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.

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.

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/wideexplaination_zpsc0384ba9.jpg.html[/url

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).

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/behindgoal_zps4184ad6a.jpg.html[/url

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.

[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/perspective_zps2945fe98.jpg.html[/url

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)...


[url=http://s610.photobucket.com/user/StHelensRovers/media/Broughs%20Drop%20Goal%20Analysed/circled_zps9658a94d.jpg.html[/url

...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.

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

Brilliant Crackador

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

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.

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

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.........

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

Rogues suggested the best angle to adjudicate was from the camera behind the goal as it was central when clearly the best angle was a straight line from Brough through the post and beyond into the stand....as demonstrated by the images and lines by a previous poster.

I though Brough was pretty good in his post match interview; I've had enough of players and coaches regurgitating the usual platitudes ("we lost our go forward"...."They're a good side"...."We've plenty to work on for next week"icon_wink.gif and I thought he was retrained enough yet still showed how frustrated and disappointed he was with the ref's (correct) decision.... I think he's more than entitled to speak out at that point

Huddersfield probably the better team but some good defence from Saints.

I'd suggest if they had a camera behind the sticks, but mounted ether very high(looking down) or ground level (looking up), it may have given us a more conclusive shot.

Only problem with that is it's at least 2 more cameras at a game that would only be any good in this situation, would the beeb or sky consider money well spent?

I genuinely don't think the footage was conclusive.

From behind the goal it looked over and from the other angle (behind Brough) it looked wide. I'd have been upset if it had it gone against us though, no doubt.

Through all the furore of this incident it's worth pointing out that Huddersfild's 3rd try came from a blatant forward pass, yet nothing is mentioned. The drop goal incident has also taken the focus off one of the worst tackles you are likely to see from Ferres.

After all the debate, I decided to go looking for the rules.

Firstly,



This is pretty well known. The more important ruling comes from the general rules of kicking a goal (which for the purposes of definition covers both goals and drop goals)



important bit highlighted. Even if we accept the ball goes over the post, there is no evidence that the whole ball goes over the crossbar (aka the bit between the sticks) - ergo over the sticks is no drop goal. Correct decision. QED

The problem is all the cameras can only see in 2D and a drop goal that is travelling on an angle will eventually be seen passing between the posts.
Its similar to a spinner in cricket pitching off stump and the ball going down the leg side.

The best person to judge would have been Bentham and Brough but Brough turned his back and didn't follow the flight of the ball, Bentham looks as though he judged that the ball needed 20 metres travel and called it outside of the post, the ball carried on another 20 metres and was inside the posts. I assumethe camera at the back of the stand picked up the latter in a 2D viewpoint.

Its fairly simple if you work in computer 3D but I,m not sure if the video ref has the capability to work it out. You would need a camera at the touch line to work out the time the ball leaves the foot and crosses the try line, lets say it was 1.5 secs. You would then go to the camera at the back of the post and freeze frame the ball 1.5secs after the ball as left the foot, if the ball appears inside the vertical post line then it is a goal.

I thought it went over at the game but having watched it back on tv I can't be 100% sure if it did or didn't.

Let’s be honest no one here would bet their life on it one way or the other, and as it can’t be settled 100% goal or not, I suggest we just say, these things happen and just move on. Right or wrong the only thing for sure is Saints are through to the next round, and hudd are out, end of, but it’s good fun to try to out argue each other on here. After all that’s what these boards are all about!

Clear drop goal, because the available video clearly shows where the ball landed.



Can't have hit that point without having gone within the posts.

The interesting thing from that photo above is the position of the cameraman behind the posts. Dead centre of the posts. That was the camera shot that appeared to show it being a drop goal. The one that appeared to show it missing was over 120 metres away.

Regardless of whether it actually went over or not, my and St. Petes point was that it should have been referred to the video ref. Had it been a try or a 40:20 it would have been and that is where it was wrong.

Do you think the video ref would have given it? On two camera angles, there are arguments both ways.

Who gets the [ibenefit of the doubt[/i?
Would the VR rather say no drop goal and go to golden point if they're not sure?

I don't know if it would have been given, but that isn't the point, St. Pete or I were making. It SHOULD have been referred to the video ref. just as a try or 40:20 would have been. We (as fans) complain all the time about lack of consistency. That should have been a no brainer. Bentham had used the video ref on numerous occasions during the game, why not for the drop goal.

I appreciate that, but what do you think the decision would have been ?

FWIW I think based on the "behind the sticks" camera, in the short time available they would probably on balance have had to give the DG. But they wouldn't have had time to notice stuff like where the ball lands.

If it had been given I fully expect Saints would have got the ball from the kick-off and equalized with their own DG, or a wide-to-West try, and am confident they would have gone on to win in Golden Point time.

That would depend on the rules. Is the a benefit of the doubt on drop goals? If so, it would have been given.


Bentham was silly not to go to the screen after using it for "non important" decisions during the game and it would have took him out the firing line.