That's what proves it's a conspiracy rather than a cock up

Just write the names on the balls.

I'm not one who goes in for the conspiracy theories at all. I think the draw is random, every time. The people who say it isn't always say its fixed no matter what the outcome. Teams kept apart? Fix. The RFL wanted them in the final. Teams drawn together? Fix. The RFL wanted a big game for the round.

I'd challenge these people to post their predictions for the draw before it happens rather than after.

What I think may have happened here is that they have made an honest mistake and rather than own up to it they have tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. The evidence is there. I'm prepared to believe that lighting creates different colours on the balls and angles etc but the evidence still suggests the balls are different. There is no big rectangular mark on the BBC clip under the 9.

Now you know that kind of sensible thinking has no place on here. This is a lets blame the RFL for no reason thread. That way we can sleep soundly in the knowledge that ALL the sports' ills are the doing of the RFL and our own particular club is fantastic and amazing.

The RFL will be issuing another press release about their integrity and professionalism. Coco the clown mentioned in despatches.

What a bunch of bloody idiots.

Having seen the RFL's image, I revisited the screen grab overleaf. The front of the ball is not shown, what you in fact see is part of the number THROUGH the ball. The curve and composition of the ball cuts off the top of the number, it is not "flat" at all - you can't actually see the top so you can't actually see if there is or is not a flat. As I don't believe anyone has ever made a ball using a flat base as a differentiator rather than an underscore, I do not believe there is any issue as to the draw. It was an entirely avoidable farce, but was correctly called

In that case if it was in deed a 9 then it would have been reversed surely? So through the ball the 9 would be represented backwards?

It wasn't the flat base which made me believe otherwise. It was the big underscore they claimed was on the 9 in the repost when it wasn't there in the live picture. I think the curvature of the ball is enough to explain away the flatness of the number.

Not to mention the fact that there's a great big line going through the middle of the 9 on the picture the RFL posted which doesn't exist on the picture from the live draw.

They're not the same balls, that is evidently clear. Cock up rather than conspiracy but trying to cover it up by lying is deplorable from a professional organisation.

If they can get a set of balls made with numbers on, surely they can get them made with text on. It's a lot harder to get 'six' and 'nine' mixed up. Mankind sent a man to the moon in the 1960s.

Jimi Hendrix had a song " If six was nine" from the Axis Bold as Love album.FWIW

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.