: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:14 am  

BALROG wrote:

sorry mate but it hit the very top of the post which pushed the post back, the ball went up in the air and went wide.

Have to agree to disagree

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:18 am  

denbo63 wrote:

Have to agree to disagree

That's what a forum is for

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:19 am  

BALROG wrote:

That's what a forum is for

This is very true

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:32 am  

east hull FC fan wrote:

Because it didn't, it hit the side of the post at the very top......then went through. HTH

Got to agree,i was gobsmacked when the touchjudges waved it away.

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:45 am  

it was called as a miss

complaining wont give us the two added points will it

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:09 am  

Yeamo wrote:

None of the FC players seemed to complain...

FC players rarely complain........They obey the refs decision 99% of the time......Thats how it should be. Its only Sinfield and other over-inflated ego's that question every decision!!!!)

Personally.....sat in the SE corner, it did actually look like it was gonna miss. We were sat directly in the balls flightpath. It hit the post near the top and looked to bounce back 'inwards'.......I thought a goal would then be determined where the ball landed???? Surely this would be proof of the overall acuracy (although....I immagine Mr Tickle will be practicing extra hard this week )

SO......where exactly did the ball land? I'm gonna ask Lenny Lockton this one (apparently he was the fourth official last night!!!)

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:13 am  

Not to sure about the conversion from the far end it looked to have landed to the right of the post. Could of been the angle of course.

One thing i was quite surprsied by though was how low your posts are comprade to other grounds.

I know this sounds daft but it could cause problems with kicking conversions if the kick goes high over the posts. Normally this would not be a problem as kicking conversions etc.

The only reason i mention it is that a few years ago Sale Rugby Union actually increased the hieght of their posts as they belived that when a kick went in high between the posts (potentially over the top of them) the touch judges could not decide if it was in or not.

We had a similar problem last week against Huddersfield when a kick looked in both from the stands and on sky but was not awarded.

Looking at the size of your posts they do seem small a little low.

Any how just a thought . May have helped in this scenario where it looked to hit the top of the post which if higher would not have happened.

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:13 am  

Looked like it was over to me, but i didn't get a very good view, we had some weird decisions re: goalkicks this year, one against Salford bounced off the outside of the inside post veering left and was given and last week we had one disalowd that even Sky guys said was over.

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:25 pm  

It was a goal no doubt about it. It hit the top of the post (so cant have gone over the top of the post as some are suggesting) and fell towards the South stand. Just one of a number of truely baffling decisions on the night.

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:28 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

It was a goal no doubt about it. It hit the top of the post (so cant have gone over the top of the post as some are suggesting) and fell towards the South stand. Just one of a number of truely baffling decisions on the night.

We still didnt deserve to win.