If you read it and thought about it rather than being on your little subtle wind up you would realise the fault in his arguement.





then says

.

Therefore he is not adamant it did not go over because he is accepting some doubt because the posts were not high enough and that would have helped him to be more adamant.

How adamant was he 70, 80 90%.

If there was doubt go to the VR even if it had been referred back to him. That is why i am annoyed.

All that rubbish about refs have to make decisions we dont want to go the VR all the time.

He went to the VR on how to start the game and should he give a penalty for a marginal contact to a player in the air when Lawrence tackled Lomax.

Yet on a huge fundamental decision he did not want to go to the VR.

Bull Mr Bentham and you know it.

FA - thanks for posting that image.

I've redone my expert "paint" analysis on the picture and this is proof in my favour.

The ball clearly deviates.

As per last image, red line for straight based on the plot points you've put on and if it didn't deviate at all.

Yellow for the ball points you've put on. There is a slight deviation that takes it over the post in the majority.

Not necessarily.

In his opinion, from his view - better than anyone elses, imagining the posts extending indefinitely upwards he believes the ball missed/was no drop goal. There is no doubt in that decision whatsoever.

What he's saying is that if taller posts existed then it would have put all this to bed with no controversy. It's just a matter of fact, not an highlight of doubt.

He has also confirmed that the video ref - because of the element of doubt from the video - would have reverted it back to him from three foot away from the posts so it would have been the same outcome.

Unfortunately though your system of "joining the dots" to make a plot is not being done accurately enough. I appreciate your effort but this is producing a result which you may want, but which is demonstrably wrong.

Neither of your "plots" is a real-life trajectory.

To prove this, here is the image with nothing but A PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE placed so that it just grazes the left of the ball images as they rise. Not a plot. No estimates, just a computer generated standard straight line.




This clearly shows that for most of the illustrated rise, the speed of the ball forwards relative to the movement to the right, is so much greater that the rightward apparent motion is hardly visible. It only starts to become apparent right at the very top of the ball's rise. That is because it's upward motion relative to the camera is rapidly decelerating, whereas the movement on the horizontal vector along which Brough kicked it (which of course appears on a 2D image like movement to the right) maintains a constant rate. Your yellow and red lines are just demonstrably inaccurate.

Anyway enough of all that. For a bit of fun, I have drawn 2 images which show the path of the ball from the point of the kick, to the known point of impact, if it had gone in a straight line, like a bullet. Had Brough kicked it in a straight line like a bullet, of course, we couldn't be having the pleasure of this excellent thread.

The first image shows the trajectory coming across the front of the post

The second image shows the same trajectory but photoshopped so it looks like it is behind the post.

As I say, that was just for fun, but it does have a serious side, and I find the "front of the post" version appears more convincing than the other, not least because the "behind the post" version appears to need the ball to be not "through" the post but appears to pass the post at least a foot to the left. Though as ever with this discussion it certainly isn't clear cut. But the first version, "in front of the posts", appears to show the ball passing narowly inside the post, and appears to back up the view from behind the posts. It looks right.

As I said before, the straight-line model depends on the relative distances of Brough and the point of contact to the posts. In extremis, if the point of contact was on a plane directly connecting the posts (ie directly above the cross-bar) then the kick goes through the sticks and well inside. In the other hand if the stand was a mile behind the posts the kick was well wide. If the stand is a little further away from the posts than Brough was it could have missed. If he was closer it was a goal.

I know the ball went very high, but not [ithat[/i high!

But it's still your best guess, as is mine. I'm confident my images show it to be outside the post, you're confident yours show otherwise. I'm not gonig to convince you, and as much as I get what you're saying your images don't convince me. Unless we can pinpoint the EXACT moment the ball crosses the goal line and cross-check both images, we'll never be certain no matter how many graphics we throw together.

But again, according to my images:
Pic 1: the ball is kicked left of the upright, by 2-3 metres. It has to be; Brough is left of the upright and kicks it on his left. It is nowhere near the goal line.
Pic 2: the ball is still left of the upright, by approximately the same margin. Still some distance from the goal line.
Pic 3: the ball is in line with the upright - this is absolutely key, as this is still before it crosses the goal line. At whatever point it crosses the goal from here, it's not a DG. It simply can't be, even taking camera angle into account, unless the ball suddenly veers right, which it doesn't.
Pic 4: the ball is outside the upright, and remains outside from here. Because we now know where the ball started out side the post and never came inside, we know this to be the actual case and not a trick of perspective.

Therefore, it can never have been inside the upright. We can take perspective into account because we know the starting point of the ball relative to the post (to the left) and as we follow its progress we can see it was at best over the post but probably outside it when it crossed the goal line, and therefore not a DG. The camera is far enough from the posts that the angle at that point actually makes little difference. What does matter is when the ball crosses the goal line and I'm off the opinion that was between pic 3 and 4, and therefore wide.

Seems boots and all have waded in on this one too. Sadly for the hard done to lot, they may not be leaning your way either.

Sky are clearly in on the conspiracy too!

I'm expecting this protest against the RFL to be good, we are protesting because we want the rules to be broken and a none drop goal to be given as a drop goal.

It's a catchy tag line.

I was leaning more towards it being a drop goal, but I'm expecting that those calling cheat, robbed, etc will be busy writing their apologies to Bentham.

Have you read some of the suggested planned protests on the Hudds board to stick it to the RFL?
Protesting at Hull this week, protesting at Magic weekend, even.....wouldn't it be great if the team beat the record of most DG's in a match to show them buggers at the RFL!

I for one am certainly making a mark in my diary for these protests.


For all the 30 pages thread on the VT, this has made no ripple at all in the outside media. In fact the next day in the sports section there was zip about a missed drop goal.

So the follow up protest by the 12 out of say 200 people who go to Hull FC will be amazing. I'm just wondering if the protest should now become an apology brigade.

Lets wait and see.

I blame the BBC for their shoddy camera work.

Had the game been televised by the superior Sky, then we'd all know for sure whether it was a drop-goal or not and Phil Clarke would have added the final authoritative touch to proceedings.

Unfortunately, Sky aren't interested in the Challenge Cup therefore they wouldn't have televised it anyhow.

It's still good to blame the BBC for everything though... Oh, and the RFL wherever possible.

I heard both Nigel Wood and Steve Ganson had a direct line into Phil Bentham's earpiece and told him not to give it.

THat one person has mentioned and most other posters think it is faintly ridiculous and pointless but dont let the facts get in the way.