how on earth was that dg not given..well done bentham you should be dropped

Nah, punishment for decisions like that is normally you get a televised match next round, so don't be surprised to see Bentham reffing Hull v Hudds, or Castleford v Saints.

Then against, Catalans are on Sky at home, so his punishment may be a jolly down to Perpy.

An astonishing decision, made all the worse by his reluctance to use the technology and common sense to rule on a game changing moment.

Arrogance and incompetence .... a dangerous mix.

It, s not the first time this season that bentham has favoured saints and probably wont be the last

The issue was that the ref didn't go to the video for me.
From behind the posts it was a goal, from in front it didn't look like it.

Different angles different outcomes, the video ref would have gone with the onfield ref, no dropgoal, nothing to see move on.

The real disgrace is Brough having as many opportunities as he did and not getting one.

You can speculate on what the video refs decision may have been as much as you want, but the point is the ref didn't refer it to him. There is no way given the height of the kick and Bentham's position he could have been certain and at that stage in the game it was a game-defining moment, and he should have double-checked it ANYWAY.

He doesn't go to the vid ref but the outcome is the same, so arrogant Bentham aside it's still the same result.

So no controversy no matter how you dress it up.

From behind it looked over. From infront I wasnt so sure, until you use the seats behind the uprights as a guide and you actually notice that the ball does not swing out enough to be "outside". Therefore....two angles, multiple video reviews would eventually conclude that it WAS a drop goal.

Bentham was superbly positioned in front and in line with the post it may have gone over. Have drop goals ever been referred before? The video ref had two poor angles to go on which contradicted each other. I'm surprised the BBC didn't even attempt to prove it either way with some technology.

You can try to defer it by saying the ref was in a great position, then query if DG's have been referred before, then mention these so called "poor angles" which contradicted each other, but the crux of the matter is that the DG was good. Brough said so, Luke Walsh said so. There was no contradiction in the camera angles. Both show the ball going over. But why should you care? You got away with it, you were in the hat for the 5th round. Maybe you didn't get the draw you wanted, but I suppose that's karma for going through on a contentious decision.

For clarity, I thought it went over too. Just saying the video ref wouldn't have had anything to prove that with.

The camera in front was from the right and it looked to go over the post. ...that says to me it was a good kick.
The rear camera slightly to the left shows the kick within the sticks.
You cannot change the laws of physics. ..that was a goal.

The Lancashire mafia strikes again.....what do the RFL have against teams from across the Pennines?

Now if this was a try or no try situation, then the issue of "benefit of the doubt" would be raised. I don't think it would be feasible for that to come into play when it comes to a drop goal, but it begs the question, if BOTD is only available for one particular point scoring effort, then what's the point in having it if it's not available for everything....