Whatever happened to "Benefit of doubt to attacking team?" If he was in any doubt at all, he should have asked for a second opinion or, failing that, given B.o.D to Broughy.

Looking at every available camera angle, the ball was either over the post or over the upright. Either way; the goal should have stood. To come up with a decision like that on nation television when the technology was available was an insult to our game.

There wasn't a single person or camera in a better position that Bentham at the point the ball went over the posts, at the base of the left-hand post, looking up. I can't imagine how Ian Smith would have coped with trying to work it out, given the differing camera angles, and the impossibility of working out when it had passed the posts.

I agree it looked a goal but what's the distinction between the post and the upright? Aren't they the same thing?!

A Huuds fan with a bit of sense, a rarity at the moment!

if i had been at the game i would have had a totally different outlook i believe .its much easier to be relaxed when far away
from the action

bentham should be stood down for 1 game at least.

warned people before about him when he refs our games but i just get shot down...seen for yourselves again...child's is not far behind him

the rfl is bent