The fact it ricochets of Burrow isnt relevant, it makes no difference that it came of Burrow rather than the bounce of the ball (ricochet and rebounds are examples of the rules not an exhaustive list)

Except that isnt and never has been the way the game has been interpreted on the field.

Yes it has. Which game have you been watching? It is often a difficult call for the officials but they get it right most of the time including Saturday!

It makes a big difference that it came off Burrow. He made the play at the ball and it then bounced off Charnley, hence Wigan scrum.

There's a reason you have to keep on thinking up examples that are different to the one in question.


I'm afraid it does make a difference. If a player strikes the ball at another player, causing is to ricochet off him and into touch, the first player shall concede the scrum by virtue of having played at it. It really isn't rocket science.

from the person who bemoans keyboard intellectuals!

I'll give you an hour or so to consult your Thesaurus for some good words.



EDIT: having just had the gumption to look at the video on iPlayer, Charnley clearly plays the ball, so all this is a complete red herring.

The reason people use other examples is because they are genuine examples of interpretation of exactly the same rule. Why are you not able to make what actually happened 'fit' the common interpretation of the law. Err, because it doens't fit by chance!

But they both played at it. They both set off with the clear intention of playing for the ball, the rule is clear as is the definition of ricochet/rebound.





But he did make an attempt to play at the ball, just a split second before Burrow did, it doesn't say anything about actually playing the ball, it just says "who makes no attempt to play at the ball" but he that is exactly what he was trying, and failed to do as part of that play. Charnley suddenly can't opt out of the play because he find himself in the way of the path of the ball.

The simple example I used for Keith on another thread is "You know when you were little and had a race with your mates but, having 'lost' at the finish line you then declare you were never actually really properly racing in the first place, so their victory clear doesn't count!"

This is exactly what you are suggesting, that Charnley can suddenly 'opt out' because he failed to his intention of playing the ball and become passive in the play... he can't, simple!

Hey I'm all for a bit of banter mate but keep it clean eh? After all, you were pointing out how harmful a V sign could be for a family game with youngsters involved weren't you, and you don't want to be thought of as a hypocrite.




The end-result is no different than if Burrow had got to the ball first, picked it up and bounced it off Charnley's head. The rules state that Charnley should not have been disadvantaged from having the ball ricochet off him, regardless of whether he has ran for it. You will find in most situations where a ball "plays the man" the man will have purposefully ran into the position he is in but hasn't actually played [uat[/u the ball.


Oh I'm enjoying the win mate and the reaction of opposition fans that has accompanied it. The sheer frenzy of bitterness that has erupted is both a joy and privilege to experience.

Oh by the way, if I don't immediately respond to your posts, say, between the hours of 9 and 5, there might be a very good reason for that other than consulting a thesaurus. We can't all be on 7 weeks holidays you know.

Yes, I can see the juxtaposition between disappointment at someone showing a complete lack of respect on national TV, whilst embarassing the game that provides him with a living, and using the word "dildo" on an internet forum. No, really.

Two things:

1) Charnley actually plays for the ball before and at the point it leaves the field. Check it out for yourself.

2) By placing himself at the side of Burrow and challenging for the recovery of the ball Charnley was playing for it. Otherwise, at what point does he stop playing for it and become an innocent by stander?

Past experience would suggest that you will now argue that the Pope is not Catholic and that bears use public conveniences.

I have noted some bitterness but, not that much and I think you'll find that I haven't posted anything which would be considered bitter. We lost to a very good team who, on the balance of play, probably deserved their victory. In addition, I admire the skills of the Tomkins brothers et al. However, their lack of respect and class is more than a little disappointing.

Oh, and before you or some other Kn0b Jockey mentions the booing at Headingley, niether I or anyone I know who are fans booed him at the Exiles game. In any event, he is the player, it is part of his job requirement to behave in a better manner than any fan.

With the foregoing in mind I find it strange that you revel in the angst of opposition fans where you find it.

My problem with you in the first place was that you were defending the indefensible and trying to be clever in doing so.

If you don't find the attitudes and opinions of the the Leeds fans to your liking, here is a clue, don't come on here. I'd bet good money that you were not on Southstander after the play off wins in 2007 and 2008 or last year's cup loss at Headingley. Now why would that be?

As you have freely admitted, the truth is that you aren't really trying to express reasoned debate, you're just a sad little git who enjoys winding people up and when you get something back you don't like it. On that basis, I never figured you would actually have a job and I'm still not so sure you do................

Nevertheless, the obvious conclusion to draw is that you were displaying faux disapproval for the sake of joining in with some good old Tomkins bashing.


Obviously I've already checked it out and disagree with you. At the point it leaves the field the ball has merely ricocheted off him.


The ball ricocheted off him. It doesn't matter where he is or where he has put himself; if it did then there would never actually be a situation in any game in which the officials have to determine whether a player has played at the ball as intent to play would be established via contiguity. It isn't, no matter how much you repeat that it is.


You might be taken a little more seriously if you yourself didn't display a lack of respect and class.


Respect and class you say?


I don't disagree with any of that and have maintained throughout that what he did was wrong and I'm sure we're all glad that he has been punished for it.


You don't like clever people, do you? I'd wager, going by the way you made quite an issue of my supposed lack of intelligence, that feeling intellectually superior is very important to you, and that you need to convince yourself, through your childishly insulting posts, that other people are stupid. In my experience I've found those who make the most noise about their intellect and the supposed stupidity of others aren't nearly as sure of their own intellect (or validity of the arguments they are making) as they like to make out.

Newsflash: it's a discussion forum. Wouldn't be very interesting if we all agreed would it.


Well considering I only joined this forum in 2009 , no I wasn't. Your point?


What an odd thing to claim. I understand that it's comforting to you to pretend that nobody would hold an opinion different to yours and that anybody posting to that effect is actually pretending in order to "wind people up" (seriously though, does any body get wound up by a different opinion? I wouldn't have though they would, myself.) but "the truth is" that I simply don't agree with your point of view. Shock horror.

Nope, it makes no difference at all as to whether Charnley played at it.

This shows just as much a lack of understanding of the rule and its reasoning as your description of the effect momentum has on the forward pass rule did.
Let me educate you on both:
Firstly, 'the momentum rule' doesnt exist. It certainly doesnt exist as . The Momentum rule is simply the name given by Stevo for RL's acceptance that a player running forward, by virtue of running forward will exert a force on the ball causing it to go forward when released despite the fact that the force exerted through the action of passing was backwards. This can cause an effect where a ball passed backwards ends up ahead of the point it was passed because of the force of the forward motion of the player not because the ball was passed forwards. This is why a referee will look at the hands of the player and the passing action of the player to determine weather or not the ball was passed forwards. This is why to a more seasoned observer Mossops pass was so obviously forward, his hands and his passing action were clearly forward.

Secondly: The reason the rule was put in place whereby a richochet/rebound/etc causing accidental contact with the player didnt result in that player being disadvantage was that so a player who hadnt involved himself in the play and wasnt attempting to do so couldnt be punished by the opposition deliberately or on accident playing the ball against them to gain advantage. It isnt there to protect a player who had involved himself in the play and not been successful. Charnley played at the ball, he played at the ball by attempting to strike it prior to Burrow and he played at it by continuing to involve himself in the play after that.

There is no immediacy of the play at the ball either inferred or implied in the rules.

As I strongly suspected, the Pope is indeed an Anglican and bears have wet rooms.

Charnley played for that ball twice with his foot, once before Burrow touched and once afterward. Furthermore, if what you are saying is correct, a player could position themselves anywhere and any how they like to interupt play and not expect to concede possession. It would appear that your backside and brain are insufficiently far apart.

The fact that you disagree is no shock to me, as I fully anticipated you have come back with the same argument that you have already used and you have a right to your opinion, even if it is wrong. News flash: contrary opinions are interesting when they are supported with genuine evidence and not spouted from an obvious position of bias.

"

You have always maintained that what he did was wrong and went to great lengths to point that out with a string of excuses and justifications for his actions. I doubt very much that you are glad he has been punished for it, moreover, I bet you are delighted that the subject of your affections will be playing this weekend.

Your not very clever and I don't like what I have seen of you, so clearly I am not prejudiced.

We both know that had you lost on Saturday, you wouldn't be on this forum but, you'll no doubt tell me that you would have revelled in the unbridled joy of the Leeds fans as they discussed their famous victory. The more I think about it, the more I like you, you make me laugh.

Finally, the coup de grace! Having stated clearly in one post that you are enjoying the bitterness and angst of the Leeds fans, you intermate that you actually don't come on here to gain any pleasure from it.

This is almost as long as TVOC and Juan Cornetto talking about aeroplanes!

aeroplanes under the pseudonym of Wilf Rosenberg at that too

This is in my eyes, is pointless dicussing.

What happened, happened. We lost.

Let's move on.

If that's the conclusion you've come to you have completely failed to understand my position. It wouldn't matter if a player had run 90m downfield to gain possession of the ball, if his opponent gains possession first and strikes him with the ball he will not be deemed to have played it.

How [ido [/iyou come up with this dynamite material.


Whereas your opinion that I am wrong and that my position is one of obvious bias is apparently self-evident.




That is your prerogative.


Ha ha, I have no interest in seeking your approval and whether or not you think I'm clever is neither here nor there.


Had we lost I'd more than likely be here arguing about the decisions I felt went against us. You really need to stop projecting these ulterior motives that you seem to harbour onto others.


I didn't [iintimate[/i, I stated it plainly. I've been posting my opinion and disagreeing with people whose opinions I don't share because--as you accept--I disagree with them. The ulterior motive of posting my opinions for the purpose of winding people up is your own invention and, I'd guess, another projection (a guess supported by how keen you are to try and insult those you disagree with). The fact that I enjoy the disappointment of the fans my team has beaten doesn't mean that it's my motivation for posting. At the end of the day if anybody has actually been wound up because I think Charnley didn't play at the ball then they need to get a grip.

Seriously can you just go away now and let us have our forum back

If the thus far ability to contradict himself is anything to go by, you may find that he will be here arguing with himself before too long. I get no pleasure from shooting fish in a barrel.

he's just a boring hick trying justify all the last wekend

Charnley appears to clearly attempt to play at the ball and the ball clearly came off him last before it went into touch.

Well done to all those attempting to argue that black is white though.

And that's the mammywhamming winner.

Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it Isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it Isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it Isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it Isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. ................................................................




























In summary:
Wigan 28 Leeds 18

well dont come on here then yer silly born hick

That's what I like to see people who tell it like it is