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....

That will be a week on Thursday when we play Leeds. Sinfield will kick through and Ryan Hall will collect the ball while being offside, drop it over the line, pick it up and put it on the dead ball line. Childs will refer the try up to the VR to Steve Ganson. He will look at it 24 times before awarding the try. He will then say after the match that he got the decision wrong and was actually watching footage of a game almost 20 years ago between Oldham and Sheffield. Jon Sharp will then come out and say we got it wrong and the Refs want to be transparent while Steve Ganson takes a couple of weeks off fully paid. The incident will then swept under the carpet until the next time Hull KR are on sky

In your opinion, but only because you can't look at them with an open mind
*of
Oh, so you did understand. You were just being ‘sarky’. Interesting. You may say with no pressure on it almost the entire length of the ball cannot be touching the ground. Yet you yourself have posted a picture of it. That, at least is indisputable.

It is both on, and over the line. It is both on and over the line by a large margin. And when we compare that with your ball at rest, we can see the margin it is both on and over the line is due to the size and shape of the ball, not the deformation of it, stemming from the pressure being applied to it.

Contact with the ground is contact with the ground. It is the action of the ball touching the ground. If you want to start getting to smaller and smaller measurements of it, go ahead, but our VR’s don’t need a degree in quantum physics because we have provision within the rules for it. Simultaneous contact is no try.

In your opinion, but only because you can't look at it with an open mind.
As your first picture shows, the area touching the floor is relatively large, too large for that to be true.
It seems your memory differs from the pictures you provided. Which is………..strange.
So a measurement of time so small we can’t observe it eh? Another way of saying that would be, the contact was simultaneous.
I understand the difference. You are guessing.

I think your evidence proved it quite well for me.

They should bring DRS into rugby league, that would surely clear up and end any confusion.

Doesn't matter. You'd have to assume that the surface is flat, unless you are saying that what looks a valid try is to be ruled out because the outer part of the ball might have hit some raised mound of soil first.


I'm not! I believe it was a fair decision and even if it could be somehow proved "no try" it certainly doesn't deserve the ref bagging it produced from (tbf) a few. I think explaining stuff like this and discussing it with reasonable people is good fun and that's about it. And after pages of explanations, a mere statement that it "was obviously thw rong decision" is an irrelevance, that's just a mere bald statement of your opinion. To which you're entitled, but not to claim it as some self-evident truth.


I would!


and I dare say it wouldn't, but I'm only interested in whether it was a correct, or supportable, decision, not whether it would or wouldn't be given.


It is a weakness of yours to keep claiming universal support ("everyone can see that..."icon_wink.gif, bluster does not advance your case. If everyone can see that, then why can't I, and why couldn't James Child? That's two, just for starters.

The last in my series of images with respect clearly shows that Charnley can't have done this. Unless the ball has hit the touchline first, then somehow slid horizontally 20cm or so away from touch.

Sarky? Nope. So now you’re saying that a ball in the act of being forcefully grounded at speed has no forces acting on it. That is with respect ridiculous.


As I keep having to repeat, being “over” the line” is not the point. Is it TOUCHING the line is the preliminary point. If yes, then we move on to the next poiunt, which would be: did that part of the ball touch the line BEFORE any part was grounded in play.


Which is of course MY point – but not, seemingly, yours. As I now understand your position, the initial contact doesn’t count. You think we have to wait until a large part of the ball is in contact with the grassy surface, for some reason. You think the initial contact can be ignored, and if the ball is being pressed to the ground, you think that we let play go on, despite the initial contact, until the ball is deformed so much that eventually part of it touched the line. I suppose that is where we’ll have to disagree. My firm view is that the initial contact is the ONLY relevant moment, what happens after that doesn’t count.



Another non sequitur, and your argument isn’t helped by the device of childish parroting. Can’t you have a discussion without resorting to this?


Do you mean my LAST picture? I suggest you repost it so we know what you are on about.


No, it doesn’t. The first image in my post containing the images is of a number of RL balls on the ground together, viewed from different angles.


As a matter of pure common sense, if the critical moment is between frames, nobody can see it in a frame. So we have to make deductions based on the preceding and following images. It seems, with respect, ludicrous to suggest that BECAUSE we can’t see the moment of grounding, it was “simultaneous”. Yet another non sequitur.


Only if your definition of “guessing” is not the one in standard use.

You’re right, it would be ridiculous. That’s why I didn’t say anything even approaching something like that. With respect. Read it again.

Well unless it is magic, the pictures quite obviously show it is both on and over the line. It is both on and over the live by a large margin.

no it isnt. your point is the quite ludicrous and obviously false point, that the area of the ball which touches the ground initially is such a small area that that area was in the field of play whereas the rest of the ball for a fleeting moment was hanging in the air not touching anything then the pressure of the hand on the ball squashed it meaning that the only frames we see are ones where none of the ball touches the floor, and ones where the ball is touching the the line, over the line and in the in-goal area. You dont have anything to prove this because this moment would be such a small amount of time but you would like us to believe it is true. and you have drawn a picture. Well then you need to re-read what i have written. No i dont. You can just read what i actually put. Making up my argument for me might be fun for you to argue against, but i dont need to be here for it. You could do this on your own. nope.Nope. Nope Well that was a lovely straw man. He had a hat an everything.

You are funny.

no, i meant FIRST picture. I'll explain it a little clearer for you. Your first picture shows a ball at rest. It shows a ball with no outside forces acting upon it. It shows a ball not deformed by pressure applied to it. Not pushed in to the ground but just resting on the ground. It shows the majority of the length of the ball touching the ground. It shows that if you place a ball down and don’t push it in to the ground don’t deform it, don’t act upon it, a large proportion of the length of the ball will be in contact with the ground. It shows the minimum amount, that a ball at that angle, can be in contact with the ground unless an outside force acts upon it (other than the mounds and divots you have already told us we ignore).
yet you seem to think that only a very small amount of the ball is on the floor. Its very strange.
If the moment is that small it falls in between frames we don’t just make a guess at what happened in between those frames, if the moment was so small that it falls in between frames we have provision for it, simultaneous contact is no try. The reason why simultaneous contact is no try, the whole reason it is in the rules is to avoid a referee having to guess what happened in a moment so infinitesimal that it was the difference between a ball touching the ground and the ball expanding on impact, a moment so small that a hd camera couldn’t capture it, a moment so small there is no evidence to prove it ever existed. To avoid this nonsense.

If your evidence is a frame that doesn’t exist from an angle that we didn’t have then you are guessing.

But I do. It is the image that i posted where the ball is viewed from the side, and is just behind the corner flag.


Yes. This image was posted to counter your argument that rugby balls are some funny shape, not essentially an ovoid, but with flattish panels. The end on ball is clearly, as near as makes no difference, rounded, not as you suggest.


1. No it doesn't. The ball is horizontal, and at rest. As such, only a spot at the bottom middle of the ball is resting on the ground. The size of that spot is determined by the force of gravity, balanced by the tension of the inflated ball, but it's not a big area.

2. The rest of the ball cannot be touching the ground. It MUST be curving up away from the ground.

3. The rest of the "length of the ball", i.e. outside the spot that is resting on the ground, may be touching the GRASS, and the area of ball which is touching the GRASS will be much bigger than the spot which is touching the ground. (For this purpose, whilst obviously none of the ball is likely to be touching bare earth, the spot that is resting on the ground will only be separated from the ground by the width of blades of flattened grass so that would to me count as the same thing).

4. How much of the ball will be in contact with the grass obviously depends entirely on how long the grass is. If it is cut to the extreme amount of a putting green then not much. If the grass is 6" long then maybe the full length.

If I follow your argument, you are saying that, if to left of centre of the ball, there was a line whitewashed in the grass, and if part of the ball is touching that whitewashed grass, then it is in touch. Yes?

So the contact between ball and whitewash, even if the ball is not resting on the line, "counts" as in touch?

Why, then, did not the earlier contact between green grass and ball "count" to complete the grounding? You can't have it both ways!


I think it's a simple point, but as you don't seem to grasp it yet, another diagram:



A: Is "A" a try? Lots of the ball is contacting lots of the grass, but there's still a short vertical distance left to travel before the ball can drop no further.

If "A" is not a try, then the loads of contact of loads of the ball with loads of grass doesn't count. Can we agree that?

So to be a try, it would have to complete downward travel, as in B. Right? If yes, we need the ball to reach the solid bit.

OK. So now all you have to do is explain to me why, if "A" is NOT a try, nevertheless "C" is in touch. I'd say that would be illogical.

Are you debating the Charnley try still? Because the angle of the ball is not like your MS Paint drawing. It's such that it's touching the sideline at every point of downward pressure.