Once again, where does it say that in the actual laws? It does not say anything about trying to avoid the ball, once you have attempted to make a play for the ball and failed does it? If it did you would be right, but it doesn't and that is why you and Hicks are wrong.

Charnley and Burrow both deliberately played for the ball for the ball, he does not have to have succeeded or actual touch the ball for for him to have made a deliberate play for the ball. READ THE ACTUAL LAW as written!!! Then, when he can't get out of the way of the ball a split second later, having failed in his attempt, he suddenly become passive and not active in that play and accidentally in the way of the ball. There was no 'accident' about where Charney was or what he was doing there... playing for the ball!!!



Read it again and tell me why I and Smokey are wrong?

Of course you can, otherwise you could have a situation where two people are running for the ball, and the one who gets there first boots it at the other whom it bounces off and goes into touch, the first player then claims a scrum on the basis that the other one had put himself in a position where it could hit him.


One problem with all this: "remove Burrow".

Or the converse happens and one person is running with the sole intention to hamper the other person, and should they touch the ball even at the expense of the other person they are judged to have not played at the ball. Which simply leaves ridiculous situations like the one mentioned which you have conveniently failed to address.

Ill state it again for you " imagine a defensive player is shepherding the ball over the dead ball line from an attacking kick, the ball takes a bounce backwards and rebounds off said player and in to touch, do you give a drop out or a tap on the twenty?"

You clearly don't know the rule. A player has to make a play at it. If it just hits him by accident then it doesn't count. With your hypothetical situation, if Burrow had not hit the ball, then the situation would be exactly the same for Charnley however it would have been a scrum to Leeds because Finch kicked the ball. However, Burrow did make a play and hit the ball resulting in the correct decision of Wigan scrum.

So you are under the impression that if I touch the ball on accident it doesnt count regardless of what I have done to be in a position to touch the ball. And the decision we ask referees to make is to decide whether or not a player intended to touch the ball rather than the interpretation of involving yourself with the ball.

So if Burrow had just kept on running and the ball bounced up and hit him on the hand and went out that wouldnt count either?

You are absolutely right with the rule but wrong in your application of it. The ball ricochets off Charnley from Burrow and therefore, as per the rule, Charnley should not be disadvantaged! Again I repeat, a correct decision.
Charnley initially made a play at the ball but did not make any contact. Burrows did and so Wigan scrum.

That is exactly what the rule states. You are picking it up at last.

The fact it ricochets of Burrow isnt relevant, it makes no difference that it came of Burrow rather than the bounce of the ball (ricochet and rebounds are examples of the rules not an exhaustive list)

Except that isnt and never has been the way the game has been interpreted on the field.

Yes it has. Which game have you been watching? It is often a difficult call for the officials but they get it right most of the time including Saturday!

It makes a big difference that it came off Burrow. He made the play at the ball and it then bounced off Charnley, hence Wigan scrum.

There's a reason you have to keep on thinking up examples that are different to the one in question.


I'm afraid it does make a difference. If a player strikes the ball at another player, causing is to ricochet off him and into touch, the first player shall concede the scrum by virtue of having played at it. It really isn't rocket science.