cant believe what i have read about the mcgillvary/walsh incident !

jerry tackled walsh, walsh lost the ball in contact on the ground, jerry appealed for a knock which i could see sat directly across from the tackle...and got up with his arms out then got shoved by walsh

surley this is pen to giants...but no... as usual it goes against us

he didnt hold him down at all

The Matthew Ridge last minute drop goal attempt in the RLWC semi final of 1995 against Australia at the same venue was more clear cut.

When those who say it definately went over are saying this, have they watched it from both sides. How anyone can be definate when 2 different perspectives give 2 different answers is beyond me.

Also the drop goal would not have ensured the win. Dropping someone on their head will ensure getting sent off.

Why was he "confident" when 25 players and 7,150 spectators thought it was in? Was he tired?

There is a limit to the tricks angles can play. A ball cannot start inside the post, continue on a trajectory inside the posts, not deviate from that path, and it have not gone through the posts regardless of what angle it is viewed from.

The problem with those images is a question of depth, we dont know whether the ball has passed, is passing or is to pass the try line. That isnt a problem on the whole video because we have many reference points to judge the depth.

Apologies if this has already been asked, but I'm too lazy to read 18 pages. Why don't we insist on taller posts? In RU (for obvious reasons) they're bloomin' massive and I remember ones of similar height in RL, at least much of the time.

To me it looked a clear 1 point from 1 view, and not so clear from the other (the other being from the same side the ref was viewing). Horrible call for the ref to have to make. He may have got it wrong, but he's got a pretty good excuse if so.

Give over you worm. A one eyed supporter ? It was a penalty all day long to Saints and the only reason this is up for debate is because the ref took to long making the decision and the linesman gives it. Jermaine is on top of Walsh claiming for the knock on (which is holding down).

The only major decision he got wrong was the Brough drop goal.

Maybe something to do RL being played on soccer grounds. It seems the shared stadiums have smaller posts. Probably for ease of building, dismantling and storage.

Given this thread, I dont think there were 7,150 supporters who thought it were in. Even if it were unanimous, the lack of understanding of the rules shown in this thread would still cast doubt over the decision!

With technology these days the VCR should be able to review and be 100% sure.

Can anyone say conclusively whether it's true if the ball goes over the post that it's counted as in?
Because I can't seem to see anything in the rules that says this.

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)



Highlighted the important bit ...

Any use of camera angles sited in the middle of the posts in fatally flawed. Camera angles are curved, to give as wide an angle as possible. The camera referred to in the pictures posted above are a few yards to the left of the post concerned and so can give a false positive (or negative). The only camera angle you could use would be one directly behind the actual post, not in the middle of the two.

To give an analogy, imagine trying to decide if a football has crossed the goal line using a camera that looked along the six-yard box. You'd never get right if the ball was in the air. It's the same here.

The only person in line with the actual post, and looking up, was Bentham.