He was, but I'll forgive him

The Laws of the Game say if the ball goes over the top of the post it counts as a goal.

Get the feeling he was rushed back and hadn't had much time in practice beforehand. He kicked the one that mattered though

His kick choices were good, but there were a few that were poorly executed - I think they'll pick up again in the next few weeks.

Lance was exceptional, it has to be said.

Lance was new Lance for the first 20 and old Lance for the remaining 60.

However a lot of players struggled today so unfair to single him out for specific criticism.

Agreed

Ball in hand I agree, his kicking game however was superb. On more than a few occasions did I think he hit it too long, only for it to scuff up and hold in the in goal area (not that it mattered, as Huddersfield were walking down the pitch!)

Spot on. Didn't Iestyn Harris hit the top of the post with a conversion attempt at the same ground in a challenge cup semi final?

Agree that lance was good with ball in hand and his kicking game was very good again. But his defence today was pretty Poor! I counted at least 8 missed tackles and most of them was against Murphy. Hopefully a minor blip as last week he was exceptional in defence.

I thought we got complacent after we went 8-0 up and then seemed to put our heads down and give up when it went to 16-8 until the sending off which gave us belief again.

overall it's the worst we have played this season bar Wakey away and we still won! Sign of a champion side!

And how good is it to have a half back who can win us a game like that despite having one of his weaker games. It's something we haven't had since long.

It looked like a goal to me. But I feel enormous sympathy for Bentham who had to make the decision on the spot.

Bottom line today is that we were the second best team, and after the first 15 minutes looked pretty poor. That was our get-out-of-jail-free card, and we shouldn't try to rely on that too often.

That's the point mate, he didn't need to make the call on the spot, he had the option of the video ref

The only thing that matters is the final score. We won , they lost.

Something that's been pleasing in the last two weeks is our composure. The last few years we've not been great when a game us close near the end and have panicked but today and last week against Leeds we was very composed.

Hudds was total opposite today and bombed drop goal attempts.

The old saints that was successful always stayed composed and often popped up with the win.

Indeed, being able to win when your not playing that well and as you say being able to win those tight battles when you need a cool head is a very good sign for the season

Camera behind the posts at which end?

The one that was at the opposite end to the posts Brough kicked toward, showed it missing. The one behind the same end kicked towards showed it sneaking in.

Problem is that the ball was arcing away from the sticks; it started off inside the line of the posts, ended up outside. As neither camera could pinpoint the exact position of the ball at the point it crossed the tryline (and both offered differing perspectives), we cannot be sure whether it was a drop goal or not.

End of.

The only thing clear is that Huddersfield didn't deserve to lose today.

Rogues opinion is worthless , his old eyes struggle to see through his cherry and $hite tainted lenses. If Brough had missed by 20 feet he would have found (made up) some other reason why we should have lost.

What we can,t be sure of is if the drop goal stood would it had been the definitive final outcome of the game.
Saints kept there composure played the full 80 mins had one chance of a drop goal attempt and took it, Giants had 4 attempts and the rest is history.

I've just watched it and I can't make my mind up.

I understand the point about going to the VR, but there's no conclusive angle that shows it definitely was a goal, or that it definitely wasn't. So how would the VR have decided it?

Bentham was stood in a great position, so surely it's the refs call in that case.

I think Bentham should have gone to the screen 100%.

At the ground I wasn't sure but watching the TV replays the screen showed an inconclusive decision for me, therefore no goal.

I think Giants fans (and others who clearly want us out) should lay them blame for the defeat with the brain fart from Ferres.

His stupidity was the defining moment of the 80 minutes for me.

Giants will miss him and Brough for the next few weeks.

Over or not it would not be enough to make the win solid.

Personally I though the spear tackle is what killed the game for Huddersfield. Without it I thought we looked very rough as a team and they would have won without a drop goal.

I've looked and looked and basically I can't decided. As we get 2 versions one is over one is not and we have no idea where the ball is in relation to the ground. All the Huddersfield fans are sat on the sides and so have very poor angles, Saints fans are miles away.

Brough turns his back before it goes over. The ref says no, Walsh says yes.

I still think we were lucky to win, but I'll never be able to say for certain after watching it about 10 times it's still debatable.

I was listening today and its definite yes he could have gone to the Video.Was it that close to call in all your opinions?if so Bentham made an error by not using the technology.It was permissible to use

Well at the end of the day my opinion is that i am still unsure. How some can say it is clearly one or the other is plain ignorant. We had two camera angles, one showing it go over; one not. However, Bentham saw something none of us saw and so i feel if he didn't think suitable to go the VR then it mustn't have gone over or he is biased and wanted Saints to win. I am a firm believer that no refs are like that though. It's their job and i bet they go out there hoping to get every call right.

on the balance of things it probably was a goal. Will anyone care by August? doubtful

It may become to Hudds what Joynts "tackle" was to Bradford

On first viewing I thought it went over, the more I watch it, the more unsure I am.

Of course ref's aren't biased ,but its what you get on these forums

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.