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.

Ah, the return of Electricdildoslidingwarrior, talking e again.

A player being hit by a kicked ball, without playing at it, and the situation on Saturday are worlds apart. Both players were chasing a ball with intent to recover it, it hit Burrow and then Charnley. By chasing the ball Charnley was, by definition, playing for it.

Otherwise, at what point do you consider that he was trying to recover the ball?

The call was wrong but, on this occassion it went your way, enjoy the win and stop embarassing yourself.

"Rocket science" [guffaw] from the person who bemoans keyboard intellectuals!

I'll give you an hour or so to consult your Thesaurus for some good words.

EDIT: having just had the gumption to look at the video on iPlayer, Charnley clearly plays the ball, so all this is a complete red herring.

The reason people use other examples is because they are genuine examples of interpretation of exactly the same rule. Why are you not able to make what actually happened 'fit' the common interpretation of the law. Err, because it doens't fit by chance!

But they both played at it. They both set off with the clear intention of playing for the ball, the rule is clear as is the definition of ricochet/rebound.





But he did make an attempt to play at the ball, just a split second before Burrow did, it doesn't say anything about actually playing the ball, it just says "who makes no attempt to play at the ball" but he that is exactly what he was trying, and failed to do as part of that play. Charnley suddenly can't opt out of the play because he find himself in the way of the path of the ball.

The simple example I used for Keith on another thread is "You know when you were little and had a race with your mates but, having 'lost' at the finish line you then declare you were never actually really properly racing in the first place, so their victory clear doesn't count!"

This is exactly what you are suggesting, that Charnley can suddenly 'opt out' because he failed to his intention of playing the ball and become passive in the play... he can't, simple!

Hey I'm all for a bit of banter mate but keep it clean eh? After all, you were pointing out how harmful a V sign could be for a family game with youngsters involved weren't you, and you don't want to be thought of as a hypocrite. Oh I'm enjoying the win mate and the reaction of opposition fans that has accompanied it. The sheer frenzy of bitterness that has erupted is both a joy and privilege to experience.

Oh by the way, if I don't immediately respond to your posts, say, between the hours of 9 and 5, there might be a very good reason for that other than consulting a thesaurus. We can't all be on 7 weeks holidays you know.

Nevertheless, the obvious conclusion to draw is that you were displaying faux disapproval for the sake of joining in with some good old Tomkins bashing.


Well considering I only joined this forum in 2009 , no I wasn't. Your point?


What an odd thing to claim. I understand that it's comforting to you to pretend that nobody would hold an opinion different to yours and that anybody posting to that effect is actually pretending in order to "wind people up" (seriously though, does any body get wound up by a different opinion? I wouldn't have though they would, myself.) but "the truth is" that I simply don't agree with your point of view. Shock horror.

Nope, it makes no difference at all as to whether Charnley played at it.

This shows just as much a lack of understanding of the rule and its reasoning as your description of the effect momentum has on the forward pass rule did.
Let me educate you on both. The Momentum rule is simply the name given by Stevo for RL's acceptance that a player running forward, by virtue of running forward will exert a force on the ball causing it to go forward when released despite the fact that the force exerted through the action of passing was backwards. This can cause an effect where a ball passed backwards ends up ahead of the point it was passed because of the force of the forward motion of the player not because the ball was passed forwards. This is why a referee will look at the hands of the player and the passing action of the player to determine weather or not the ball was passed forwards. This is why to a more seasoned observer Mossops pass was so obviously forward, his hands and his passing action were clearly forward.

Secondly: The reason the rule was put in place whereby a richochet/rebound/etc causing accidental contact with the player didnt result in that player being disadvantage was that so a player who hadnt involved himself in the play and wasnt attempting to do so couldnt be punished by the opposition deliberately or on accident playing the ball against them to gain advantage. It isnt there to protect a player who had involved himself in the play and not been successful. Charnley played at the ball, he played at the ball by attempting to strike it prior to Burrow and he played at it by continuing to involve himself in the play after that.

There is no immediacy of the play at the ball either inferred or implied in the rules.

This is almost as long as TVOC and Juan Cornetto talking about aeroplanes!