Already a thread about this.

He doesn't need to say with absolute clarity it wasn't a successful kick. He has to make a decision on whether he thought it went over or not. There is no benefit of the doubt here. If he thinks it edged wide he has to say it missed. If he thinks it edged in he has to give it.

[iGoal Post(s) 10. For the purpose of judging a kick at goal, the goal posts are assumed to extend indefinitely upwards.
[/i

What Hudds try/no try wasn't worthy of needing a second look?

Right had to do a bit of housekeeping.

Don't you people actually read the boards before starting a post? Or is it ego that your opinion is so important you can't have it lost amongst the rabble? Jesus.

I'd say the second thing you said.

If nothing else it proves several things.
The video referee system is a joke and it is unfair to clubs in knockout games which are not televised.
There is a word called parallax. Two video views showed different things and the referee saw something from another position.
The referee made a decision on many aspects of the game and that is what he is there for.
Danny Brough should put the energy he puts into his vocal chords into his game.

The ball travels at such a speed so how do you know this? Are you sure he turned away before it went past the post? NO

To be honest I don't think the VR should be used for DG decisions for the same reasons they aren't used for forward pass calls. Behind the goal view looked fine, from the other end it looked no good.

Some have said if it's in line with the posts then it should be given......surely if it's in line it would hit them and bounce away? Too much doubt to give IMO.

Parallax schmallarax, it was clearly a DG from the rear view cam that happened to be dead in line (so issues of schmallarax don't enter into it) and any fair minded person viewing that shot KNOWS it was a DG and if they say different thrust are on the wind up.

The problem with judging a forward pass is that it is judged in relation to a moving player, the movement of the ball in relation to he moving player changes the direction the ball looks to move from the angle it is viewed.

With a drop goal, the view from behind the goal shows the ball on a trajectory going through the posts and it carries on on that path. It cannot do so and miss.

Clearly the ball went over from the view directly behind the sticks, other views are not relevant
I think Brough got under the skin of the ref questioning every decision that in the end when he asked for the screen the ref just waved him away.
Shouldn't have done though.

I just don't see the massive injustice, in this. The drop goal, at best was 50/50 IMO. Brough had 3 previous attempts to nail it. Sending off, obviously a sending off. Only dodgy call was saints levlling 2 point penalty, i thought the player lost it.

However, early in the 2nd half, while attacking the hudds line a saints player had the ball reefed one on one with a huddersfield player stood in front of this picking up the loose ball, so that should have been a penalty to saints for offside, right under the sticks, but it was play on. So those 2 cancel each other out.

It was desperatly agonising for hudds, but no injustice in my book.

surprised no ones mentioned lomax taking robinson out in the air , i thought that would be a certain 10 mins

I don't know but I will bow to your knowledge of optics,lenses and parallax to categorically PROVE that it was a drop goal.
Somehow ....
Anyway the decision was made that it wasn't a drop goal and guess what. It's history and life moves on.

They kinda are.

There were several hits in the air today. Lomax immediately pulls out, but shouldn't of been in the position in the first place (easy to say, hard given he was after the ball) penalty was sufficient - same as the couple of hits makinson took.

They aren't, there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over, that angle and that view cannot exist if that ball doesn't go over

Yes and from another view it doesn't look like one. So which do we go for and why?

It's still the same problem, different results from different angles. Neither 100% certain. Even the first one that looks more like a goal could've hit the inside of the post and bounced away.

The problem isnt this incident in isolation, its the fact theres yet another thread discussing the referee instead of 80 mins of rugby league thats just been played. Its wrong. Understandable but wrong and a sad state of affairs

Apart from the reply from the other end which didn't look like it went over of course,

If it was given then everyone would be arguing for the opposite point. Get over it, we won.

the other one doesn't even dispute that ball go to the area behind the posts just whether it goes to the left of the post before going past it to the area behind the post before curling away again. The other angle proves it went through the post before curling away again.

You cannot have a view from dead on behind the posts that sees the ball take a trajectory through the posts and it not do so.

That isn't what I said. The other angle is irrelevant. We saw the ball go through the post from dead on behind them we cannot see that unless that happened.

The front on view of the DG is not anywhere near as central as the one from behind the posts so distorts where the ball is going (thus looks like it is going wide)
The camera angle from behind is far and away the most telling (like other angles used for tries).
This has the hallmark of a Saints (or big/top 4 team) to win at all costs officiating.
Absolutely no excuse to not go to the VR and as for the knock adjudged by Smith in the first half that is even worse. Even JD called this ffs!
The RFL and its officials are letting the sport down on a massive scale..

You did say, it's back there on the previous page in black and white, go double check.

We saw another angle where it looked like it missed, we couldn't have seen that unless it happened......see how easy it is to debate it.