Correct, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNXWMHu9An0he most certainly did[/url.

The line running through the numbers on the RFL picture is because the numbers are on the back of the ball and are being seen through the glass ball. The line is one of the 'panel edges' on the front of the ball. During the live draw when Schofield held up the 9 ball the number was on the front edge of the ball and not viewed through the ball. If you rotated the balls as seen on the RFL picture so that the numbers are on the front edge of the ball then the 6 on the right becomes a 9 with no line under it (like the one in the live draw). The 9 with a line under it (the ball on the left) becomes a 6 with a line on top of it. We didn't see the number on the 6 ball on TV as Murphy had the ball facing the wrong way. He had earlier (seemingly) been told by someone off screen to turn the balls so the number could be seen on the camera close-up (re-watch the draw and you will see this). So they may or may not be the same balls from the draw as differing angles and lighting or being in Murphy's hand at the time may have altered the level of transparency of the glass balls.

As you say it seems like a cock up (misreading a 6 as a 9) was made rather than anything else. With 9 already having been called what else was Murphy going to call the 9/6 that he then drew as, other than 6. It also seems though that the RFL may have made a cock up of covering up for the earlier cock up.

GS is hardly going to call the same number out that has just been called by AM is he

, he'll presume the ball by definition is a [u6[/u otherwise he'd be considered a bit mental to call the same number (ok not good example tbf

)

The flat bottom edge (As per p2) or an underline is a std indicator for seperating 6s and 9s, the balls the RFL showed a pic of are not the same obviously
Why they didn't stick with the old wooden balls with white writing on god only knows..

I think the draw was correct. The balls seemed to represent a 4 panel rugby ball and the way in which it was held to the camera simply showed the top of the number which was refracted along the seam between two of the panels giving the effect of a line!

RL release new pic showing proof no mistake was made

That looks like someone's been busy on Photoshop!

After suffering Wakefields humiliation yesterday, this has made me chuckle.
So thanks to everyone involved



RFL = # couldn't organise a up in a brewery

Easy to see how they could be mistaken.

Perhaps the heat it had been subjected to caused the nine within the ball to temporarily take on a slightly different shape?

I had a good look at the images in software and can find no reason to say they are anything other than the same ball. obviously based on one shaky, not square screen grab that's as far as you can go but no story here for me, though it is amateurish to have equipment that isn't good enough.

Don't beat yourself up about it chief, you've done the best you can with what you have available.

I did actually wonder before I pressed submit whether someone would read it that way, but decided nobody would be that anal!

I did actually wonder before I pressed submit whether someone would read it that way, but decided nobody would be that anal!

Is it due to the lighting as the balls in the RFL's pic seem a different colour and look very dirty, without even analysing the number itself.

I aim to please

the shape of the figure 9 isn't even remotely the same and the thumb position on the balls isn't identical either... it's a fecking sham and a cover up..the RFL are a disgrace to the supporters/teams for their cover up of an honest mistake by Murphy in the first instance..

Any mistake made was by Schofield not Murphy. Schofield drew the ball for the away team to play at Salford and called it as 9 meaning Widnes were away at Salford. Murphy then drew the 6 ball out next to decide the home team in the next tie in the draw. If the 6 and 9 were incorrectly called then it was Schofield that made the error and with 9 already having been called by Schofield, Murphy would have only been able to call the ball he drew as a 6.

Did you actually watch the draw? You have twice posted about the two balls in question being drawn in the wrong order.

It is, though. If you compare the images after correcting for screen distortion there is no evidence that they are different.

What I did was firstly adjust the colour balance on the RFL image, which was heavily tinged with yellow. I worked on the assumption that the paper behind the ball would have been white in colour and adjusted from there. By doing that, it is clear that the "RFL" ball is of very similar colours to the "screen grab" ball.

I then took the screen grab and adjusted it so that t appears from a flat perspective, and not "tilted". This is not too difficult, because there are words and columns on the screen, and so you only have to skew it until the text and columns appear normal and level. By doing this, it is clear that the screen ball appears to be of identical dimensions to the "RFL" ball.

Next I superimposed the two balls and finally by sequentially altering the opacity of the "screen grab" ball and positioning it directly over the "RFL" ball, I made a number of images. So the top one is all RFL ball and zero screen ball; the bottom one is all screen ball, completely obscuring the RFL ball, and the rest are graduated stages in between.

By sliding the opacity I can't see any material difference in the balls and on this evidence I can't point to anything that seems evidence of different balls.

Have I seen you on CSI?

Not yet, but I think the RFL, if they were going to bother with an image at all, might at least have used somebody who had the first idea how to take one!

Unless my eyes are wonky, even after you've 'flattened' the ball, the '9's still look different from the first & last photos on your slide. The bottom tail of the digit doesn't look similiar at all.

I was commenting on the shots as a whole. Obviously they aren't identical but I wouldn't expect them to be given one is a distorted screen grab from a pixellated TV screen and the top and bottom areas seem to be distorted by the joins in the "panels" of the ball; they are not at the same angle; and they are taken in completely different lighting conditions.

At first I wondered why the underline seemed to be absent from the TV grab, but it in fact actually seems to be obscured by the "next panel", but on close examination a dark blue shape in the correct spot can be made out.

Don't forget in both cases you are looking through the ball onto the back surface. I don't know why the balls were made that way but they were.

All I was looking for was whether I could find any evidence that might support a "different ball theory" and if I had, I would have posted that too, I didn't and don't have any agenda here and am no fan of the RFL, but I personally can't find any such evidence on the limited materials available.

Oh and I'm bored with this thread now so won't be posting any more.

And the missing dot next to the 9?

I don't have a clue if the draw was messed up or not, the evidence is completely inconclusive; the balls the RFL later posted a picture of do seem to be different than the ones used for the draw, that was a silly move on their part.

Which begs the question, where would they get another set from so quickly? And why not use them in the first place if they're clearer?

They weren't aesthetic enough to be shown on TV? #RFLsense