Sorry I slightly misread your post, but the point still stands. How can you say that any of the decisions are meaningless because each decision changes everything that happens after it.

Ferres gets sent off (rightly) you concede a try.
Brough had 4 attempts FOUR in front of the posts every time IN FRONT OF THE POSTS.
One camera angle has him missing, possibly the same angle Bentham saw it at.

Walsh from further out, one attempt, sails through the middle.

Yet Bentham robs you?

Don't get me wrong I'm gutted at the result but to attribute that loss to to PB is ignoring the fact you couldn't close the game down yourselves.

Everyone arguing it missed is clearly ignoring the fact that at least one linesman had his flag up- so he didn't think it had missed. Given that the officials weren't in agreement then Bentham SHOULD have referred it.

How can someone at the SIDE of the pitch possibly tell if a ball has gone through if it is above the posts? Impossible.

Did a touch judge flag that the DG had gone over ?

If Bentham got the drop goal decision wrong, it doesn't matter how many attempts Brough had.

Two camera angles show two different outcomes, it would then go back to the ref's original call, which is no drop goal.

If you watch the BBc footage shown after the match of all 4 of Brough's dg attempts it is clear that saints players charging the kick were many yards offside. Walmsley on the last was about 1.5m wide of the ptb. If it wasn't over then its a penalty. But like many Saints offences Bentham wasn't interested.

Given Ganson's interference at Wakey we should not be surprised. Bentham wants to ref finals. Ganson is the real problem, in the last year all refs have got worse

You can have as many angles as you like, if the one from behind the sticks shows it go through, it's a goal. What next, disallow a try because only one angle shows the grounding?

Would have been interesting if it had been the Australian system of 2 referees, the one behind the Giants players would have had the best view as he would have seen it at a natural angle not looking up as Bentham had to. I think the real problem was Brought kicked it far higher than 99% of drop goals possibly because of the 3 attempts that had gone before but yes he should have gone to the screen but if the video ref would have given it is a totally different matter although the break in play would have helped our defence get organised and I doubt Saints would have got in such a good position to take their pot shot.

How on earth would a touch judge know?

Clutching at straws. It didn't go over, the camera angle which is closest to the view Bentham had showed it didn't go over. Brough missed 4 attempts, Walsh hit his first, you lost.

If I was a Hudds fan i'd spend less time berating the ref for a perfectly good decision and more time berating Ferres for an utterly disgusting tackle that could have left a player with a serious injury.

Try opening the other eye and seeing the decisions that went your way and not just the ones that went Saints way because there were plenty.

Are you now blaming Ganson as well? What has he got to do with it? Was he signalling from the stands to Bentham?

Apart from the drop goal mistake he should have penalised the saints player for a voluntary tackle at the end of the game he just dropped down to the floor without a Huddersfieldplayer touching him, something saints are good at I remember it happenning in a grand final when Chris Joynt did the same thing to win the game I think it was against the Bulls in 1999 when they won 8-6

True and not something I noticed until watching the end of the game back on TV. But did he turn down the easy 2 points early in the half, we are if anything a team too content to take the 2 but in this case it was a must and the kicking tee came on but we went for the try, the referee did not help us but we need to be more savy and street wise.

Human being makes error shocker! Even the VR wouldn't have had sufficient evidence to overrule the decision - so what is the issue here? Hudds lost, move on!