Ever helpful, here's a ground plan, I've drawn (very) approximate lines for glass boxes, dead ball line, and Brough's position but it does look as if the glass box is appreciably closer to the dead ball line than Brough's kicking position. Certainly it is not further back and I actually think Brough kicked from a little bit further back than I have sketched..

How long are you going to carry on bombarding us with your amateurish Paint creations before you give up and go away?

Your posts seem to contain a lot of words and phrases such as "approximate," "roughly" and "not entirely accurate."

It's hardly scientific is it? You're making yourself look very silly now.

Just remind us all who you support. I actually agree with most of the unbiased fans on this forum who say it Was a GOAL. Had the positions been reversed you would have had steam coming out of your ears, so don't defend Bentham just because he gave you the win.

If FA has done that on Paint i wouldnt call it amateurish. Its pretty bloody good. I think its actually a picture.

The point remains, it looks shoddy, amateurish and desperate.

Who the fsck are you though? What have you ever contributed that is of any use to man nor beast?

Let me guess - you're a Saints giraffe, and you don't like the evidence that it was a drop goal? Aww, poor love. Or is the stuff I post too hard for you? tell you what, when you're back at skule, ask your maths teacher to go through it with you!

I don't know why you are so upset, you did go through, you know?

Plots aren't wrong - I can assure you. I followed it through double and triple checking to make sure it is right.

Your plot of the yellow dot is actually wrong. When it's kicked it's in line with the Foxy Bingo logo and next bit is near the gentleman above, as shown here.

Point A



Point B



At no stage does it go through the marker you've put down (which is the gap between the logo and the F).

With the red line, I haven't accounted for the rebound off the window. Still that's irrelevant. You can just assume it hits the window in line with the yellow X.

I'd love to post lots of pictures for you but I'm going out to the football at 4:30pm. Funnily enough I'm going to the Galpharm but will gladly take a picture behind the sticks if this helps you?

One thing in Bentham's favour over this example is that at least Bentham was at the right end of the ground.

This was an approach I was thinking about.
Looking from above and drawing two triangles. I'm pretty confident that you could consider Brough to be 23 metres away from the try line and 2 metres to the right of the post. If he hits the ball straight over the post, then the angle of the ball's path to the line perpendicular to the try line will be calculated by Tan X = 2/23
Then if we work out the position of where the ball strikes the glass and draw a line between that and the same post, then we work out the same angle on that side (call it Y). If Y > X, then (assuming the ball travelled in a straight line) then in must have gone through the posts, but if Y<X then it will have gone wide.
However, looking at the iPlayer, I'm finding estimating the perpendicular distance from the try line to the sign hard to estimate, perspective and the sloping effect of the seats.
If the ball hit the glass 2.5 metres to the right of the post, then the sign would have to 28.75 metres back to ensure the ball went straight over the post. If it were further back, it would imply a miss, closer a goal. I could quite believe that the sign is 30 metres back, but then my estimates of the other distances may be off.
How wide are a set of goal posts?

Where was he stood? Oh yes, in perfect line with the trajectory of the ball and the left upright. You couldn't possibly have a better view to judge it.

I didn't add the yellow ball - it is just a copy of the OP's screen grab - I didn't change anything. The yellow ball I added was only the one on the glass that it hit.

I understand you think you're right, but as a ball can't weave around like that, then as a matter of common sense, something is plainly wrong.

Probably not as I'm in the wrong stand.

If you think I'm wrong plot the ball tonight with your tech. But I've only altered it's trajectory once, and that's - as I've pointed out - is when it swerves slightly to the left hence the jolt. As I was doing it on paint, this change probably isn't the smoothest but it definitely does and both angles show it clear as day. I find it really surprising that you can't seem to see it. The rest just goes up and falls behind with gravity as normal, just on a different route to the one you think.