I think you will find it does make him offside, the rules clearly state he can not be within 10 from the player getting the ball (Burrow in this case), copy and pasted from the rugby laws on the RFL website

"An off side player shall not take any part in the game
or attempt in any way to influence the course of the
game. He shall not encroach within ten metres of an
opponent who is waiting for the ball...."

Yeah true I didn't understand why that wasn't given

The Wigan fans that have said Rob Burrow made a play at the ball need to take off their cherry and white tinted specs and watch it again, Burrow doesn't make any play at the ball, he looks like he slipped or lost his balance when CHARNLEY made an attempt to kick the ball which he missed then the ball accidentally brushes off Burrow's legs while he is on the ground and onto Charnley.

Charnley was the only one to make a play at the ball with his attmpted kick, he then becomes live in that play having tried to play the ball, the ball goes off him last a "Live" player in that play so in my opinion it should be a Leeds ball at the scrum as Burrow made no play at the ball.

Regardless of it going off Burrow accidentally he makes no play at the ball, it wasn't a 40/20 so it should be Leeds ball on that basis alone even though Charnley played at the ball and it came off him last.

He was not encroaching on a player waiting for the ball. He presence had no bearing whatsover on Burrow's play at the ball whereas Josh Charnley did and he was not offside as shown clearly in your photo.

We can continue to argue the techicalities and the rights and wrongs of officialdom...or we can accept it's game over and move on: I'm doing the latter.

If it was a hugely - not marginal - forward pass for Lima's second try (and it was) and it had indeed been a travesty Wigan were awarded the scrum for Llualai's try (and it was) you could argue equally Wigan might have done something different to [ustill[/u win the game at some other point in the match. Leeds blew it really in the first twenty mins....if we hadn't been so far behind the team might not have 'pushed' its successful offload game; if BJB had scored that try Wigan might have responded three-fold. We'll simply never know.

I'm now hoping Leeds will carry on their Wigan opposition form and perform well in the play offs.

The first line was "An off side player shall not take any part in the game
or attempt in any way to influence the course of the
game."

Running after a kick is not taking part in the game? The fact is with a Kick a player who is offside has to be 10 meters from the ball, he is only on side when:

"laced onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if:

(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball.

(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.

(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.

(e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team."

Which happened ((b)) but he was within the 10 when it happened, in the past trys have been chalked off because players have been in front of the kicker, chased it down, been within the 10 when their team mate got it and scored even if they dont get involved in the play because ""An off side player shall not take any part in the game
or attempt in any way to influence the course of the
game.""

But you are not doing the latter because you are perpetuating the dabate over the forward pass for Lima's try. Yes it was a forward pass but you can't blame the ref. for the subsequent inept tackling from Leeds that let Lima score.
The Wigan scrum would have been a travesty had the ref. not got it right. Have you not been following the thread?
Instead of trying to find technicalities or trying to blame the ref you need to accept that Leeds just came short with their own chances. Had Jones-Bishop made a better attempt at beating the last line of defence (as Joel Tomkins did) in the closing minutes then Leeds would have won the game. The result was very close and we should be concentrating on the good play from both sides in what was one of the best CC finals in recents years. Leeds played well and have much to look forward to in the play-offs where they are capable of making an impact.

You need to take off your anti Wigan specs me thinks! I have watched the incident several times and looked at it from both sides. Bear in mind that I initially thought Leeds were hard done to despite you thinking I am wearing Wigan tinted specs. Burrow clearly makes a play at the ball in an attempt to stop Charnley kicking through to score. Charnley did make a play at the ball initially but missed which obviously doesn't count. The fact that it goes off him last is irrelevant as he is not making a play at the ball at that point. You clearly don't understand the rule.

As I stated it's all irrelevant now....

Now that the emotions have dissipated I accept the result after a great game based on the fact that Leeds put up a fight to be proud of, but Wigan were the better team and on reflection deserved to win. Just a pity Sam Tomkins had to be on the winning side

There's no way Burrow slips, he dives for the ball. The tinted specs are all yours mate. The only play Charnley makes at the ball misses! And what's all this "he becomes live in that play"? Two players could be contesting a ball, thus "live" according to you, and one grabs the ball and bounces it off the other into touch. Does the player who touched it last concede the scrum?

Sprinting 50 yards down a rugby field towards a ball and catching that ball up and putting yourself between the ball and another player and in a position where a slight deviation in the balls movement means you do touch the ball is a very strange way of trying to avoid contact with it.

I hate to say this but... I agree with Smokey!



As, unlike football, where the last touch always counts, accidental or not, our rules do allow for a player not to be disadvantaged if he touches the ball accidentally. The rule clearly states -





So, I think you have to ALL accept, that both Burrow and Charnley set off to and attempted to deliberately play at that ball, now Burrow did actually touch the ball and Charnley missed but he did deliberately attempted to play the ball (no question, and because as Smokey said, why did he run 50 yards then!) then, and only then, did Charnley try to avoid touching the ball as it came off Burrow.

I think to argue then that Charnley, while trying to then avoid touching the ball (for obvious reasons), has 'accidentally' touched the ball having a split second earlier tried to try and kick of for a try is not only wrong but importantly against the spirit of the rules. Both Burrow and Charnley deliberately attempted to play for the ball and Charnley had the last touch before it went into touch. No questions, the head and feed should have gone to Leeds. Hicks got it wrong and it is not in the spirit of the rule to claim it was accidental!

That all said, the bigger issue for me was not the call itself but the fact that, with three first grade officials on the park and as such a crucial point in the game, both Hicks, Child and Bentham didn't have the level-headedness or composure to just to ask Ganson to have a look and give a fourth opinion. Now, Ganson might have still ruled it was accidental, but I suspect not, however, at least then you can accept that the officials understood the crucial nature of the call and didn't make a hasty judgement. They didn't, despite the Leeds players asking then to have a look and it clearly been a bit of a scramble for the ball.

There is no question in my mind that this is poor officiating and just not good enough in a crucial game at a crucial stage in that game.

The essential point is that he tried to avoid contact after Burrow made contact, therefore the ref got it absolutely right.

No it isnt. If you put yourself in a position to touch the ball, and do touch it, you cant then claim it was accidental.

Remove Burrow from the equation completely, the ball just took an odd bounce and hit Charnley would you still say he didnt play at it?

Or imagine a defensive player is shepherding the ball over the dead ball line from an attacking kick, the ball takes a bounce backwards and rebounds off said player and in to touch, do you give a drop out or a tap on the twenty?

The essential point is he put himself in a position to affect the ball and he did so.

get off you high horses and get real you bunch of moaning women the game is over,save it for next weekend when we beat the dire by foul means

Once again, where does it say that in the actual laws? It does not say anything about trying to avoid the ball, once you have attempted to make a play for the ball and failed does it? If it did you would be right, but it doesn't and that is why you and Hicks are wrong.

Charnley and Burrow both deliberately played for the ball for the ball, he does not have to have succeeded or actual touch the ball for for him to have made a deliberate play for the ball. READ THE ACTUAL LAW as written!!! Then, when he can't get out of the way of the ball a split second later, having failed in his attempt, he suddenly become passive and not active in that play and accidentally in the way of the ball. There was no 'accident' about where Charney was or what he was doing there... playing for the ball!!!



Read it again and tell me why I and Smokey are wrong?

Of course you can, otherwise you could have a situation where two people are running for the ball, and the one who gets there first boots it at the other whom it bounces off and goes into touch, the first player then claims a scrum on the basis that the other one had put himself in a position where it could hit him.


One problem with all this: "remove Burrow".

The resident fog-knitters have to "remove Burrow" from their hypothetical equation in order to prove that it should have been a scrum to Leeds.

The problem they have is that in the real world example which took place at Wembley, their hypothetical equation is irrelevant. Burrow was there and Burrow was the player who deliberately played at the ball in the final instance which resulted in a scrum to Wigan.

Just laugh at them instead

An excellent post, sir...sadly you've completely wasted your effort as far as our moronic visitors from Wigan are concerned

Or the converse happens and one person is running with the sole intention to hamper the other person, and should they touch the ball even at the expense of the other person they are judged to have not played at the ball. Which simply leaves ridiculous situations like the one mentioned which you have conveniently failed to address.

Ill state it again for you " imagine a defensive player is shepherding the ball over the dead ball line from an attacking kick, the ball takes a bounce backwards and rebounds off said player and in to touch, do you give a drop out or a tap on the twenty?"


It isnt a problem at all. The fact Burrow touched the ball and the fact he was involved is irrelevant to whether or not Charnley played at the ball. Whether it comes off Burrow, the floor, a strange bounce, a mole which decides to stick his head out at that exact moment, and tear in the space/time continuum is all irrelevant to whether or not Charnley plays at the ball.

You clearly don't know the rule. A player has to make a play at it. If it just hits him by accident then it doesn't count. With your hypothetical situation, if Burrow had not hit the ball, then the situation would be exactly the same for Charnley however it would have been a scrum to Leeds because Finch kicked the ball. However, Burrow did make a play and hit the ball resulting in the correct decision of Wigan scrum.

So you are under the impression that if I touch the ball on accident it doesnt count regardless of what I have done to be in a position to touch the ball. And the decision we ask referees to make is to decide whether or not a player intended to touch the ball rather than the interpretation of involving yourself with the ball.

So if Burrow had just kept on running and the ball bounced up and hit him on the hand and went out that wouldnt count either?

You are absolutely right with the rule but wrong in your application of it. The ball ricochets off Charnley from Burrow and therefore, as per the rule, Charnley should not be disadvantaged! Again I repeat, a correct decision.
Charnley initially made a play at the ball but did not make any contact. Burrows did and so Wigan scrum.

That is exactly what the rule states. You are picking it up at last.