Clearly the ball went over from the view directly behind the sticks, other views are not relevant
I think Brough got under the skin of the ref questioning every decision that in the end when he asked for the screen the ref just waved him away.
Shouldn't have done though.

I just don't see the massive injustice, in this. The drop goal, at best was 50/50 IMO. Brough had 3 previous attempts to nail it. Sending off, obviously a sending off. Only dodgy call was saints levlling 2 point penalty, i thought the player lost it.

However, early in the 2nd half, while attacking the hudds line a saints player had the ball reefed one on one with a huddersfield player stood in front of this picking up the loose ball, so that should have been a penalty to saints for offside, right under the sticks, but it was play on. So those 2 cancel each other out.

It was desperatly agonising for hudds, but no injustice in my book.

surprised no ones mentioned lomax taking robinson out in the air , i thought that would be a certain 10 mins

I don't know but I will bow to your knowledge of optics,lenses and parallax to categorically PROVE that it was a drop goal.
Somehow ....
Anyway the decision was made that it wasn't a drop goal and guess what. It's history and life moves on.

They kinda are.

There were several hits in the air today. Lomax immediately pulls out, but shouldn't of been in the position in the first place (easy to say, hard given he was after the ball) penalty was sufficient - same as the couple of hits makinson took.

They aren't, there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over, that angle and that view cannot exist if that ball doesn't go over

Yes and from another view it doesn't look like one. So which do we go for and why?

It's still the same problem, different results from different angles. Neither 100% certain. Even the first one that looks more like a goal could've hit the inside of the post and bounced away.

The problem isnt this incident in isolation, its the fact theres yet another thread discussing the referee instead of 80 mins of rugby league thats just been played. Its wrong. Understandable but wrong and a sad state of affairs

Apart from the reply from the other end which didn't look like it went over of course,

If it was given then everyone would be arguing for the opposite point. Get over it, we won.

the other one doesn't even dispute that ball go to the area behind the posts just whether it goes to the left of the post before going past it to the area behind the post before curling away again. The other angle proves it went through the post before curling away again.

You cannot have a view from dead on behind the posts that sees the ball take a trajectory through the posts and it not do so.

That isn't what I said. The other angle is irrelevant. We saw the ball go through the post from dead on behind them we cannot see that unless that happened.

The front on view of the DG is not anywhere near as central as the one from behind the posts so distorts where the ball is going (thus looks like it is going wide)
The camera angle from behind is far and away the most telling (like other angles used for tries).
This has the hallmark of a Saints (or big/top 4 team) to win at all costs officiating.
Absolutely no excuse to not go to the VR and as for the knock adjudged by Smith in the first half that is even worse. Even JD called this ffs!
The RFL and its officials are letting the sport down on a massive scale..

You did say, it's back there on the previous page in black and white, go double check.

We saw another angle where it looked like it missed, we couldn't have seen that unless it happened......see how easy it is to debate it.