Richard Shanks:

I have referred to the laws of the game themselves to try to resolve (in my own mind, at least) the issue surrounding the efficacy or otherwise of the decision around the winning try and, indeed, the words that have been used both by Jon Wilkin during Saturday's broadcast and subsequently allegedly confirmed by the RFL.


It would appear to me that the issue is dealt with by the definition of two terms included in the laws Section 2 Glossary.


The first of these is the term "touch down" which is officially defined as : "the INTENTIONAL grounding of the ball by a defending player in their own in-goal" (capitalisation mine)


That then moves you on to having to understand the definition of "grounding the ball" which is officially defined as :-


a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands, or:-
b) exerting downward pressure on the ball with hand
or arm, the ball itself being on the ground, or:-
c) dropping on the ball and covering it with the part
of the body above the waist and below the neck, the
ball itself being on the ground.


The combination of those two definitions in no way distinguishes between attacker or defender in the methods of achieving grounding of the ball and to suggest that the laws make such a distinction is disingenuous at best. What's more, you can't interpret a law by removing unilaterally from it one of the three methods specifically provided within it.


The only difference between attacker and defender is the introduction of the concept of intention to the defender's actions, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.


If it is true that the RFL, as reported, have jumped to the defence of the match-day officials by confirming Jon Wilkin's assertion that a defender can not ground a ball with his torso, that begs two questions of them:-


1. Where is the evidence of that by reference to the laws of the game?
2. Why have they not made reference to all the decisions that the match-day officials got wrong (as evidenced by the findings of the MRP today) which, if sanctioned at the time in line with the MRP findings, would have resulted in the issue of yellow and (in the incidence of the alleged spitting incident) red cards, which would inevitably had a significant impact on the outcome of such a tight match? 


I accept that the latter point raises a number of additional and wider issues over the different ways in which match incidents are viewed by the match-day officials (and the role of the video referee is the key one here with his ability to intervene) and the MRP/disciplinary. There was doubtless an intention to keep such a high-profile game 13 v 13 (remember what happened last year with the early sin-binnings of Mike Cooper and Matt Dufty) and on the basis that potentially punishable incident would balance each other out (which they clearly didn't on Saturday to the ultimate benefit of the perpetrators.


Of course, I may be wrong over my reading of the laws of the game and would not be averse to accepting an evidenced rebuttal of the position outlined above, preferably by the RFL or Mr. Wilkin!! 

Smiffy27:

With the drop goal ideas it is so easy to look back and say we should have done this or that. It is very very rare for sides to go for a drop goal when they are four points up. It just does not happen. If they'd have missed I can imagine most would say "Why the hell are they going for a drop goal ... what a daft idea".