The 9 or a 6 situation needs clarification ASAP and wasn't helped by the fact that Murphy when holding up the 6 ball had the number facing him and not the camera (as he did for a few others as well). The 6 ball may have a dot at the base of the 6 (appearing as 6. ) but without actually seeing the number on the ball we won't know. The common method for distinguishing has either a [udistinct separate line[/u below the number or a dot at the base of the number (neither of which is present on the ball Schofield drew and clearly showed the number of to camera). Clarifying whether what Schofield drew was a 9 as he read or whether he made an easily made error (by showing a picture of the 9 and 6 balls used) will solve the issue. If it was an error then the sensible thing would be to amend the fixtures involving Widnes and Bradford accordingly as no other fixtures were affected by it.

It didn't zoom in on the 9, but it got pulled out immediately after the 6, and there's a noticeable pause before he calls it.

the 'base' of the no 6 which is flattened for clarity is uppermost, therefore it should have been called as Bradford.
To not change this would be another sign of how crap our sport has become..

It did zoom in to show the 9 on camera and it did zoom in to show the 6 ball when it was drawn immediately afterwards. Murphy though, as he did for a few of the ones he drew, after reading the number held the ball up to the camera with the number still facing himself and not showing to camera. As a result nobody watching on TV saw what the 6 ball looked like. I recorded the match and draw and have re-watched the draw after reading of this situation on here.

As broadybull87 alluded to, nobody saw the 6 that Murphy drew to identify what it looked like. There may or may not have been an error but it does need clarifying.

The uncertainty exists because nobody saw the number on the 6 ball that Murphy drew. What could be seen to be a flattened base on the 9 ball that we did see the number of, could be a flattened base for what was actually a 6 or it could be there due to the top of the 9 being at the edge of a line between two sections of the pattern on the glass ball. (The balls were etched to look as if they were made of four panels like a real ball). Where a line is present to distinguish numbers it has always been a distinct separate line below the number, not a flattened lower edge. A flattened lower edge only could be seen as a printing error. The ball Murphy drew but mistakenly did not show the number of may have a clear line or dot at the base of the number clearly denoting it as a 6 (or it may not). Without seeing both balls and their numbers we cannot be certain either way whether Schofield did indeed draw a 9 or a 6.

If they redraw the draw then they replay Saints v Hudds

I can't remember a farce-free challenge cup draw

There should be an enquiry & the draw should be altered regarding the six & nine balls.

But what should we expect letting ex-players perform technical duties.

They're a bunch of incompetent idiots.

They're claiming on twitter there was no confusion, that they were right all along. And they have pictures to "prove" it. And the pictures show that the 9 had a line under it, but there was no line on the live pictures as people have confirmed with screen grabs. The balls don't even look the same.

Getting the draw wrong, whilst embarrassing, is understandable.

The worrying thing is that the RFL have now clearly lied on their twitter feed and showed completely different balls to try and provide 'evidence'', I'm shocked by this really.

Memo to RFL, next year write six on the 6 ball. , get the BBC to have more cameras at the TV games and sort the refs out they are ruining the sport. That display today was embarrassing

Yeah those "draw ball" look nothing like the one posted on page 2

Look will everybody just stop! We're making the RFL sad https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/452882068457136128

Look will everybody just stop! We're making the RFL sad https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/452882068457136128

Quote ="MjM"Look will everybody just stop! We're making the RFL sad https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/452882068457136128'" That was hours ago. They've updated their status from "sad" to "melancholy" and now they're listening to The Smiths.

Quote ="MjM"Look will everybody just stop! We're making the RFL sad https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/452882068457136128'" That was hours ago. They've updated their status from "sad" to "melancholy" and now they're listening to The Smiths.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Did these idiots learn nothing from Watergate?!

Rfl in meltdown

Anybody else find it debatable that the RFL would have a printed out sheet of teams who had qualified only several minutes after Saints had edged to victory?

More likely scribbled down quickly with a bic?

But if they have a second set of balls like they seem to be in the twitter pic then why not use them? I fact why have a separate different looking second pair?

Use a Camelot lottery-machine. No ancient, flat-cappers pulling balls from a pi55-pot, just some hot piece pressing a button and Alan Dedicoat shouting out the last time Wigan drew Hunslet.

This post made me chuckle

Unless Nigel Wood has paid off the independent adjudicator, I think we can say with a good degree of certainty that this is another RL faux outrage.

I don't think that it was done deliberately in the first instance. But to post a picture of quite clearly different balls to 'prove' that the draw was correct is naive at worst and absolutely stupid at best.

Yep.

Does anyone really think Murphy or Schofield would ever in a million years collude with the RLF to give Wigan an easy draw??!



As for the 6/9 debate - does it really matter? Bradford or Widnes, same thing really.

Wait, if one had drawn a six and said it was a nine, wouldn't the nine hve been called out again?

rfl has changed their status from melancholy to ''outraged and angry''.

Looks like they are getting ready to hit back at critics.