Re: Bentham

Owd Codger · Post by **Owd Codger** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:39 am

It s not the first time that Bentham has been the subject of controversy in a televised cup tie. Remember the sending off of Andy Coley for nothing in the cup tie at Leeds.

On Saturday, he also had the help of a touch judge on the near side in the second half who seemed to be going out of his way to help St Helens with a couple of flag waving interventions and if you noticed, Bentham asked for his opinion on the sending off of Ferres.

As for the drop goal by Brough, any referee with sense would have gone to the video referee over the drop goal but are they allowed to do that for a drop goal?

highland convert · Post by **highland convert** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:55 am

I wonder how much Brought contributed with his imbalance comments to B re stains penalties a couple of minutes before. Brought certainly went to put his hand on Bentham. One of the reasons I cancelled sky sport. This is the first uk game I have seen this year. By the looks of things I am not missing much. That game was turned in what appears to be a deliberate manner by the ref. on Premier I get eight nrl for a tenner and far better value than this drivel. HUD should sue for lost income. What's the bet Anderson gets fined for his comments.

josie andrews · Post by **josie andrews** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:56 am

Huddersfield Giants coach Paul Anderson still fuming over controversial Challenge Cup call

Angry Giants coach Paul Anderson is still fuming after his side were denied a morale-boosting Challenge Cup triumph over in-form St Helens by a controversial late decision by referee Phil Bentham.

A last-minute drop goal from Australian scrum-half Luke Walsh helped unbeaten Super League leaders Saints snatch a 17-16 victory in a thrilling fourth-round tie at the John Smith’s Stadium.

Walsh’s winner came a minute after Huddersfield stand-off Danny Brough’s drop-goal attempt was adjudged by Bentham to have gone wide of the target, much to the anger of the Giants captain.

Anderson, who also had vice captain Brett Ferres sent off for a reckless challenge on Saints full-back Johnny Lomax in the 65th minute with the Giants winning 16-8 at the time, claimed he did not have a clear view of the kick.

But he questioned why the match referee did not refer the crucial call to video official Ian Smith, who was called on five other occasions to make decisions, including that of a goal-line drop-out.

“Brough’s adamant he’s kicked it,” said Anderson. “I’ve not seen it yet but I’ll stick with my captain. He’s telling me it’s gone over, and it’s been shown on the TV it went over, too.

“My question is, we go to the video referee for every little decision with regards to points - why couldn’t we go for that?

“When there’s an actual match-deciding moment we don’t bother. I would have thought that whenever there’s any doubt about a key decision we should use the video referee if he’s there.

“I just thought we were behind the eight ball all the time, and whether we were given a fair crack of the whip, I’m not so sure.

“When it came to the sending-off, I’m not sure I can complain about that, to be honest.

“But, overall, this was a very tough one to take, because I thought we did enough to win the game.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/rugby-l ... n-6926631?

Owd Codger · Post by **Owd Codger** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:46 am

The camera shot showing what looked like it was over the posts was from the camera at the opposite end of the ground and showing the ball at its full height between the time Brough kicked it and the time it descended to post level.

Therefore, the shot from the nearer camera behind the Saints posts was the most accurate and should have been looked at and accepted as the decision.

devon jim 1 · Post by **devon jim 1** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:43 pm

cpwigan wrote:It looked over to me. Surely Bentham must be disciplined / dropped?

I thought,at first blush it was over But having seen Bootsn'all prog I have my doubts as to whether it did or not.Even if Bentham had gone to the Video Ref he probably like me would have been left confused.I think on this occasion disciplined/dropped suggested by CP would be inappropriate or harsh. What did interest me was the suggestion by John Kear that Saints were off side.I have always held the view that only the team in possession of the ball could be called 'off side'.It seems to me that referees and pundits alike constantly refer to cases where players not in
possession of the ball who encroach within the 10 metre rule,where applicable are said to be 'off side' when clearly(to me at least)they are 'not in play'.With this in mind when teams are defending their line and the PtB is within 10 metres of the Try Line they should be have both feet behind the line If not they are 'out of play'(not off side) and a penalty could be awarded to the attacking team.This, contrary to Stuart Cummins' responce is not open to interpretation.

Kaii · Post by **Kaii** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:32 pm

I've seen this kick loads now and imo he got the decision right, as mentioned on the SL show the kick was curling away from the sticks. It would of had to change direction and go straight towards the end for the kick to be given, at best it hit the post.
However much i'd like to see stains go out they won it fair and square

Kittwazzer · Post by **Kittwazzer** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:02 pm

Kaii wrote:I've seen this kick loads now and imo he got the decision right, as mentioned on the SL show the kick was curling away from the sticks. It would of had to change direction and go straight towards the end for the kick to be given, at best it hit the post.
However much i'd like to see stains go out they won it fair and square

That match was not won or lost on a dropkick, it was lost when Ferres had his moment of madness. The Giants were 2 scores in front and in control of the game until that point. Their fans need to realise that!

The booze hound · Post by **The booze hound** » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:42 pm

devon jim 1 wrote:
cpwigan wrote:It looked over to me. Surely Bentham must be disciplined / dropped?
I have always held the view that only the team in possession of the ball could be called 'off side'.It seems to me that referees and pundits alike constantly refer to cases where players not in
possession of the ball who encroach within the 10 metre rule,where applicable are said to be 'off side' when clearly(to me at least)they are 'not in play'.

Surely if a defender does not retreat ten metres he is off side. This is highlighted when the off side player is charging down a drop goal.

cow yeds · Post by **cow yeds** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:02 am

Morph wrote:has there been any sanction/disciplinary action taken against Bentham?

What for??

Owd Codger · Post by **Owd Codger** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:50 am

Come on, the camera at the Saints end of the ground was the nearest camera and clearly show the ball inside one of the posts after it had descended from the false position of appearing to be above the posts.

A perfectly good drop goal and you could tell that by the way that Brough reacted in the way that he did, which was a genuine reaction.

Perhaps, with the number of controversial conversions, penalties drop goals, we now need to have goal post technology like they have in football's Premier League with goal line technology.