that without any problem!

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:24 pm  

St pete wrote:

Let's put this to bed now. It was 100% a drop goal as we won by a drop goal. It's getting boring now.

I actually find it quite interesting trying to find a conclusive answer when arguments are reasoned and justified such as FA's.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:30 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

I actually find it quite interesting trying to find a conclusive answer when arguments are reasoned and justified such as FA's.

I read the newspaper Monday morning and it said it missed and then showed the draw for the next round and we was in it so that's good enough for me

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:34 pm  

Boots n All just showed an analysis of it that the sky techs have been working on. Strangely enough there stills from behind the post are at what appears to be the exact same point as mine so they've obviously reached very similar conclusions in their calculations.

They also played a video with an indefinite post stretched up and the angle from behind showed that the ball doesn't once cross the outward plane of the post from leaving Brough's foot.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:46 pm  

Job done then. After all that we were too generous, it was not a drop goal, Brough turned his back too soon, I expect a full retraction by all Huddersfield fans around the same time the Bradford ones put theirs in over the none voluntary tackle from Joynt.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:13 pm  

St pete wrote:

Let's put this to bed now. It was 100% a drop goal as we won by a drop goal. It's getting boring now.

It is getting boring now?



So, there's this guy. Let's call him Pete. Pete goes on forums. Presumably gets the concept of threads.

There's this thread. It's called "Was it a drop goal for Brough". (This contains a clue to the contents).

Pete doesn't want to talk about the Brough incident any more. Because it is boring him now, and he got better shiit to do with his time. So what does he do?

I'll tell you, because I don't think you'd guess. He goes to one of the few places where he can guarantee that the topic of discussion will be boring to him, namely the "Was it a drop goal for Brough" thread! You may not be surprised, but he finds it boring. I am not sure whether Pete was surprised. I sense he may have been, as I detect a tad of irritation because he then wastes more of his time, when he could have exited the thread and done something interesting, posting to the people who obviously aren't yet bored by it that he is bored by it. Because, I think, he believes this knowledge will in some way be a useful thing for those people to share.

Personally I find rugby union quite boring. Maybe I should go take in a match at the weekend so I can tell the people there I'm bored?

Brilliant, Pete! You gave me a laugh, anyway.