There are many times at a match I have moaned and groaned at the referee for not appearing to have the mettle to make a decision and referring the decision "upstairs". Therefore I should be grateful for the fact that Bentham saw it within his remit to make a decision and stick to it.



Unfortunately, in this case (for me) it was the wrong decision. Drop goal! Huddersfield robbed.



Unlucky, move on. Saints vs Wire final?

On the first 3rd of the season form, I'd find it very difficult to put Myler ahead of Walsh for selection if I was able to call on either.

Apparently he said in an interview with the Yorkshire Post that he has the backing of the video ref Ian Smith (not surprising there) and that video evidence showed inconclusive.



Which begs the question; if he said the VR wouldn't have helped Danny Brough if it had have been referred upstairs, then how can Bentham be happy with his decision and the VR be happy with the decision when the evidence was inconclusive in that they can't tell if it went over or not?



What happened to benefit of the doubt to the attacking team?

If the VT is inconclusive then shouldn't the goal have been awarded?

This is the case with a try.



In which case, Bentham does not have the backing of the video ref.

If the VR is inconclusive the on field decision stands (whatever that may be, try or no try) - if there is "by balance of probabilities" evidence to suggest a try is scored, benefit of the doubt is awarded. If "beyond reasonable doubt" is established then a try is awarded.

huh?....what decision?

You don't go the the VT if you have awarded something unless they have changed the rules lately?

Maybe I phrased it wrong - if the video is totally inconclusive then the VR will ask for an on field decision (what the ref would give if there was no video ref) which will then become the decision.

That's Refscall, which was used in the NRL up to a couple of years ago. They don't have the facility in Super League, so the VR can't hand it back over to the referee.



I think what Mr Bentham and Mr Smith are trying to do is cover their backs by saying that the replays were inconclusive so as to say that even if Bentham went upstairs, the decision would stand.



I think there was enough evidence "by balance of probabilities" (as you put it) that the kick *could* have been given as benefit of the doubt.



I saw your post on the VT topic about the same thing saying that the argument died off 10 pages prior to what the current page is. I assume you've decided to come over here to try and get some decent debate, as you've had enough of the squabbling between FA and others on there?

I can see that decision making Hudds stronger.

I glad we played them last week now.

or could we being seeing the start of one of those now infamous Huddersfield slumps, that they seem to have, every season (last season being an exception)

I think had they had played bad Lefty I would agree with that.

But when your robbed I would have thought it would make you incensed.

Bentham screwed up. End of, and the referee's are simply closing ranks as you'd expect.



In terms of Huddersfield, this is now the first major test of Paul Anderson's coaching acumen. Indifferent league form, out of the cup and a certain Brian Noble updating his CV.



Fortunately for Anderson, Ken Davy is a decent fella and a level-headed chairman but it will be interesting if their league form doesn't pick up particularly at home. If Koukash was his boss, he'd have been sacked before Walsh's drop goal had landed.