Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:00 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I'm 80:20 that it did. I can't see why they couldn't come up with some technology to prove it either way though. For example send a beam of light up from the posts see if that's breached.

I'm not suggesting we need this technology at games, but just to prove whether it was or it wasn't. I'd love to see someone prove it wasn't just to show all the reactionists crying foul on here and twitter.

We didn't have that technology available to us at the time though. It wasn't Sky but the BBC and the BBC had two camera angles available and they were inconclusive as one showed it just about going over to the left while the other showed it just about missing the left upright. That's all Ian Smith would have had available to him as video ref.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:05 pm  

It makes me laugh when I see people like Rogue's with his say what you see attitude or Danny Brough's "What's missing about that?" opinion. Whilst I wish I could clear this up using elaborate mathematical equations and physics, I think a basic knowledge of geometry and common sense will do. This all revolves around why the two angles appear to show different outcomes, this is simple - perspective! And how people point to how the ball looks inside the sticks without even thinking of perspective just beggars belief. From this angle, we can see the moment the ball is kicked, it is roughly 6ft from the approximate spot of the post - using the pitch lines (I've gone over them in white). The yellow asterisk is where the ball would be on the try line (all measurements are of course approximate). So from behind the goal, the thing that is catching everyone out is how the ball looks inside the sticks for most of its journey. We can now use the same reference spots from the previous photo (I have changed the hue so the lawn lines appear sharper). We know the ball is 6ft outside the sticks, but look - it already appears inside the sticks from this point. The fact is that the ball needs to make up 6ft of ground. Here is the true perspective of the top of the sticks. At this point, given as I say I am not qualified to work out distance x time etc, we rely on common sense. Does the ball appear inside the corridor of the lines? Of course that is only one still and proves nothing, but I would say think about this perspective and the reference points I have given and watch the video yourself. I have examined it and I am very confident it didn't And that is why, on that angle ^ the ball looks to be sneaking in (if you imagine the lines not to be there)... ...but on this angle the ball appears wide. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I would hope others would think a bit harder about what they think they saw before berating Phil Bentham. I believe the ball missed by by a comfortable enough distance and Phil Bentham was stood in a perfect spot to see it. He is not stupid (banter aside) he would have known the connotations by going up to the video ref, if he was not 100% he would have used that, enormous pressure off his shoulders, but he also knows the video could give false impressions, so he must have been 100% confident.

It makes me laugh when I see people like Rogue's with his say what you see attitude or Danny Brough's "What's missing about that?" opinion. Whilst I wish I could clear this up using elaborate mathematical equations and physics, I think a basic knowledge of geometry and common sense will do. This all revolves around why the two angles appear to show different outcomes, this is simple - perspective! And how people point to how the ball looks inside the sticks without even thinking of perspective just beggars belief. From this angle, we can see the moment the ball is kicked, it is roughly 6ft from the approximate spot of the post - using the pitch lines (I've gone over them in white). The yellow asterisk is where the ball would be on the try line (all measurements are of course approximate). So from behind the goal, the thing that is catching everyone out is how the ball looks inside the sticks for most of its journey. We can now use the same reference spots from the previous photo (I have changed the hue so the lawn lines appear sharper). We know the ball is 6ft outside the sticks, but look - it already appears inside the sticks from this point. The fact is that the ball needs to make up 6ft of ground. Here is the true perspective of the top of the sticks. At this point, given as I say I am not qualified to work out distance x time etc, we rely on common sense. Does the ball appear inside the corridor of the lines? Of course that is only one still and proves nothing, but I would say think about this perspective and the reference points I have given and watch the video yourself. I have examined it and I am very confident it didn't And that is why, on that angle ^ the ball looks to be sneaking in (if you imagine the lines not to be there)... ...but on this angle the ball appears wide. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but I would hope others would think a bit harder about what they think they saw before berating Phil Bentham. I believe the ball missed by by a comfortable enough distance and Phil Bentham was stood in a perfect spot to see it. He is not stupid (banter aside) he would have known the connotations by going up to the video ref, if he was not 100% he would have used that, enormous pressure off his shoulders, but he also knows the video could give false impressions, so he must have been 100% confident.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:10 pm  

Tuco wrote:

One problem with League over here is generally the posts are not tall enough.Look at the NRL and even Union's upright's,they're almost twice the height of our posts bar Headingley.Was only a matter of time before something like this happened.

RFL need to increase the mimimum height allowed.

A lot of grounds that double up as footy grounds tend to have smaller posts to make life easier to swap round,

they made a good point on the radio, what if that game decided who stayed in the league?? Could happen could kill a club going down because the posts weren't tall enough to make the right call

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:14 pm  

Brilliant Crackador

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:16 pm  

Great post Crackador, might want to post that here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=567315&view=unread&tsmp=1396822530#unread

Great post Crackador, might want to post that here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=567315&view=unread&tsmp=1396822530#unread

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:18 pm  

I was pretty much in line with the left upright. My reaction immediately was to say it would have hit the post had it been tall enough.

Anyway, I will check my newspaper in the morning if its not in I guess it missed.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:34 pm  

My view no drop goal, I did say to the guy next to me that you couldn't say to much if it had been given but I truly believe it was wide.

Ref not using video ref, he was in a good spot and happy it was wide, I don't think for a second he was thinking about the angles the VR would of had he saw it go wide so did his job and called it.
He did use the VR in the game a number of times Sean Lunt with 3/4 players around him for a grounding hard to see live, one for offside form a kick again can be difficult to check the whole line at the point of the kick.

If he had used VR for the goal one shot goal the other wide, never happened before so would it be given benefit to the attack??

Wembley here we come

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:45 pm  

Spot on - how would the video ref have decided whether it went over or not. Two angles different outcomes.

and the video ref did not necessarily get earlier calls correct.........

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:55 pm  

There's more Huddersfield supporters posting on that thread than were at the game. It was embarrassing how empty their ground looked.

Re: Was It a drop goal for Brough : Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:44 am  

Twentyman wrote:

There's more Huddersfield supporters posting on that thread than were at the game. It was embarrassing how empty their ground looked.

that's a different issue