To me that still looks like the ball was simultaneously grounded on the touch in goal line and the in goal area and so it should have been chalked off. However I guess Childs ruled out the following one to make up for this as Charnley touched the ball down with enough control when he kicked the ball through.

EDIT: That also looks like Charnley lost the ball.

It was a try, deal with it.

No!

I yield to your superior logic and reason good sir!

Thank you very much

For the avoidance of doubt, Stuart Cummings said it doesn't matter if the ball touches the corner flag, it is not classed as being in touch anymore. He had to explain it to Wiggy twice

It was pretty embarrassing to have the commentators getting the rules wrong even after they are told the rules. Painful.

As for whether it was a try, I was of the opinion that the front on view lacked the relevant frame. It had just before contact with the ground. It had after the first contact. What it did show however is that Charnley did not lose the ball - so you can cut that complaint.

As to the side on angle (picture posted), the post imo is obscuring whether contact was made simultaneously (or as close as we can possibly discern with our cameras); or whether first contact was made within the scoring zone before touching the sideline (the pictures posted show how this is a possibility if you're too simple to understand how curves and straight lines come into contact). From the evidence I don't see how anyone can claim that it's definitive either way, it was a tough decision.

Summed up nicely.

I said at the game it had hit the line so I was surprised when it was given, but from that still it's hard to call either way. Benefit of doubt probably comes into play...

I would prefer it if you behaved like an adult, and read and considered the point made, which is considered and valid. But it is of course up to you, though "yah, boo" is never very convincing.


Neither my opinion nor the laws of physics vary by team.

I didn't think it hit the post, but the argument seemed to me to rage around whether or not it was on the touch-in-goal line.

In quantum physics it touched both lines and everywhere else in the universe at the same time, Wigan fans can look here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics and quote some of the articles to back up their case that it was a try, the rest of us could see it was out.

In quantum physics it touched both lines and everywhere else in the universe at the same time, Wigan fans can look here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics and quote some of the articles to back up their case that it was a try, the rest of us could see it was out.

It is known as a "diagram" or "drawing". I'm surprised you ask, as I kind of assume you are stilkl mainly on books with pictures.


It's OK son, if you aren't up for reasoned debate yet, you'll probably grow into it.

Who said it was? It makes no difference to the point, which is that, being an ovoid shape, whatever angle the ball is at, the bit that will touch the ground first is that bit at the lowest part of the curved surface, not the edge (as viewed from whatever angle you choose). Whatever bit is on teh floor, the rest of the ball curves up away from the floor. Only that central, lowest, point first touches the floor. What happens after that touch is irrelevant, that first touch is what counts.

Oops, sorry, let's have a debate... clearly on the line:

This was as much a try as the finger tip try Rovers 'scored' at Cas.

Another perfect example of finding facts to support the decision rather than making a decision based on fact. IMO.

You're getting your diagrams mixed up. That's from Leeds v Wakefield. Obviously.

Indeed. Now you're getting the hang of it. Good work. keep it up, and eventually the penny will drop, I guarantee it.

No, the diagram is a simple illustration of a simple point. Some people don't seem to grasp that amy ball on a flat surface only touches the surface at one, central, point. the rest of the ball is ALL curving up away from the flat surface, and not touching anything.

There is no "weighting", it is very simple. You just need to get your head around the concept that the ball is not suqare or flat, but ovoid.

You're talking as if the part of the ball that touches the ground is miniscule, like the point of a pin though. While obviously the whole of the shape of the ball won't be down, a larger area than you seem to be suggesting will be in contact with the ground.

It was a try. One side if the ball obviously will have touched the try line before the other side of the ball hits the touch line.

It could have hit the touch line first because of the angle the ball was coming from.

The next vid ref decision was a try not given when it should have been.

Also why is no one commenting on the Lauaki 'no try' that was!!!!

He was just short but the weight of the tacklers on his back shoved him over. Quite obvious really.

Is this what all the fuss is about? I was expecting something much worse.

Indeed. There is another thread entitled "worst decision ever". Some people need to get a grip.

Sure do, the 'worst decision ever' has got to be taking a naked picture in the mirror.

Tend to agree. That title still belongs to Ganson from the Magic weeekend with a million fancy cameras and every one the planet seeing the offside except Ganson.

This is simply inconsistant refereeing. The next disallowed try by Charnley should have been given.

More annoying was the team warning sin binning issue 10 sets and a half time later after it was issued. Totally stupid rule because it has no clear limits, as is the free play.

If the sin bin was for a dangerous tackle then a spear tackle ( O'Laughlin in the first half) is obvious classed as a legitimate tackle these days.

Inconsistant. Strange how it's got worse since Ganson became coach of the officials...

I assume you have missed the huge amount of irony of a Hull FC fan posting about a very dodgy VR decision against Hull KR.
Anyway crack on.