No idea. And wtf is Headingley-West..?

I'm not surprised you don't know what it is. Being a Wigan fan you'll have little interest in what happens AFTER a playoff semi final.

If you think Wigan were the guilty party regarding holding down then your bias has finally fully consumed you.

You're weird, go away now please.

Classic Whino

As the middle of the ball is clearly NOT in touch, and as that part hits the ground first (because the ball is round) then any fair person who uses their brain to THINK about it must agree that the decision was correct. The arguments that claim the edge of the ball was on the line would be valid, if the ball was shaped as a shoe box. But it isn't.

Rubbish. You saw it, I saw it, everyone saw it apart from James Child. Stop being contrary. If that had been given against Bradford you would have gone on a 12 page rant.

I don't normally comment on here, too many one eyed clowns. I can see why, with the number of replays shown from behind, that it looks obvious that the ball was grounded on the touch in goal line. However as stated above the ball is not square and there is one camera angle that was only shown once that seems to show that the POINT of the ball which is in Charnley's hand actually hits the try line before the rest of the ball hits the side line. It was more of a 50/50 call than the so called Wigan biased sky muppets wanted to indicate. The biggest problem as far as reffing went was the consistent holding down by Hull KR. They were smarter at it than Wigan because they mostly did it without putting a hand on the ball.
I was surprised the kick off by KR that resulted in a drop out and try was not looked at in more detail. It seemed to me that Taylor touched it before Smith. But maybe theres no mileage in saying the favourites were hard done to. More fun for sky to promote the story that the plucky underdog was undone by bad luck.

Absolute rubbish. Stop making excuses for inexcusable reffing.

Are you James Childs?

I know one still image is not conclusive evidence. But even the most biased must see that this view shown only once by Sky does add a large degree of doubt. It is shown about 30 seconds in to the video ref review

Not really. The post come in to play when the ball hits it. It doesn't come into play if a player hits it.

Whether it hit the ground before line is surely irrelevant though - did it hit the ground before the post???

For me, that is the best evidence that it was a try. Yes the ball does touch the line, but surely some part of the ball has touched the ground in goal before it has touched the line (albeit very fine margins). It's not like he's plonked the whole ball on the line is it? My opinion.

It stands to reason that if the side of the ball hits the corner flag, the lowest point of the ball must hit the floor in-field.

I'd check the rules if I were you. Even Cummins was saying at the time that the corner post has no bearing.

It's all gone a bit quiet in here now that picture has gone on which clearly shows green between the ball and the line.

But it's also conclusive proof that the ball was not placed directly on its end, but rather more sideways which blows most of your arguments and perfectly positioned ball diagram out of the water.

WTF is this?!!! Forget video technology, get FA to draw us a picture!

This picture also clearly proves Charnley lost it.

It was a try. So was Lauaki's.

I'm not a referee but I can't see any references to the flag not being touch in goal:

"The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any object on or outside the touch in-goal line."

and

"A corner post is in touch in-goal."

I didn't say the ball was placed directly on its end, that's neither my argument nor my diagram to which you refer. However, I don't see that it matters either way, my point still stands whichever way the ball was put down (and I was referring specifically to the way it appeared in the photo in the post I quoted, obviously).

The ball never got placed down on its point though, obvious to see for most!

I dare say the RFL need to update their own website.



But with regards the ball being in touch in goal when it touches the in goal line: to adjudicate that it was in touch, Childs would need to see not only that it touched the line, but that it touched the line before it touched the ground. It isn't possible for him to do so, and as has been pointed out, there is enough reason to assume that the lowest point of the ball was further in field than touch line/flag, so he can't in good faith say it was out.

This has to be a joke! You drew a picture to argue a point. I could just as easily draw my own with the ball on the line. The ball wasn't grounded like that. It was grounded on its side so that a larger area of the ball was grounded when it was put down.



The flag isn't solid. You can see that when it hits it with the ball, it moves slightly to the side. The ball simultaneously comes down on the line and in-goal area.

Unless Childs can determine that it came down on the line [ufirst[/u, how can he adjudicate that it did so?