Who said it was? It makes no difference to the point, which is that, being an ovoid shape, whatever angle the ball is at, the bit that will touch the ground first is that bit at the lowest part of the curved surface, not the edge (as viewed from whatever angle you choose). Whatever bit is on teh floor, the rest of the ball curves up away from the floor. Only that central, lowest, point first touches the floor. What happens after that touch is irrelevant, that first touch is what counts.

Oops, sorry, let's have a debate... clearly on the linehttp://i42.tinypic.com/2mnpqi0.jpg" >

This was as much a try as the finger tip try Rovers 'scored' at Cas.

Another perfect example of finding facts to support the decision rather than making a decision based on fact. IMO.

You're getting your diagrams mixed up. That's from Leeds v Wakefield. Obviously.

Indeed. Now you're getting the hang of it. Good work. keep it up, and eventually the penny will drop, I guarantee it.

No, the diagram is a simple illustration of a simple point. Some people don't seem to grasp that amy ball on a flat surface only touches the surface at one, central, point. the rest of the ball is ALL curving up away from the flat surface, and not touching anything.

There is no "weighting", it is very simple. You just need to get your head around the concept that the ball is not suqare or flat, but ovoid.

You're talking as if the part of the ball that touches the ground is miniscule, like the point of a pin though. While obviously the whole of the shape of the ball won't be down, a larger area than you seem to be suggesting will be in contact with the ground.

It was a try. One side if the ball obviously will have touched the try line before the other side of the ball hits the touch line.

It could have hit the touch line first because of the angle the ball was coming from.

The next vid ref decision was a try not given when it should have been.

Also why is no one commenting on the Lauaki 'no try' that was!!!!

He was just short but the weight of the tacklers on his back shoved him over. Quite obvious really.

Is this what all the fuss is about? I was expecting something much worse.

Indeed. There is another thread entitled "worst decision ever". Some people need to get a grip.

Sure do, the 'worst decision ever' has got to be taking a naked picture in the mirror.

Tend to agree. That title still belongs to Ganson from the Magic weeekend with a million fancy cameras and every one the planet seeing the offside except Ganson.

This is simply inconsistant refereeing. The next disallowed try by Charnley should have been given.

More annoying was the team warning sin binning issue 10 sets and a half time later after it was issued. Totally stupid rule because it has no clear limits, as is the free play.

If the sin bin was for a dangerous tackle then a spear tackle ( O'Laughlin in the first half) is obvious classed as a legitimate tackle these days.

Inconsistant. Strange how it's got worse since Ganson became coach of the officials...

I assume you have missed the huge amount of irony of a Hull FC fan posting about a very dodgy VR decision against Hull KR.
Anyway crack on.