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") 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?