Common sense would be they switch the games, rather than re draw but this is the RFL.

The moronic light blue numbers on opaque balls didn't help. My neutrally fair minded suggestion would be to redraw the whole thing until such times as the bulls are at home to hunslet.

We always get easy draws like in 2011 when we played Bradford away, Wire away, Saints and Leeds to win it.

Hands up our run wasn't half bad last year, we even got to play HKR on route

OMG, does it get any worse, FFS RFL we had brown balls in the past with clear underline on numbers that looked similar, why oh why do we have to change these things!!

Surely the draw has to be re-adjusted as the ball taken out is incorrectly called by GS

Tbf you can completely understand how they got mixed up, have you got a pic of the number 9 ball, bet it looks nearly identical with hardly an underline

Rugby gods shining on us again... Hardly a shock..

I'm just waiting for lenaghan to say it's written in the stars that Wigan return to wembley

The 9 or a 6 situation needs clarification ASAP and wasn't helped by the fact that Murphy when holding up the 6 ball had the number facing him and not the camera (as he did for a few others as well). The 6 ball may have a dot at the base of the 6 (appearing as 6. ) but without actually seeing the number on the ball we won't know. The common method for distinguishing has either a distinct separate line below the number or a dot at the base of the number (neither of which is present on the ball Schofield drew and clearly showed the number of to camera). Clarifying whether what Schofield drew was a 9 as he read or whether he made an easily made error (by showing a picture of the 9 and 6 balls used) will solve the issue. If it was an error then the sensible thing would be to amend the fixtures involving Widnes and Bradford accordingly as no other fixtures were affected by it.

It didn't zoom in on the 9, but it got pulled out immediately after the 6, and there's a noticeable pause before he calls it.

the 'base' of the no 6 which is flattened for clarity is uppermost, therefore it should have been called as Bradford.
To not change this would be another sign of how crap our sport has become..

It did zoom in to show the 9 on camera and it did zoom in to show the 6 ball when it was drawn immediately afterwards. Murphy though, as he did for a few of the ones he drew, after reading the number held the ball up to the camera with the number still facing himself and not showing to camera. As a result nobody watching on TV saw what the 6 ball looked like. I recorded the match and draw and have re-watched the draw after reading of this situation on here.

As broadybull87 alluded to, nobody saw the 6 that Murphy drew to identify what it looked like. There may or may not have been an error but it does need clarifying.

The uncertainty exists because nobody saw the number on the 6 ball that Murphy drew. What could be seen to be a flattened base on the 9 ball that we did see the number of, could be a flattened base for what was actually a 6 or it could be there due to the top of the 9 being at the edge of a line between two sections of the pattern on the glass ball. (The balls were etched to look as if they were made of four panels like a real ball). Where a line is present to distinguish numbers it has always been a distinct separate line below the number, not a flattened lower edge. A flattened lower edge only could be seen as a printing error. The ball Murphy drew but mistakenly did not show the number of may have a clear line or dot at the base of the number clearly denoting it as a 6 (or it may not). Without seeing both balls and their numbers we cannot be certain either way whether Schofield did indeed draw a 9 or a 6.