Went wide for me. One angle shows it marginally heading over, but on the second angle it is clearly wide until it has long passed the uprights.

Very close, but wide. But why not go to the video ref - unless of course the ref had a great view and saw it clearly wide. Which would be the reasonable explanation.

Bentham was in a good position to see it for himself. Im unsure if it went over or not as the shots seem to show different things.

No I didn't. And no, that angle showed it may have missed. The other showed it did go over.

You said "there is no possible trick of sight where that ball does not go over".......

But in the quote above you've just said "that angle showed it may have missed."

End of argument.

I predict a smokey 'I'm right I'm right I'm right'-a-thon....

No, there is no trick of sight from the angle of behind the goal. It goes over. That angle is not a trick of sight. The trajectory in relation to the camera, it takes shows it could not have been

It is possible for another angle to not be as clear. I readily admit there is one. That however would be a trick of sight. And the problem there isn't whether it goes behind the posts but whether it's trajectory takes it through the posts or to the side of the posts and then behind them, the other angle obviously clarifies that.

Yes, 100%

Just heard on good authority that Nigel Wood is in a right panic, They've got the carpet lifted but nobody can find the brush!

Except that isn't true is it. We have the VR.

Walsh lost the ball so he has every right to go for it. Walsh had no right to stand up and strike him.

The point is Bentham had lost the confidence of the Huddersfield players at that point and effectively he briefly lost control. When players feel hard done to and unfairly treated they get frustrated and more aggressive. If it weren't for that string of penalties I do not believe Ferres would have been sent off and a player potentially badly injured. There can be serious repercussions of poor referreeing. If Ferres gets banned so should Bentham, IMO.

So Bentham in some peoples opinions makes some iffy (but hardly shocking calls) so that means Ferres is led to pile driving Lomax WWE style?

As to JD's MOM "just for the drop goal"!!! There were several better players on the field. The game was decided by one man - and he didn't have a number on his back - he should have got MOM.

The only equipment you need in this case is a pair of working eyes (or even one will do); and a functioning TV set. I do know a lot about optics, lenses and parallax as it goes, but noe of that knowledge is needed or relevant when the view from behind the posts just happened to be dead in line, so we can watch the ball set off heading inside the post, and never deviate from that line. It is very simple. I haven't tried to complicate it or call on specialists or whatever, it couldn't be simpler.

"Guess what"?
Thanks. Up until we read that, we all thought that life had been placed entirely on pause, and none of us realised that the decision was "history". No, really we didn't.

The same kind of debate that happens in pretty much every sport where referees and tight games are involved?

IMO the only true solution to whether it went over would have been netting, which would have needed to be a lot higher than the posts, or an expensive camera system like PL football has. RL is not going to implement either, so we just have to deal with it.

It is just a game at the end of the day. And IMO even if Bentham was proved right over the call there'd still be plenty of people who insisted otherwise.

Huddersfield should just use this "injustice" as a spur for them to win the Grand Final.