That "Fantastic" shot may be misleading. The ball when it is close to the camera suggests that it is travelling at some lick, and I just can't see how it could have dipped to the "Fantastic" sign but be in the shot as it was so close to the camera. That suggests that it hits something higher and bounced down. In fact, the shot of the ball close to the camera may be it on the way down rather than going up.

on the 2nd angle behind brough, you can see it hit that sign, it looks to be doing the same thing on the other angle from behind aswell but the BBC cut from that shot a bit earlier.

You don't need to guess, the iPlayer video is there to be watched.

The ball was dropping quite steeply at that point, accelerating rapidly to ground and having spent much of its forward momentum, and the shot you refer to is, of course, of the ball going down - how could it be going up?

There is nothing higher to hit. Unless you count the stand curved roof, which is many, many metres higher and was simply not a factor. But again, you don't need to speculate about any of this - just watch the video.

The "Fantastic" sign shot does seem to make it nailed on, unless Broughy put a real curl on it, although the shots from the Saints end, and your early pics, suggest that the curl was the other way.

I'm not sure if you are really that stupid, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, OF BLOODY COURSE I don't "know". I can never "know". The only way I could "know" is if I had been in the perfect position from which I had videoed the incident and was able to review what i thought I had seen.

That is why we need evidence. That's how it works. My theory was that initially the ball seemed from the back shot to be on a line inside the post. It was that view that intrigued me. So, I collected evidence to test that theory and found a lot. I did not find any evidence that does not support my theory. And some of it, such as where the ball hit the back, cannot to me be explained away. So having done the spade work yes, I think the evidence is conclusive. And so I "rested my case".


I have been rationally analysing and discussing a specific issue and presenting evidence for people to consider. You on the other hand are just wading in with half-baked bull and trying to get in some sort of ing contest argument. Why? I will leave others to judge who's the "grown up".


Now that I have explained to you how it works, as a self-proclaimed "grown up", no doubt you will apologise. Whether or not you do, I for one would appreciate you sticking to the topic and not trying to start some flame war like some drunken tap room bigmouth.

Returning to the topic, I have found an image showing a view directly down the pitch of the stadium towards the relevant end. I have superimposed in the correct location the view of Brough having just kicked the ball, which appears yellow. I have also superimposed on the back wall a yellow ball in the position where it struck the glass.



This composite, incidentally, clearly illustrates how the lines of perspective drawn on it by the original poster are completely wrong.


Here is an enlargement of the centre of that image. (the lines of the seats etc don't precisely line up simply due to the zoom of the two cameras being different, one is a wide angle view, the other a zoomed view so a perfect alignment can't be done)



I think it supports the original theory that the ball maintained a line just inside the post, and it does not support the proposition that the ball swerved or drifted to the left.

Well after reading most of the rubbish on the drop goal that was or never was is it not time to put it to bed no matter what people say it will not change the result it stands so get over it for god sake move on

what happened to benefit of the doubt to the attacking team??

Quote from today's Yorkshire Post rl]www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/huddersfield/drop-goal-referee-bentham-says-video-call-would-not-have-spared-huddersfield-1-6547688rl]
Asked why he did not make use of the replays, he said: “I was in the right position to make the call so got a good view of the kick and it always stays left of the post. To be honest, it didn’t occur to me to go to the video referee as I’d made the decision.

“We’ve reviewed it (Monday) and the video referee says – with the two different camera angles available – it was inconclusive so, even if I’d asked him, he’d have had to come back to me to make the call anyway.

So after reading that statement what process has he failed in? He has stated it always stays left of the post, so why would he then go to the video ref? if you think we should go to the video ref for everything then you might as well watch a game that lasts 3 hours. Phil has done nothing wrong in this incident.

What was the view like from the grassy knoll?

The ref did not go to the video ref - despite his poor position to judge from - and this despite it being the match winner (if it goes over). Given the number of times they go to the Video Ref for less important and obvious decisions you have to ask why not this time? Was he really that sure, was there an "agenda", did he not realise he could, maybe he didn't have confidence in the VR after the knock-on decision?

My guess is that he really was that sure.

If he thought the ball was always wide when the players thought it was in - isn't he experienced enough to have thought - I'm tired and so may have perceived it wrongly? I ought to go to the VR in such an important situation? If not, why not? As to the video evidence being inconclusive .... they're having a giraffe.