No, there is absolutely, positively, definitely no such thing shown on that image. That, at least, is clear.


I don't have any problem at all with disagreement, nothing better! But no, the images already posted are ample to make the point.

A fitting epitaph for the thread.

Pff I bet you still think Jordan Tansey was offside

Is FA the new Smokey or just the Bull's equivalent?

if it rolls down against the flag and the flag isn't bent outwards then it can't touch the sideline first.

The post doesn’t cover the width of the sideline. So it can, quite easily.

But the flag [iis [/ibent, you can see it on the angles JC posted himself on teh RFL website. It goes out at the bottom where the ball is pushing it (and subsequently touching the sideline)

Can you explain how your post relates to this thread on the VT, about a VR decision, because I don't see the connection.

In fact, have you actually got ANYTHING to say? Or is the mush that passes for your brain just determined to keep deflecting the thread, by thinking up what I presume must somehow seem to you like witty personal jibes aimed at other posters?

Ooooooh touchy. Now who's name calling? Put your claws away sweetheart and chill out. I'm sorry I poked fun at your lessons in the physics of a Rugby ball. IMO it was a no try. Just because you did some fancy mspaint diagrams, doesn't mean your right.

PS I probably went a bit too far calling you Smokey did I?

Another picture that proves Charnley lost it.

Heheh nerve touched, job done, too easy.


I would have no problem at all with that


Nor did I claim it did. You could always consider posting something in support of your opinion.

I think the video footage and even the stills are sufficient.

Don't think I need to. You did it for me!

Spirited stuff, good on you. Don't let the reality that the decision has been confirmed after due consideration by the RFL referees, and on the same evidence as I had posted, for the same reasons that I gave, deflect you from your noble if pointless crusade. God loves a trier.

Are you lying here or just mistaken?

Oh, almost certainly I'm all three.

Ill assume lying then.

You're ill? Nothing trivial, I hope

Oh dear it really has got to you hasn't it? Oh btw, I don't think Mr Child sat and drew mspaint drawings to come to the decision like you. It seems only you and him think it was a try.

No, the referee that awarded the try has stuck by his decision. Nothing has been 'confirmed' by the RFL referees.

But don't let that reality detract you from your pointless crusade[size=85 (the pointless crusade being Bradford's season)[/size

Er, no.


1. I'm not a fan of either club involved.
2. It made zero difference to me whether it was given or denied.
3. And even if I did want the sort of justification that you clearly crave, then I'd have got it when the refs confirmed they consider the decision correct.

I simply added my reasoned opinion to a "was it/wasn't it" debate.


Poor love, you're confused. I used diagrams to help explain my point, not to "come to a decision".


It really doesn't. But attaboy, you keep right on flogging. Hang on - I think the horse moved...

Eddie, Stevo, Steward Cummings and the Editor of the Rugby League express thought it was no try. Who has come out saying they though it was a try?

Ferocious Aardvark and James Child. I've never seen them both in the same room.. just saying

Then again, I've never seen Stevo and The Hood in the same room, so I wouldn't trust his opinion either...