No, they "no's" want to use an angle from outside the far right hand post, to try and suggest a miss. Look again...both posts nearest that camera are screen left.

The decisive camera angle clearly shows the ball not travelling across the post...it's a clear goal. The other angle is just noise.

Again, I wanted a Saints win...

The clearest no camera angle comes from behind brough, in the centre of the stand the saints fans were in.

The clearest yes was from behind the sticks.

Bentham was closer to to the former rather than the latter. Neither were conclusive enough to rule out the other. Ergo, the on field decision should and would stand.

Spot on. Bentham was in the perfect spot to view the exact position of the ball as it passes the posts. Couldn't have been better placed. And that he was confident enough not to use the VR when he'd used him several times in the game previously speaks volumes.

At best it passed over the post, but neither of those angles prove conclusively that it passed inside the post while certainly the opposite angle hints strongly that it missed.

The 'no's' want to use both. Had it been given I wouldn't haven't minded. In fact I'd say about 65% it was a goal. Just not stubborn enough to rule out both possibilities to dismiss one angle as simply "noise" whether or not it's as good as another proves this.

absolutely shockingly biased refereeing today from bentham, a pretty good game determined by one man, not the 34 warriors on the field who all gave 100%
i feel absolutely gutted and dismayed tonight.

saints would have probably won the game with a man advantage anyway but mr bentham made sure that huddersfield wouldn't win today, even saints fans i spoke to were apologetic and slightly embarrassed.

what was a fairly decent game was decided by a referee which is not what the game is about.

We all on TV saw two camera angles of the DG attempt. One suggested that the ball went narrowly inside the uprights. The other suggested that the ball went narrowly outside the uprights.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough was successful because they wanted Huddersfield to win/wanted Saints to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests success to be correct and discount/discredit the other angle.

Some people believe (or will want to believe) that Brough missed because they wanted Saints to win/wanted Huddersfield to lose. Those people will consider the view that suggests it missed to be the correct one and will discount/discredit the other view.

Some people despite which team they wanted to see win the game will take the view that two camera angles shown suggested two different situations and that the flight of the ball took it not very far from the upright, whichever side of the upright it was on when crossing the tryline. With conflicting evidence for both success/failure no definite conclusion could therefore be reached. The officials then have to make a call on a 50/50 incident, that is what the ref did.

You are clearly in the first group and to you the angle suggesting success is strong and clear and the angle which contradicts your view/wish is weak and wrong. To people in the second group the reverse will be true. Just because some people do not agree with you doesn't mean that they "can't or won't see what's in front of their eyes". It just means that they don't agree with you. Nothing wrong with that, this was a 50/50 decision after all.

I am in the third group, there were two contradictory angles and whether the ball went inside or outside the posts as it crossed the line there wasn't much distance between the ball and the upright from either angle to definitively confirm which side of the upright it was on. The ref made a call on what he thought happened and as he obviously couldn't be certain that it had gone between the uprights he couldn't award a point that would have won the match. He left the scores level. He could have asked the VR but given the two angles and conflicting evidence I doubt the VR would have been able to confidently award a match winning DG either.

This has made my day. Put your dummy back in.

I feel your rage

we said that at the time, it seems teams playing huddersfield are immune from red/yellow cards..wire should have had a player binned last week...nothing, but yet officials don't need a 2nd invitation to show a card to huddersfield players.

ferres had to go today so im not referring to that, although should that happen against us, you can guarantee it would be just a penalty and on report!!

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Can't stand Hudds and a Saints win is far better for the competition in my opinion.

I am in the group of people who wants refereeing standards raised and refs and their paymasters be held accountable for their actions.

The reaction of the players suggested it was good - they were on their way back for the KO before PB ruled it out...

haven't seen a re-run yet but it wasn't just the drop goal that got our backs up, he gave saints everything in the last quarter.
as i've said, no problem with the ferres red card, but how can a player stand up and shove the marker and get a penalty? how can a player lose the ball and get a penalty under the posts?
i might change my mind once i've watched it back but right now i feel that my team have 'been had'.

i should also add, congratulations to st helens and good luck for the next round.

When it happens to a big club, it gets 13 pages; when it happens to us, nobody gives a toss.

At risk of enraging Huddersfield fans, I repeat what has been said to me; "It evens itself out over a season - get over it."

More sensibly - it really is time that the officials were made significantly more accountable for their actions; the lack of such is creating arrogance, complacency and contempt for both players and fans of the game.

Ignore the part about wanting a Hudds win then (a minor point anyway), but you are definitely in the group which wants to discount the camera angle from behind Brough because it suggests that the attempt was wide and thus contradicts your opinion (you labelled it the weakest of angles). You cannot pick and choose which angles to use and which to ignore because they don't support your opinion. You have to use all the evidence presented and draw conclusions based upon all of it. This incident was, no matter how much you wish to protest against it, a 50/50 decision with conflicting evidence sufficient to support either side of the argument but with no evidence to conclusively prove either that it was successful or that it missed. You only think that Bentham needs to be "held accountable" because you don't agree with his decision. Half the evidence suggests you were right, half the evidence suggests he was right. Nothing is there to prove it either way.

It wouldn't have been a try though because for some reason Bentham hurriedly blew instead of letting the play pan out and then going to the VR.