Awful decision - From the body language of the players, the only person on the pitch who believed it wasn't a drop goals seems to be Bentham.

One thing I've always struggled to understand is how short the uprights are in League at many grounds, including our own.

As for whether it was a a good drop goal, I'd have to say yes. Doesn't matter now, however!

Until I got home an hour ago I didn't think you could go to the VR on such occasions. Having seen the various angles I don't think you should be able to. I don't understand how people are talking with such certainty as I genuinely can't decide whether it went over or not. If I was Smith and the decision was referred to me I would have to send it back down as ref's call.

In these situations I think we just have to respect the decision on the field. Who'd be a ref!

I'm completely with you on this.

...........so refer it upstairs to get a second opinion on a crucial moment, if the call comes back indecisive THEN disallow it. Don't just wave it away and toddle off with your nose in the air and a superior smirk on your lips.

I doubt anyone would be quite so magnanimous if it had happened to us! I certainly wouldn't.

The big difference for me is that the angle in front was not central whereas the camera from the rear was of a decent height and dead ; that should be the only angle that mattered. Bentham was too close, not ed and at way too low an angle to accurately say if it was a drop goal or not. At the very, very least he should have referred it upstairs. As RD said: this isn't just 2 points; it's an entire competition Hudds have been screwed out of.

With regard to Bentham, does anyone care to explian how Walsh got a penalty against McGillivary when it was a penalty to Huddersfield? And what for? It changed the momentum of the game.

PS no way Bentham could have judged that drop goal , he was looking straight upwards at a tight angle. At best an idiot, at worst corrupt.

You do have to feel sorry for Hudds in the league we would just brush this off but they have been robbed of a fifth round spot and a great tie with Leeds.

This. And ignoring the constant lying on and niggling at the play of the ball by Saints made for a shocking spectacle by Bentham.

The problem with Bentham's position was that he was too close to the posts. The kick went so high that he would have been looking straight up, and I'm not sure that the posts would have even been in his field of vision.

From different camera angles, sometimes it is not possible to judge what has happened, irrespective of what it was. The video ref has the benefit of viewing various cameras to objectively make the correct decision. When judging the grounding of the ball the VR will request a number of different cameras to see if it has been grounded. The fact that the previous ones he has viewed do not show the ball being grounded, is irrelevant, if the subsequent camera can clearly show a correct grounding (even without the benefit of the doubt).

The forward camera angle is inconclusive, primarily because, due to the lack of depth perception, and the slightly angled position of the camera, it is impossible to judge when the ball passes over the try line (and therefore the posts). However, back to my previous point, just because one angle is inconclusive, that doesn't mean that all the other evidence should be disregarded. In fact the opposite is true, the only conclusive evidence is provided by the camera behind the posts, and it went over, it should have been given. I would like to think that had it gone to the VR it would have been given.

BTW, debates like this have gone on in other sports for so long they have become part of the game. In fact they are part of what makes football, football. With a world cup on the horizon, All I can think of is Russian linesmen, 'The Hand of God' and Frank Lampard's goal. Perhaps we need a few more of these contentious decisions to get everyone talking about the game.

This really is a non-debate. Every week for the televised games we have to endure endless slo-mo replays of tries to establish is an errant fingernail fragment knocked the ball on, if a loose cotton thread from someones jersey applied downward pressure or a stray lace from a wingers boot brushed the touchline for a nanosecond.

And what does the patron saint of idiocy do, for a genuinely game-changing event? Ignores technology, common sense and the foam coming from Danny Brough's mouth and lords it up like a folicly-challenged John Holdsworth.

The VR ref might not have had any better angles to work with but he could have frozen the shot and at the very least do Huddersfield the courtesy of a brief check, if only to appease them.

Maybe Bentham was on a promise. I sincerely doubt it, so I can only assume arrogance and/or idiocy.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with regard to fan's frustrations. We've seen Bentham go to the VR for decisions my visually impaired cat could have given, yet for tight calls, nothing!

Takes some explaining doesn't it?

Not really. If he saw it and was sure it missed, why should he send it upstairs?

You've never been a ref then, have you?

As a ref you can only ever call what you see. If you are not in the best position, then you turn to the players and say 'sorry lads I didn't see it'. In my experience most players accept this, and don't mind the odd bad decision. Shake it off and get on with the game. Decisions even themselves out, unless you are no longer in the competition.

Point is; why was he (Bentham) so sure it hadn't gone over? I think it did, but my opinion maters not a jot. His however does, and I'm not convinced he could have been sure it hadn't gone over. Therefore it should have gone to the VR.