I refuse to believe that Jack Smith is that well up on the rules….goes against everything we’ve seen from him thus far.

That’s the point though isn’t it, the table lies. If, and I know it doesn’t work like this, but if the highest ranked team won each of the next 6 rounds, the table would put us sixth. It would be KR-36, Wigan-34, Leeds-28, Hull FC-25, Leigh-23, Warrington-20, Saints & Wakefield both 18. 




If you played it out in the same format, highest placed as of today, it would end with us being joint 6th with Saints and Wakefield on 26 points. That’s without us taking a single point of KR, Wigan, Leeds, Leigh, Hull, Saints or Wakefield. Only collecting points off FOUR clubs across 14 games.

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!! 

Have you been living under a rock, don’t you know the RFL make it up as they go along. And as for Wilkin well he will say and do anything that keeps media attention on him and in a job. End of the day it was a farce and nothing can be done about the result now which is a shame. Just the incompetence of the powers that be are sucking the life out of this sport and I don’t see it improving any time soon unless we sell out to the NRL which I’m starting to think will not happen because club owners don’t want to give up their train sets. By the way your post was a good read.

I intend to send death threats to Smith, Wilkin and Moore, publish the fatwah in the Matchday programme for the next month and to still be bitter about this in 2031 and thereby earn my True Saints Fan Badge! 

There are plenty of grey areas in rugby league regarding interpretation & implementation of rules ,all the way from what we saw on Saturday through forward passes ,perceived knock-ons even the refs interpretation of dangerous play. The referee plays just as important a part as the teams in determining a result. No wonder the judiciary get so much stick when the rules are open to enabling right or wrong decisions.

My issue here is not with the interpretation of the laws (I agree that there will inevitably be many grey areas in the interpretation of the laws in a wide array of sports), but of the apparent misrepresentation of the laws in this instance, where it has been put forward as a matter of fact that the use of the torso to ground the ball applies only to an attacker and not a defender, but the law as written explicitly does not make that distinction. Saying that it does to justify or (if the ball was on the other foot) to impugn a decision is clearly simply wrong. The problem is that, if it is said with such authority as has happened in this instance, and without proper challenge, it ends up either becoming the truth or, at least, being accepted as such. 


Unfortunately, the forceful and quasi-authoritative dissemination of inaccuracies and untruths has become an increasingly worrying feature of society generally, led by governments and big business whose poor examples are regretfully replicated in nearly all aspects that effect our daily lives.       

Remember that time we played Halifax away and Briers kicked 5 drop goals and we still lost. Maybe if he'd kept putting it in goal to force them to do repeat sets we might have tired them out and scored 2 tries or more?

I would have liked to see drop goals, we may have got one before the pressure from defenders shut that down, but that may have opened space wide, who knows 


The ruling on the try is the only downside for me, if the ref and video ref don't know the ruling under the laws of the game, then we are in trouble. The biggest final in the sport, marred by officials not knowing the laws of the game, is unacceptable. The RFL backing the officials is as poor as it gets.


The early attempt at a tackle by Burgess on Thewlis would have resulted in a Yellow or Red card in any other game; again, poor officiating by the ref and video ref.

1986 premiership play off at central park Paul bishop banged over 5 drop goals to help demoralise Wigan so it does work..and I firmly believe a dog on Saturday would of won us the game...as Alex Murphy once said always come away with something 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post, 'to err is human' and all that, BUT for third parties including it seems the powers that be, yes there is a greater authority that Jon Wilkins, to compound matters by fudging and tinkering around the edges to back up the match day officials is unacceptable and that is why in this case "the judiciary" is getting "so much stick".