Am I missing something here?

The ball touches the try line and the corner post.

The post prevents it from touching the touch in goal line.

The corner post no longer counts as touch in goal so ......

T-R-Y !!!

Are you trying to say that Childs actually thought about the physics of the shape of the ball vs its centre of gravity vs the angle of the ball vs downward pressure? If so then you are crediting him with having not the brains of a clown but the brains of a physicist. If it is the latter option then we aren't paying them enough and you my friend have the first option.



Oh and btw the ball in the 2nd diagram is physically further away from the line then the other 2 diagrams.

the one which doesnt show the ball on the ground?

It shows the majority of the length of the ball touching the ground.



and the angle of the ball, and the level of curvature on the ball.

if it was a different shape to what it is and what the picture shows.

Grass is the ground. Nowhere in the rules does it differentiate between grass and ground. In fact, (and in another brilliant example of you destroying your own argument) the 'line' being discussed inst a line on the ground but painted grass. So if you admit that the ball touches the ground in the in-goal area at the same time as it is touching the grass outside the in-goal area (including the touchline) then the decision is no try.



grass = ground. Thats why we paint grass and not ground.



im saying you can quite clearly see ball touch whitewashed grass. That is touch.



contact with the touchline is touch.



because there isnt some magical in spot on the ball which touches the grass in goal area where the ball isnt touching grass elsewhere and if you are no trying to differentiate the time between a couple of milimetres of grass being touched and then bending, you have gone into the realms of simultaneous.



That is a lovely drawing, but its not the shape of a rugby ball, it isn’t how an RL behaves under pressure, and most obviously it is a completely different situation to the Charnley incident where the ball is running parallel rather than perpendicular.



Either way, as you have started your usual tactics of trying to put peoples arguments in the terms you wanted rather than as they have put, as well as editing their posts so you only respond to the arguments you believe you can refute. Ill leave you to your drawings. They are very nice and you should get them up on the fridge.

Guess who has got promoted to Referee for this week's Wigan game ??



With the other one taking his role in the video van !!!

Yes you clearly are.

The ball touched the dead ball line and the tryline.

That's pretty unbelievable he's been given the Wigan game tbh.



I still look forward to his explanation for awarding the try on twitter later....

Or perhaps the brains of a primary school child. Which apparently are very rare.



If FA hasn't put any doubt into anyone's mind, well, I'm lost as to how that is.

This i you spectacularly missing a point I felt I'd maybe OVER-laboured. Clearly I should have tried harder. At the risk of repetition ad nauseam, NO. Because then you would be "counting" the contact with whitewashed grass, yet IGNORING the (obviously prior) contact with plain green grass.





And I'm the pedant? The points and the arguments are exactly the same whichever angle the ball is at. As well you know.





Heheh, you can't deal with argument and so off you go to the refuge of [iad hominem[/i. Stick to the discussion.





Wrong. I don't have to reply to every word you write nor would it be usual to do so. As it is, I tend to reply to much more of your posts than most people would. There is no "argument" made by you that I "believe I cannot refute". If there was, I would 100% say so, and congratulate you. As it is, I've refuted them all, already. You just wouldn't listen.

It isn't unbelievable at all.

It just proves the point that the ref's feel that they are untouchable.



They have no morals, they have no scruples and they just don't care.

I don't remember trying to say any of those things, oddly enough.





Ps he's called "Child" not "Childs".





That's rather obviously because they are three discrete illustrations, not a friggin video sequence

probably the only thing you have got right.



You want to pretend that from that photo there is proof that a spot on the ball managed to somehow touch the ground in the field of play whilst hovering fractions of fractions of fractions of a millimetre above the whitewash and not touching. I think your being ridiculous.



I think If we were to follow your idiocy to its conclusion we could quite easily argue that the actual existence of the whitewash raises the height of the grass above the height of the grass in the in-goal area by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a millimetre hence, touch due to touching the whitewash painted on the grass an infinitesimal amount of time before touching the grass. The time it takes to travel the depth of a lick of paint.



But that would be stupid. As stupid as what you are doing which is not only trying to include the time it takes to bend a blade of grass as a meaningful issue in a game of rugby league, but trying to measure and trying to judge which blade of grass was bent first by from a frame of film taken after the event.



I think if you have a provision in the rules which mentions simultaneous contact, you use it. You think we should try and work out which blade of grass was the first to be touched by a series of frames and our best guess at what went on in between them.

No, not "proof". More reason to give the try than not is how I would put it.





Oooh, more insults. I'm really hurt. No, I am.





Most people would expect driving a line painting machine along the grass to paint a line, would bend the grass downwards so generally it might be a fraction below, not above, the adjacent grass if anything.





Oooooh, "stupid", now. Please stop this hurtful abuse, it is really upsetting me

- Seriously, do you think this is helping your case?





Nope, not doing any such, just saying that I think the evidence suggests the ball was grounded not in touch but in play. It doesn't matter which depth you choose, the outermost tips of the longest grass, or the solid ground at the bottom of the grass, the LOWEST POINT of the curved surface of the ball will ALWAYS beat the rest of the ball into contact with it. Because it is lower. So closer to the ground.





Nope, we just need to work out as best we can where the ball first made contact. That's really all there is to it. It could only be simultaneous, though, if the point of contact was exactly on the dividing line between the touch line and the pitch. And I don't think ANYONE is arguing that. Certainly no image I've seen shows or even suggests that.



Do feel free to hurl some more insults.

Let me try this a different way, rather than descend in to your weird quantum refereeing of RL (or guessing as it is also known) let me ask you a question.



The rules in RL have provision for ‘simultaneous contact’ that being that the ball touches the in-goal area and the touchline at the same-time. Considering you have got to the point of speculating that a spot on the ball may have touched a blade of green grass, before the bend of that grass put it into contact with the whitewash (though we have no proof of this, simply its possibility, which is highly doubtful from the pictures we have, but not entirely disproved because there may exist pictures that we don’t have, which to be fair is an argument which could be used to argue absolutely anything), if not in this instance is it judged ‘simultaneous’ under what circumstance would that rule come in to play?



Is there a smaller period of time than the initial bend of a blade of grass as a ball is put down on it that we are waiting for before we use that provision?

This will be a nightmare for judging if a kick has gone out on the full

Bring back Robin Whitfield at least you can expect controversy with him. Remember him sending off Hanley for talking to him even though as captain he was allowed.

Oooh, more cutting sarcasm. "Quantum refereeing"? What a very curious thing to introduce. What's that, then?



Me, I'm just arguing that the ball was first grounded in play, so a try; or at the very least, not enough evidence it WASN'T so grounded, so no reason to disallow a try.





Fire away.



Er, where there was simultaneous contact.





I already answered this, though. If the ball is put down 50/50 on the margin of line and in-goal then that would be simultaneous. Here, it wasn't.

That doesn’t make sense. Why is the ball being 50/50 over the line and in-goal simultaneous? It is equal, it isn’t simultaneous. If 99.999999999999999999999999% of the first part of the ball to touch the ground is in the field of play. It is in touch. If 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the first part of the ball to touch the ground is out of the field of play, it is in touch.

FFS. If a ball lands on a dividing line then it is deemed to have landed both in and out simultaneously.



The rest of your example is meaningless, the point where the ball first contacts the ground is just that: a POINT.

X marks the spot, that sort of thing.



However I suggest it would be onerous to expect an official to be able to decide that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the first part of the ball to touch the ground was out of the field of play, so i don't expect your test to be introduced any time soon. I expect they'll stick with mine, namely if they are satisfied the ball was initially grounded in the field of play, or at least see no reason to think that it wasn't.

Worst Decision Ever....

I think it's touching the try line and touch line at the same time - no try for me. This thread is entertaining though, dodgy ms paint diagrams being a highlight.

"I was right" ref response shocker.



Whole twitter thing is pointless. Most recently:



"How was Warrington conversion given?"



"It went between the posts"



.... smh

Did it go between the posts?

The message board addict really is a 'certain breed'. This thread is pure geeky gold!

Without the presence of a 1,000,000 pixel 10,000 FPS picture, there is no way to tell if it was actually a try or not. There is no clear [As in, 100% sure evidence that the ball touches the sideline before or as the ball touches the try line. There for a try is the only decision on this occasion.



For what it's worth, the second try was a damn sight clearer as a try, and was disallowed, so swings and roundabouts here fellas.

The other pretty poor decision was HKR's last try.

Silverwood gave a try although on the SLS his head cam shows the ball being dropped to the ground before the HKR man puts his hand on the ball.

Dave Woods saw it as clearly as anyone, though SKY never mentioned it in their game "payback time" narrative.