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.

which came off the back of a clear obstruction? Funny these decisions don't get mentioned much, as they didn't go for Wigan.

So we can't tell what it touches first eh?
Fine we have a rule for that it's call simultaneous contact and it result's in no try.

IMO we need to go down the NFL route with video decisions. The referee makes a decision then goes to the video to find indisputable evidence that his decision was wrong, otherwise the referee's decision stands.

Just watched it again. Awful decision, that's even worse than James Child disallowing Charnley's try.

That's unfair. I have seen plenty of occasions when the refs have iether agreed a mistake was made, or that at least the questioner has a point. They seem to answer the questions reasonably and in good spirit, to me. Unlike, it regrettably has to be said, the manner in which some of the trolls and muppets ask them.

With regard to:

- just perfect. Doylem bowls full toss question, and predictably it gets smashed for a six!

My favourite this week is Tim Roby:


Back to the plot, and as someone has kindly already posted, I note that James Child remains of the view it was a correct decision, and makes the same point, using the same image, that I did. Damn, I'm good.

No your not good, it just means you're as much of a muppet as Childs (thought i'd spell his name wrong again as it seems to bother you)

You realise that not being able to tell which line it touches first is not the same as it touching both lines at the same time, right?

I've seen the footage and the stills. Not sure what all the fuss is about TBH. No clear evidence that a try wasn't scored = try given. In fact I'd say disallowing Charnley's next try was actually more dubious. Not to mention the last HKR try where the ball is clearly dropped.

But the first clear evidence shows that both lines are touched at the same time. That is no try.

We do have an answer for when a ref has to guess that is BOD it wasn't used so we go back to the footage which doesn't clearly show anything but no try. It's either BOD or no try none of the video shows clearly that it's a try.

Having seen the stills I can sort of start to see why it was given.

it's still not 100% but BOD has to go with the attacking team and it is possible to accept that the ball may have touched the try line before the touch line. After all the ball is round... so it is likely that the point of the ball that touched the ground first would have been on the tryline just before being touched onto the touch line.

I still think the second Charnley try that was dissallowed was more dubious.

OMG, name-calling. By an illiterate. How can I cope?

Whatever makes you feel better in yourself

The final "proof":

Here's the last image I am posting. To me, this shows as clearly as it can be shown that the conclusion has to be as Robbo has summarised it. Looking at this, I am certain that whilst the ball is very close to the touchline, it is not in touch, and the lowest point of the ball does look as if it has to be reasonably comfortably away from the touchline.



You won't be able to make a constructive response to the evidence in front of your eyes, but I'm sure you can think up some more macho posturing and name-calling which I'm quite sure does make you feel better, as well as making you look stupid, so it's win-win.

C’mon, everyone loved your mspaint efforts. They had a child-like wonder about them.

this
and this are mutually exclusive.
Are you still claiming this nonsense? Not even James Child descended to this. He answered in the only way he could answer without him admitting he was a complete moron.

You're wasting your time. For anyone with common sense and a basic grasp of physics the ball has touched the goal line before the touchline, and that's even without using the shape of the ball to support the argument (which it absolutely does). Even if it's by half a millimetre, it's a try. Ignore the muppets, they're on a wind up. No-one can genuinely be so stupid.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/asktheref_6th_augustThe RFL stills help a little for those still hard of understanding.[/url

That picture clearly shows the ball touching the side line - it actually rolls down against the flag if you watch the replay so there is no possible way that it doesn't touch the side line.

Anyway it won't make a difference come the end of the year, so feel free to keep posting pictures - i'll continue to disagree with you and JC.

Sorry but that still looks in touch, and I'm an FC who enjoys Rovers loosing. That was a no try any day of the week.