I should think he'll be answering it this aft or tomorrow on twitters #asktheref,

Hope he doesn't just do a Thaler and justify it was a right decision because he says so.

My main gripe is that last season in the Cricket Ground corner of the West Stand, BJB scored exactly the same try (or didn't) and the video ref disallowed it. Reason being if its simultaneous contact with try line and touch its no try.

What caused the stink was the initial penalty given for a non-existent offside by the VR making a big mistake.
The offside from the kick missed by Ganson was much more understandable given he wasn't in a position to see it and didnt receive any report from any other official.

James Child is having an awful season both on the field and as VR.
Didn't think the 2nd Charnley touch down was a try but his contest with Hodgson for a try I thought was a four pointer.
Jon Wells in his game review used the Super Zoom, that and Wells confirmed it was a try with Charnley beating Hodgson and grounding the ball.
Two wrong decisions with the correct number of points gained by both teams.
Child has to up his game.

Well, should I or shouldn't I?

You see, just above you, I get:


So some people object to me commenting at all, others ask me to explain. Can't really win!



Anyway, the point I made (with diagram!) is that the bit of a round ball that touches the ground first, as viewed from directly above, isn't on the edge, but somehere along the line of the ball. Where will depend on the angle of a rugby ball, but it will always be a point along the centre line.

At the moment that point first touches the ground, the side of the ball nearest the touch line may well be overhanging the touchline. But it isn't making contact with the touchline. That's because the ball is curved, and none of it is touching the ground at that moment, except for the one single point which hits the ground first.

After that, the ball may well be forced further down, and the pressure may well squash the ball so that the "outer edge" touches the white line, but it makes no difference; that only happens after the event. It is where the ball first hits the ground that counts, nothing else after that matters.

I hope this explains, but will gladly explain further if you aren't clear.

thats only relevent if the ball is put down flat. The fact the ball is curved is irrelevent if it is put down at an angle. As it was.

But can you actually articulate what the flaw/s is/are? You simply stating it is "flawed" doesn't cut it.

No! The ball can never be put down flat - unless maybe it was completely deflated and ironed!

As Led Zepplin once told us ‘sometimes words have two meanings’

In the context I was using flat, I was clearly using it to describe something level, without slope or tilt. Something even. That’s why I opposed it with something tilted. I hoped it would elucidate you to the context.

So yes, whilst an inflated ball isn’t flat, it can be placed down level, without slope or tilt, even. you know, flat.

Listen, before I go on, do you want to debate this, or is your sarky tone indicating that you just want to be y? I'm happy to discuss it but aren't in the mood just now for a kindergarten yahboo convo.

You seemed pretty ‘sarky’ when talking about deflating and ironing rugby balls, but hey ho.

Regardless, the ball can be put down flat, it can be put down tilted on an angle. If it is put down flat, level with the field, without tilt. Then yes the curvature of the ball will ensure the centre of the ball touches the ground first. If the ball isn’t flat and is tilted, even by a margin of only a few inches, then the lowest point of the ball will move away from the centre, towards the ends of the ball. The more it is tilted the further from the centre the lowest point will be.

I see that you misunderstand the point. I said that the part of the ball that must always touch the ground first will ALWAYS be on a line drawn around the centre of the ball, viewed from above.

In the case of a sphere, you can draw the line anywhere, in the case of an ovoid like a rugby ball, you draw the line through either end.

Even if you put the ball down vertically, only the actual centre point of the tip will touch the ground first. If that point is close enough to the touch line, there will be an overhang of ball, over the white line, but it won't be touching the white line.

Whatever angle the ball is at, this doesn't change. There will ALWAYS be an overhang, all around the point that touches the ground first. It s just that in the example I think you are suggesting, the overhang will be more in one direction and less in the other. But there must always be an overhang. Eg:

What applies to the ball lengthways, applies to it width ways too. The effect is just less pronounced because the distance is smaller.

An RL ball isn’t a perfect Prolate Spheroid, it is a Prolate Spheroid made up of flat panels and it is also a little misshapen because of the techniques used to construct it. It isn’t ‘round’. So the effect you are talking about isn’t apparent. The ‘point’ you are describing is much larger. What you are describing is more akin to a football, which is a perfect sphere only has a small section in contact with the ground at any one time. The Shape of a rugby ball, made of long flat panels, means a much larger surface area is in contact with the ground when the ball is on the floor.

This overhang you are talking about isn’t a large amount, and where this overhang occurs, and how much there is depends on the angle of the ball.

It is perfectly true that the situation you illustrate could happen. It is certainly true that a ball could be put down on an angle so that the lowest point of the ball was in the field of play on the ground, and other parts of the ball were out of the field of play but not touching the ground. But it would be a very very very very small amount of the ball, at a very specific angle and position in a very specific area of the field that this could happen, and the fact it could happen, is no indication that it did. There is also no way of James Child knowing that this very specific set of circumstances, with an infinitesimal margin of error, has arisen.

Good, we can agree so far.


For the purposes of discussion, it is as near to perfect as matters. as if you are placing a surface onto a flat surface, then ANY curvature - even a degree - means that only one single point will contact the ground, and the rest either will not, or will do so later (ie at an irrelevant later moment)


A non sequitur, and also the rugby ball is as near as dammit "round" in any cross-section. You seem to think it is some sort of irregular shape, and when not fully inflated, it is. But under proper pressure, it is as near to round in cross section as, for the purposes of this discussion, makes no difference.

Here is an image I found, it isn't the current ball but the spec is the same, look at the right hand ball and you have to agree that each panel is very significantly curved.




As explained, no it doesn't, but the main point I'm surprised you can even argue against: the relevant contact is the first contact. If that is in the field of play then it is a try.

The error in your logic is you continue to propose that a "large surface area" of a curved surface can simultaneously come into contact with a flat surface. Logic should tell you that it can't.


The overhang is at least half the diameter of the ball at that point. It doesn't need to be a large amount anyway, all that it needs is that the ball first touches the ground at a point in the field of play.


Thank you.


That is a mere assertion, not supported by any argument, and is wrong. It is self-evident that, if the first contact between ball and ground is just inside the touch line - say, 1cm inside) then a significant portion of the ball is BOUND to be overhanging the touch line at that moment.


The fact that it could happen is a big start, though, and all that's left is to see if it did happen.


The "infinitesimal" bit is just wrong. We aren't talking millimetres in the Charnley case. If you look at the actual video available, I'll post three images:

First, one that shows the ball above ground, in the process of being grounded.


The ball is almost vertical, and maybe 30 cm from the line. NOTE THE SHADOW of the ball - it is well clear of the line, and thus the ball is clear of the corner flag-post.
It looks as if Charnley must score.

What happens next is that as the ball is in the process of being grounded, the bottom point rotates away from Charnley, he keeps his hand near the top point of the ball. The next frame is fractionally AFTER the grounding:



It is very blurred, but still, the ball has the look of being in play, and certainly you could not say from that shot that it is definitely on the touch line. (It is behind the corner flag-post). Looking at that, I would not disallow the try. Especially as that is AFTER the touchdown, and having regard to the earlier shot.

What then clinches it for me is the following shot from behind the try-line. Again, this is fractionally AFTER the grounding; still, the centre-line of the ball is WELL in-play, and the nearest-to-camera point of the ball (which, remember, has rotated towards this camera, as the other point has rotated away from the camera) is still a little lower than the far end of the ball.



The blue line at the top of the ball is above the area where the INITIAL contact with the ground must have occurred. And is clearly (to me) over an in-play part of the pitch.

The mid-ball area has, obviously, sunk into the grass by this point, and the left-side of the ball has touched the whitewash. What you needd to do is to reverse the sequence; you need to lift the ball back out of that position, until, only one point, the first contact point, is touching the pitch; and tell me whether that point is in, or out.

To me, it is pretty clearly in. I understand that some may argue there is plenty of doubt, and others may think it would still somehow be out. What I do not think is reasonable is to slag the VR off to say it was certainly out. That there is, at the very least, a considerable doubt seems too me indisputable.

And certainly no case for a bagging of the video ref.

Whilst your logic in defence of Child is sound, every single image you have posted only serves to illustrate he made the wrong decision.

He, and he is not the only Video Referee to do this, simply tries to be too clever in coming to a decision.

Look at the pictures you are posting, they destroy your own argument. Look at the pictures is. The balls, at rest, with no pressure put on the, almost the entire length of the ball is in contact with the ground, not the centre, almost the entire length of it. Your last one shows a huge amount the ball over the line. Not a small amount, a significant portion.

Just compare your first picture and your last. Look at the ball with no pressure on it, and see that the majority of the ball is touching the floor, looks at your last and see the majority of the length touching the floor.

Your mid line argument is simply irrelevant. There is no way that ball was put down so that the portion the ball in the area touched the ground before the rest of the ball which is touching ground did. RL balls are a different shape to what you remember, and the fact you can't find the frame which would show what you are saying is because it doesn't exist, you are just going on what you guess the surface area which touched the ground first is. That's it, a complete guess on your part. All availabled evidence tells us that the ball touched the corner flag, try line and in goal area, and touch in goal line simultaneously. Simultaneous contact equals no try.

Hilarious

Even as a Wigan fan there is some doubt in my mind as to whether it was a legitimate try. However, as benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team Childs was within his rights to award the try. Poor rule, like many others brought in to the game recently in our attemps to copy the Aussies, but rules are rules and you've got to play to them.

That the ball wasn't flat (And don't be a twit you know what I mean). So your arguement that the centre of the ball is touching first is flawed due to the angle changing the centre point.
In otherwords you are making a guess when all the evidence points to the fact that simultaneous contact was made thus no try.

In your opinion, but only because you can't look at them with an open mind.


Come again?


Again, almost the whole length of the ball can't be in contact with the ground "with no pressure put on it". That at least is indisputable.

But, again, the issue isn't whether any amount of the ball is "over" the line, but whether it is ON the line i.e whether it is touching it. If it is, then did it touch the line first, or within play.


Whilst we can't see under the ball, what do you say constiotutes contact with the ground, sufficient to be a try (or sufficient to be in touch)? The first brush with the top of a blade of grass? Or what?


Far from being irrelevant, it's the whole point.


There is, of course, a way, and the position of the ball in the final image clearly shows it, if you imagine lifting the ball slowly back up, until only the first point of contact remains, that is bound to be well away from the line.




Er, my first image pictures a few. Trust me, they look like that. Apart from the printed design. Really.


Correct, even with Sky's technology, the moment of touching down was "between frames".


Well, if you want to call it a "guess", which is an odd way to put it, then it is no more a guess than the video referees. It is an assessment based on what evidence is seen. A reasoned judgement. Most people would understand the difference between that and a "guess".


I'm the only one posting evidence. You tell me you have seen this "all available" evidence, but where is it, then?

No, viewed from above, the part of the ball that hits the ground first MUST be on a point on the centre line of the ball, as drawn from point to point. However many times you imply that's wrong, it is a basic and inescapable fact.


So in other words as your basic premise is false, your point doesn't stand, but as before, what "available evidence" are you referring to? If you post some, I'll gladly consider it. If convincing evidence is produced that does show the ball simultaneously touched the line and the flag then I would be happy to accept it. You seem to think it is important to me that Charnley's try was valid. But it's not. I don't care if he scored or not. My interest is firstly, whether the correct decision was made and secondly whether the decision deserves the bagging it has got in some quarters.

I think the bemusement for me was more that "TRY" flashed up rather than "TRY - BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" - so he was convinced. My view at the time (backed up I think by the pictures shown above) was that one angle showed it out and the other showed it just in. So benefit of the doubt was probably the best way to give it, but it was certainly more NO TRY than TRY.

However, the score line was 14-10 for 26 minutes on Friday though. That was more than enough time to overcome any bad decisions in my view. It was next try wins for ages I felt and Rovers couldn't find a way through. I think their error was not testing the wing of Joe Burgess or Anthony Gelling enough.

That said - I think the video officiaticating has been absolutely shocking this season and to be honest has been ever since they started having on field officials doubling up as video refs. I don't remember this much drama when we had retired refs doing it. They have made a simple tool far too complicated.

We've got rid of BTD this year in NRL and its made it 100 times better. Now the on field ref has to make a decision and the video ref can only over rule it if there is clear evidence contradicting the refs decision. Has made it quicker and less controversial on the whole. Refs keep screwing the smaller clubs in favour of the bigger clubs every weekend, why should this game be any different?

I agree that there have been some shocking VR decisions over the years and there continue to be.

However I am still in favour of the VR as without doubt they get right many decisions that would otherwise be wrong. And because if we have available the technology, then we should use it.

So what we need to do is find some way to eliminate the shocking decisions, which simply should never be made by anyone, let alone an experienced top grade ref. They have the same problem in Aus too, so it isn't just SLE VRS, though I do agree with the Aus system of the ref having to make a call. Much better.

And seemingly they have the same VR rubbish problem in Test cricket too!

That might be true if the ball was being placed on a table, the fact is it was placed on grass which tends to vary in length and beneath that soil which is not a perfectly flat surface either.

I really don't understand why you are so keen to defend what was obviously a wrong decision. No one other than Childs would have given that as a try and I dare say that in exactly the same circumstances in the future it would be NO TRY after one or two views.

The decision was wrong because Charnley placed the ball on the touchline, everyone can see that.

There, you shouldn't need to get into physics to see it wasn't a try.

There can be no doubt. If it were a kick for touch it would be out on the full and no one would argue.


The people coming up with excuses for it being awarded is very cute, but ridiculous. Probably time to move on until the next inexplicable VR decision in a few weeks....