Er, so no.

Personally, I'm quite enjoying it. It's our game's Russian linesman.

Whilst I have no desire to get drawn into the "it was a drop goal" "no it wasn't" war of attrition currently occurring :-

Due to the nature of a rugby ball, slight S shape paths are more than possible, especially when the ball isn't kicked cleanly (and travelling end over end) - it is dependent on the way the air moves around the ball. In fact double S paths are even possible (but more than rare) if hit in the correct way.

I could post the background mathematics for this ... But I'm not going to. S shape paths are possible with a football (and becoming more and more common as free kicks become more and more technical)

MS: Is that what you're referring to? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained.

MS: Is that what you're referring to? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect I did think of angular momentum in first instance too when explaining the science bit but thought it would possibly make me look thick so refrained.

like the ladies on a night out in St Helens

Yep. And all this without any camera shot noticing the ball doing these things.

As I said, I'm not getting involved in this. The actual debate on this matter left about 10 pages back, it's now just 2 sets digging their heels in refusing to give leeway to the other,

The yellow path fully posted doesn't look totally infeasible from my first look on the matter. Therefore it cannot immediately dismissed. That's all I'm saying.

Given brough is standing ~3metres to the left of the left hand post - and the ball supposedly hits the glass to just the left hand side of the middle ~2metres inside the left hand post - over a space of ~35metres - a travel path of inflexion, or an S bend travel path is credible and possible.

It doesnt look infeasible to me either. But there are a billion different paths which feasibly a ball could follow. It did only follow one and that wasnt it.

No - it really wouldn't.

The ball goes up at a certain angle but drifts to a more upward/left trajectory but still moving slightly right taking it over the post.

It still moves right after the posts as it curves and comes back down, hence why it smashes into a window in the middle of the posts. This happens because it moves x distance -> whilst it moves x distance ^ forward.

Really isn't hard to understand.

That's not what my original point was - I have neither the technology nor the desire to add to the numerous photo evidence already on this thread - the path in question posted couldn't be dismissed for the reasons originally given - whether his, or yours or anyone else's plot points were correct I have no idea.

Im sorry but a ball cannot take a left trajectory whilst still moving slightly right. Thats just nonsense.