We don't need Huddersfield in the Challenge Cup if they are going to employ brutal thugs like Brett Ferres. What he did was unforgivable. I do hope he gets a full three months ban (13 weeks).

Bentham's decision to give him a red card was carefully considered, but unavoidable.

Thank goodness Johnny Lomax was OK. It could have been another tragedy like Alex McKinnon's --- in which case Ferres could have been banned for life.

Fantastic post Roy, very informative. Why do you think some referees refer try/no try decisions to the video ref when they seem quite obviously straightforward. I am thinking of when the grounding is obviously good and hasn't been done through a crowd of would be tacklers. Sometimes they seem to be over cautious, or am I missing something obvious?

Thats how i seen it,and for me that penalty kinda led to hudds down fall

Exactly why he should have gone to the video ref.

A good argument for 3D TV

If this game wasn't a televised game with the benefit of the VR I'd agree with you. Unfortunately it was on TV and the option to make a more considered decision was there for them.

IMO Bentham is lucky that on some of the angles it is inconclusive. It really looks so close it might have been good or it might have been bad. But if all angles shows he got the call wrong then he would have cost Huddersfield the game. He really had no idea what the TV replays would show.

The angle which suggests a doubt over the DG is filmed from the other end and from the right of the posts. There is no depth to the shot.

The camera in line clearly shows the trajectory of the successful DG.

Bentham messed up.

For the record...I hoped for a Saints win, but that decision was embarrassingly wrong.

There was no camera angle in line with the kick. There was one behind the posts in which it looked like it might sneak in.
Then there was another angle that looked like it was arcing away from the post.

Neither were in line with the kick.

It wasn't 'dead in line' though - well, not with where the kick left Brough's boot & the post. The camera is instead positioned halfway between the posts. Given the angle created by the camera, Brough & the post, the line the ball is perceived to have taken from this camera angle will be deceiving.

The camera at the exact same position at the other end (behind Brough), because of the different (narrower) angle created by the camera, Brough & the post, probably shows a truer representation.

The biggest problem with deciding whether it was a good drop goal or not is that the kick itself takes an arcing trajectory. It starts off inside the line of the posts, but ends up outside. As neither camera could pinpoint the exact position of the ball at the point it crossed the tryline (and both offered differing perspectives), we cannot be sure whether it was a drop goal or not. I actually think Bentham, with the vision perspective that being on the pitch and being able to ascertain where the ball is the moment it moves over the tryline can give, was better placed than any video ref.

It's the sort of decision that, if it goes against you, you think the world has dumped a great injustice on you. If the drop goal had been given, then Saints fans seeing the reverse camera angle showing the attempt missing would rightly have been just as angry as Huddersfield fans now are. And the same applies the other way (if it had been Saints making that DG attempt).

One thing is for sure, and that is that Huddersfield didn't deserve to lose and, like Luke Walsh said, Lady Luck shone on Saints.

That fact that so many are split on whether it was/wasn't shows the decision to be acceptable (note the word 'acceptable' not correct).

If it is as clear as day then why are so many accepting of the call? And these people aren't saying it definitely missed.....just it didn't definitely go through.

So because some people can't, or won't, see what's in front of their eyes, those of us who can have to suffer?

On the clearest of camera angles, the DG was good, yet some people want to use the weakest of angles to try and validate their opinion.

The people in the 'no DG' camp want to use both angles. The ones for it want to ignore one to validate theirs.

I know who is more in the 'won't see what's in front of their eyes' camp. And it's the 'I'll ignore the one that looks like a no DG because the first one looks so good' camp.

i have a funny feeling that this thread may be a joynt's voluntary tackle type thing

Some seem to be arguing that because one angle was inconclusive we should ignore an angle which was conclusive. The angle from behind the posts was conclusive, the ball was kicked inside the posts, it carried on through the posts. Whatever the angle,had the ball missed, it would have needed to cross the line of the post on that angle. It didn't. Without doing so, it cannot have missed.

Yes it's a difficult decision to make in real time with one view, and yes the inconclusive angle is inconclusive, and yes I can well imagine Bentham having to make a best guess and it is a 50/50 decision for Bentham. But that decision didn't need to be made in real time, didn't need to be made with one view and didn't need to rely on an inconclusive angle.thats where the error was made. Bentham 'guessed' at a very tough decision when he had a video referee able to make the correct decision, with time and numerous angles, one very conclusive.

The ball started on line and was veering away all the time, from the camera angles the beeb showed it was very difficult to see whether it was still on target at the point it passed over the post. Realistically the only way you could tell 100% would be if we had an overhead view, not sure a video ref would have been able to give a decision with any certainty from the angles we were shown.

FWIW I would have given it, but I would have been guessing somewhat, so it's hard to criticise Bentham too much for that decision.