One point: Broughy is left-footed, so any arc would be outside of the post and then in, making it feasible to miss and still hit that sign.

*ducks*

Can you get that sentence translated to English please?



I have doubts over it. IMO the pictures are inconclusive. I think Sky possibly have the tech to prove whether the ball was a goal or not, I am sure that there are dozens of land surveyors in West Yorks who could determine from the position of the ball and where it hit whether it was a goal. I think the Hudds players could work it out themselves after training.

But I don't trust your judgement.



The VR wouldn't have been able to rule on it. Bentham would have had to make the judgement if the game wasn't televised, so we've got to have some degree of trust in his decision making ability.

Not if hitting it with the outside of his foot with the intention of curving it back through the centre of ( or near enough) the posts.

Speed of the ball? As the ball leaves Broughs foot, it's travelling at it's maximum velocity, which means other forces acting on the ball are minimal - as the ball reaches the top of it's trajectory, the initial (kicking) force is minimal, meaning smaller forces acting on the ball have greater influence on the ball direction

But we simply do not see any change or changes of direction to left or right. Watching the video shows a ball behaving perfectly normally, no swerving or any noticeable or unusual changes in trajectory are seen on any angle.

The video from behind Brough follows the ball until just AFTER the moment when it starts to descend. At that point it is way past the posts, and hasn't behaved in any unpredictable way yet. It is also clearly bang on line to end up where it de facto does end up.

the video from the back of the posts similarly shows no erratic or unusual movements, just a steady rise, and fall.

I don't therefore see any reason to introduce considerations of any additional forces, S bends, swerves or anything else into the equation since there is zero evidence from what we can observe of any such things, and since Occam would hate it.

the ball waggles a bit I think that is clear but nothing as pronounced as some are stating and certainly not to move it from its trajectory which is also clear from the footage and from the stills produced.
For it to be within the posts, move outside the posts before it reached them and then bend back to where it landed on the glass window would take some fantastical (get it..lol..I'll grab me coat) movement in the air as to be a double banana shot.

Bentham looking up from his position isn't in the best place, he's too close to the posts really and by the time he looks up he sees the ball too late and already high above the upright and already through, he hasn't seen the trajectory, he's guessed it and because it is a tough call he's gone with a no goal when clearly process says he must/should go to the VR.
In any other scenario within the game he would go to the VR yet he failed to do so on such a crucial decision where he didn't have the best of views or wasn't able to turn to view quickly enough.
It's still a goal that was incorrectly disallowed, all the clear evidence shows it was a goal, dismiss the front on view (as a VR would to get the best/clearest view of any incident) because it is too angled hence why you go to the angle that IS clear!

You were presenting evidence and I didn't wade in, I asked an important question. How do we know at what point the ball is level/crossing the goal-line?

You admitted you didn't know but then said the evidence is overwhelming......well it isn't. The evidence is incomplete is you can't solve a key issue.

You are the one who has gotten angry and feisty with everyone who questions your findings. I asked how evidence can be overwhelming yet you admit you don't know the answer to a key part of the problem. A totally valid question but you just screamed back something along the lines of me being childish and you should be left alone to talk to the other grown-ups.

Cracking thread this!

Surprised no one has mentioned that from 2 of the 3 camera angles Luke Walsh's DG looked dubious.

No doubt the angry anteater will get his crayons out for that one too

St. Helens won!
Anything else is irrelevant.

hi phil

And Saints players spent an inordinate amount of time OFFSIDE charging down Drop Goals and yrt Bentham never noticed and never gave a penalty amazing. That was probably all the Giants fault as well because if they had scored with the first DG and stopped messing around cocking them up and missing them then he would have been able to give the one that went over !!!!!!!!

Can't quite believe I'm doing this, but there we go...

Brough is about 2 metres to the left of the upright. That is clear to both sides of the argument. The ball crosses the touchline just after picture 3, possibly even after picture 4, certainly no earlier.

Because you are looking THROUGH the uprights, the ball appears to be between them and that's where the confusion lies. However, as it reaches and passes the posts it is clearly outside them.

If it had been a successful drop goal, the ball should never appear outside the post from the perspective of the camera. But it does, and it does at approximately the point it crosses the touchline.

Brough is to the left of the upright, he kicks it on his left foot, and as it passes the upright the ball is clearly outside. It's marginal, a matter of inches, but then have a look at picture 1 and see who's in the perfect position to view all of this. All he does is follow the line of the upright and he can see the ball is either over the post or inches wide.

OK I have now done a composite of the path of the ball, and as this is the actual path, as per video, and not a "plot" it indisputably shows that the ball travelled with none of the deviations your effort suggests.



In my opinion the ball crossed the goal line at about the point where it had just cleared the line of the highest blue seats. However that particular opinion is just an assessment from watching the video from available angles and based on nothing more scientific than counted timings, so I would not claim it as definitive. But the ball is still (marginally) climbing at that point, and continues to do so for several more frames until it starts to fall at which point the video ends.

I see no reason though to depart from the indication from behind the posts that the ball was on a line inside the posts and as I think this graphic proves that the ball did not deviate or swerve or move off a straight line in any noticeable way, then the evidence continues to support it being a good DG.

Heheh, don't be ashamed, it's perfectly normal!


I do not believ so, for the simple reason that the ball was not bound to go above the uprights. If Brough had kicked it on a lower path, and it never had gone above the uprights (but other than that, stayed on exactly the same line) then i don't see how you could possibly conclude it could somehow have moved wide. I repeat, there is no appreciable L to R movement of the ball during the first part of its journey.


That is the fatal flaw in your argument. You ignore perspective. As it nears the cameraman, the ball inevitably moves well outside the line of the posts and so drawing vertical lines from the illustrated position does not help. I did previously explain this issue, and also posted an image which shows this, here it is again:



The ball in this image is now, from the cameraman's perspective, in a direction well wide of the posts. Any ball kicked in the direction of the cameraman will as it approaches him, eventually "appear outside the post from the perspective of the camera" except for a direct hit on him.

I would ask you to hazard a guess how far to his right from a straight line that ball is, though. I wouldn't say much more than a metre or so myself. As the width of the posts is 5.5 metres, this is another indicator that he DG was good, even allowing for Brough's field position. Don't forget, we know the cameraman is dead centre.

As for the ref's position, I agree with those who think Bentham did not by any means have the best view, he had a glance at a ball way above his head, standing facing 45 degrees or so into the field of play, and thus having to lean his head back and effectively look up past the vertical behind himself. I do not side with those who think the decision was anything other than honest, though.

Is there any way to measure how far to the right of the pitch centre line the ball ended up, though?

Maybe yes.

It occurred to me that we have some definite information with regard to that last image:

1. We know that the camera is dead centre in relation to the pitch. We can see this by looking down th pitch. The camera is right in the middle of both sets of posts.

2. We know the dimensions of a regulation rugby league ball.

If we know how many balls' width the ball is from centre, we know ho far it ended up from the centre line of the pitch. I have therefore simply replicated the image of the ball, and as you can see, the answer is, approx. 7 balls width from the line.

Making an approximation of 200mm per ball, we can estimate that the ball ENDED UP only 1.4 metres or thereabouts from in line with the centre of the pitch. We know when kicked it was maybe 4 or 5 metres from the centre line of the pitch.

It doesn't matter how far away the ball is from the camera. As long as all the virtual balls are identical, we can measure, and due to the camera being central we can know for sure how wide out the "real" ball was at this point.

QED?

Watched it on I player and it's clearly in. I blame the lack of Huddersfield supporters behind the goal. If there had been more there and they'd risen as one like the Saints ones did the ref would have had his answer and given it!

When is this going to stop the ref gave what he thought was right if he was wrong we can not do any thing about it now for god sake get on with life

I used to love the old "Spot The Ball" competition in the Yorkshire Post, but alas, I never won. You lot must have cleaned up every week.

Strangely, earlier, on the Hull KR forum,

There's nothing normal around here.


Of course, with the ball so close and to the side of the camera it will appear outside the upright. Also, I disagree the ball travels in a perfectly straight line. It's common for rugby balls to deviate in flight and it looks to me that as Brough is stepping sideways as he kicks it, he slices it marginally and it does travel in a very slight 'S' pattern.

Even taking camera perspective into account, the following is true from the pics I posted:
Pic 1: the ball is left of the upright, by 2-3 metres. It has to be; Brough is left of the upright and kicks it on his left.
Pic 2: the ball is still left of the upright, by approximately the same margin.
Pic 3: the ball is in line with the upright (this is before it crosses the goal line).
Pic 4: the ball is outside the upright, and remains outside.

Even if passes the goal line as early as pic 3, it's missed (or hit the post). However I am of the opinion it hasn't crossed the goal line at this point, which is vital because if it passes it at any point later, it has to have missed - for the reason it is clearly already outside the upright, having passed the line of the upright. If it was a successful DG, it would appear to be inside the upright at some point and it doesn't.

Anyway, regardless of graphics or us lot overcomplicating things, Bentham is in the absolutely perfect position to view the ball as it crosses the goal line, whereas TV angles can be deceptive and I doubt the video ref would have made a call. I see no reason not to believe Bentham made the correct call. It is extremely marginal, but correct.

This thread is brilliant. I'm hoping it becomes as legendary as the 'Joynt Voluntary Tackle' thread from back in 2002.

But it does! And it's clearly visible on your own depiction above.

So true!


Yes, and so you understand the point, but what you still fail to take into account is that
a) the ball "appearing" to be so far to the right, relative to the post, on a 2D image, is an optical illusion and
b) the exaggerated effect of the illusion as the ball gets very near is exaggerated the nearer it gets - but exists, to an exponentially increasing extent, from the moment the ball leaves the boot.

This is key, because you base your conclusions on which instant you "think" the ball was over the post (which in fairness has to be a guess, even on a 3D screen or in real life unless you have synchronised end-on and goal-line cameras) but I base my conclusions partly on the fact that if the ball from brough's boot to crossing the plane of the posts had already moved from not between the posts, then it could not have ended up where it did without swerving.



And I have posted a number of composite images, none of which show any swerve on the ball. The most recent composite in particular shows to all intents and purposes a steady and standard parabolic curve. There is no EVIDENCE of any such movement so even if it happened, it cannot have been anything other than insignificant, if we cannot observe it.And if you watch the videos, none of these appear to show the ball swerving about either.

Anyway I think i have done all the work I need to do, the final piece in the jigsaw was the Eureka moment when I realised that from the shot of the ball approaching the camera, we can actually work out with precision how far from the centre line of the pitch it ended up.

The only way to move forward would be to accurately plot a line from the (known) point of the kick to the (also known) point of impact with the glass wall, on a scale plan, and see if that line takes the ball inside, over or outside the post. If inside, then if you think about it, it MUST HAVE been a DG unless the ball [iset off[/i outside the posts, [ipassed[/i outside the posts and only then curved right. And my composites I think visibly completely rule out any such movement having occurred.

Unless and until someone is able to complete the task by doing such a simple plan, I don't think I can do any more work that would add to what I have said, and so far as nobody has produced any credible evidence against my workings out, I remain convinced that the ball must have passed just inside the post - just like it appeared on live TV.

But i might.. If I think of owt else!