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.

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.

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.

rlAccording to this article, the video ref would have referred it right back to the on-field ref as the camera angles were inconclusiverl

Shame really that this was the one live match where the ref hadn't been wearing the head camera. After all the mocking done by the likes of Stevo et al, the headcam would have been a really valuable resource to show one way or the other to everyone else as it would have followed Bentham's eyeline.

I believe that the referee only goes to the video ref when he is unsure of what his decision should be.
Unlike you he was sure that the drop goal attempt was wide. This being the case he had no need to go to the camera. He also had a clear view of the Walsh drop goal which of course he gave.
Post meant for Rogues

I'll be running it through some software I have that will pin point the moment the ball went past the point of the points using a comparative algorithm from the 2 angles we have.

This should then allow me to draw lines up from the posts, on both angles, to show where the ball is relative to the posts at the point it would pass the cross bar. If I get time to do it that is!

Looking at where the ref is positioned then you would have to say he had a good view of it and called it as he saw it.Brough has turned his back so is in no position to say he got it.

And the Lunt no try from non existent knock on early doors? Hohia voluntary tackle? Stinks