WITHIN minutes of the final hooter sounding at Wembley on Saturday, social media was abuzz with posts puporting to show a section from rugby league’s Laws of the Game explaining why the officials had got the decision to award Tom Davies’ 78th-minute try for Hull KR wrong.
It all came down to the belief Warrington Wolves winger Arron Lindop had successfully grounded the ball from Tyrone May’s kick into the in-goal to force a goal-line drop-out before Robins wide man Davies could get to it.
After viewing replays, video referee Jack Smith deemed that Lindop had not, in fact, succeeded in grounding the ball when he threw his body on it and concurred with on-field official Liam Moore’s decision of try.
- Challenge Cup final: Hull KR snatch dramatic victory over Warrington Wolves
- Women’s Challenge Cup final: Wigan Warriors crush St Helens at Wembley
- Subscribe to rugbyleaguehub.com on YouTube
🤔 Is that the try that ends the Robins heartbreak?
🏆 #ChallengeCup pic.twitter.com/TQX1Bpn5Jk
— Betfred Challenge Cup (@TheChallengeCup) June 7, 2025
It was a decision which raised some eyebrows on the Wembley press benches, not to mention obroprium from the Wolves fans in the ground and watching at home.
After all, doesn’t the unwritten law of “we know it when we see it” come into play here?
Not quite. Shortly afterwards, the RFL took the unusual step of issuing a clarification to the media setting out the relevant sections of the Laws and why they applied in this situation.
Let’s get one thing out of the way first: Despite what you may have seen on the socials, the word “torso” does not appear anywhere in the Laws of the Game. Go look it up on the relevant sections of the International Rugby League or RFL websites if you don’t believe me.
Now that has been dealt with, we can look at what the Laws actually say.
The RFL clarification first pointed to Section 8, 4 (C) which states a drop-out is award if: “A defending player touches down in the in-goal area.”
So, then we go back to the glossary in Section 2 where a touch down is defined as: “the intentional grounding of a ball by a defending player in their own in-goal.”
Now, if you’re a Warrington fan then at this point you’re probably asking – not unreasonably – what was Lindop doing if he wasn’t intentionally trying to ground the ball when he threw himself on it? Especially as sub-section C of the definition of grounding the ball includes dropping on the ball.
Again, though, there’s a bit more to this. The relevant definitions of grounding the ball here are A, which defines it as “placing the ball on the ground with the hand or hands or” sub-section C which adds “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.“
That last part has been put in bold for emphasis because the ball wasn’t actually on the ground when Lindop fell on it, although he did apply pressure to the ball with his body when he threw himself at it when it was still bouncing from May’s kick.
Even then, though, “downward pressure” would not apply because that only relates to the hands or arms under sub-section B of the grounding definition.
Video referee Smith’s explanation from the BBC live coverage while watching the replay backs up this was his thought process as well, specifically where he says: “Both of those arms are Lindop’s and the ball is missed”, followed by concluding: “The ball has never been grounded by Warrington.”
Even so, I accept none of this is likely to move the needle either way, especially when so many fans of all clubs think results are rigged against them and the match officials are corrupt (Spoiler: They aren’t and they’re not).
But, if you’re a Hull KR fan, then you can point at least point to the relevant sections of the Laws to make your case.
And if you’re a Warrington supporter? Well, you know what you saw.