Was it a try? If you think yes then say why

I am not biased when it comes to TMO, if it isn't a try then I won't try and defend it. Shane Williams in 08 v Scotland, amazing move, no try. Mike Phillips 2011 v Ireland, sneaky move clever thinking, but no try. Also Scotland scored a good try against Wales 2 weeks ago which should have been given.

Strettle yesterday was not a try.

Why? Because the only clear angle CLEARLY shows that by the time he gets "NEAR" the tryline, the ball is ABOVE his arm and balancing on it. If his arm was above the ball then there would be much more scope for debate. He did get very near the try line, but as he did get near the line he also got pushed back at the same time. There was no momentum downward force or grounding ESPECIALLY on the line. By the time the momentum had stopped he was a fraction behind the line, but irrespective of how far he was from the line. The ball was NOT touching it!

The replay clearly shows this.

3 people so far haven't looked at the replay...

i see it differently from you - he grounds the point of the ball and then it is pushed backwards and up.

However the TV replays are INCONCLUSIVE and I agree the try could not be awarded.


Of course if North had been sinbinned earlier for deliberatley slapping the ball in to touch there would have been an easier run in.

At the risk of getting more personal abuse from Morgannwg there was new angle shown in the build up to the Scotland v France match today that gave a better view of the point of the ball touching the ground briefly ...

Heaf wrote:At the risk of getting more personal abuse from Morgannwg there was new angle shown in the build up to the Scotland v France match today that gave a better view of the point of the ball touching the ground briefly ...

I saw that footage too, at no point does the ball touch the ground on or over the white line.

Should've gone to Specsavers.

What's your point Idris? It wasn't given so there's no beef is there? Or are you just looking for some fresh English fish for your net?

Considering Wales' percieved superiority over England both before and after the event, I would have thought there was more for you to think about than a non-try?

If people see the same footage and some see a ball touching the ground for a instance (try) and some don't see any contact (no try) then it's evident no amount of "it did" and "it didn't" arguments are going to solve the issue of 'Was it a try?'

It wasn't a try simply because the referee in his final sumation (based on his TMO's eyesight) said it wasn't. That's all there is, that's the only agreement that will be reached on this topic.

No idea. I've seen it a bunch of times and I still can't decide.

SecretFly wrote:If people see the same footage and some see a ball touching the ground for a instance (try) and some don't see any contact (no try) then it's evident no amount of "it did" and "it didn't" arguments are going to solve the issue of 'Was it a try?'

It wasn't a try simply because the referee in his final sumation (based on his TMO's eyesight) said it wasn't. That's all there is, that's the only agreement that will be reached on this topic.

+ 1

The shot from behind the try-line shown he did get the ball down behind the line before it being scooped up.

The camera from the left of the pitch shows the ball being scooped up but too many players are in the way just before.

I can see why the try wasn't given though as there wasn't another clear cut shot of the grounding and if the officials aren't 100% sure they can't give it.

Watching the highlights on the BBC website, I would say 4.07/ 4.08 shows the ball was down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17168118

Yes it was down but short of the line.

It was over the line when grounded then pushed back over ...

Nah. Twas a try Cymro, just wasn't given. Them's the rules and that's that.

Brown knew it, he started celebrating, wee George knew it, the first place he looked was at the AR with guilt written large on his mush, but the point is, Strettle had an easy route in but took the hard one for a potentially easier conversion; shoolboyesque.

Wales won because they earnt it, end of story.

sportsville

Looks like it probably is but thats not good enough when the ref thinks its held up and asks " try/ no try"

No it was not and thats the reason the try was not awarded.
What is the point of having a TMO if people are still going to question the decision.
The ref told the touch touch judge that he believed the ball was held up but went upstairs to make sure.
The TMO after looking at every angle available to him said it was Inconclusive so no try.
The ref double checked what more could he do ?

PJ In my opinion it was a very close call and in a untelevised match it would more often than not be given but fortunately for Wales the BBC were on hand

My first impression in real time was that he grounded the ball. However, Walsh's question to the TMO was try or no try, with the extra info that he thought Strettle had been held up. From the video evidence reviewed there was no way the TMO could give the try - there was the possibility that Strettle got the point of the ball to ground early in the action (before North gets to him), but this was obscured in the side angles reviewed, and by the time the ball becomes visible again it is clearly on top of his arm. The view from behind the dead ball line is inconclusive as to whether the ball is on the ground or just above.

As such, the TMO was right, but similarly he would have been correct to let the try stand if Walsh had asked the other question, as he couldn't say for sure a try hadn't been scored.

Of course, none of which addresses the main question of why did Mike Brown ship the ball on so early rather than standing the cover defence up a bit to give Strettle an easy run in.

My overall comment on the match was it was a game of inches, and Wales just had the moments go their way that swung it - Warbs just getting to Tuillagi, Botha's charge down going sideways, Strettle's 'try', while Wales had the bit of luck that Williams kick through bounced perfectly for him where a bounce to the left would have let Croft make the covering tackle. Small margins deciding a tight game.

Oh, and Wales did a great job killing off the sin bin.

The BBC are paragons of broadcasting excellence Cymro, and they of course edited the shots to make things difficult for the TMO; I blame Dr Who in all fairness..... Cardiff, isn't it?

Facts are that Wales did more to win the game than England, they were better equipped both physically and mentally for the intensity level the game was played at, they are more experienced, more "slinky" skillwise and in all other areas just generally more the finished article than England.

Congratulations to Wales, I'm loving your rugby - just do us all a favour and turn the Aussies over in June will you?

I think this shows, if nothing else, that TMO is a waste of time and we should go back to the refs giving a decision based on what they saw, aiding by the touch judges.

I agree that North should have been in the bin, and that the outcome should have been a penalty to England as they were still playing under advantage.

Given that Wales had committed professional fouls from each of the three phases, I would expect a second Welshman to be in the bin.

England would then probably have conspired to fail to score anyway, and Wales could have celebrated long and hard with no controversy.

At any rate, it would only have resulted in a draw at best, so when find yourself relying on an injury time two sin-binnings and the TMO calling in your favour followed by an unlikely sideline conversion by Flood - perhaps it's time just to admit Wales won and take the positives where they actually are. It hurts to say that, it really does.

miteyironpaw wrote:I think this shows, if nothing else, that TMO is a waste of time and we should go back to the refs giving a decision based on what they saw, aiding by the touch judges.

I agree that North should have been in the bin, and that the outcome should have been a penalty to England as they were still playing under advantage.

Given that Wales had committed professional fouls from each of the three phases, I would expect a second Welshman to be in the bin.

England would then probably have conspired to fail to score anyway, and Wales could have celebrated long and hard with no controversy.

At any rate, it would only have resulted in a draw at best, so when find yourself relying on an injury time two sin-binnings and the TMO calling in your favour followed by an unlikely sideline conversion by Flood - perhaps it's time just to admit Wales won and take the positives where they actually are. It hurts to say that, it really does.

Mate, the pathos is killing me - you should try writing for TV - soooo fecking funny.

I thought it was a try but the referee decided otherwise therefore it wasnt.

For what its worth (which isnt anything) there seemed to be 2 main camera angles that they used to try and work out what happened - and neither were at all conclusive if viewed on their own. However - one showed that the ball was grounded but there was doubt over where - i.e. before or after the line. The other angle seemed to show that the only place this could have happened was over the line.

I'd also add that any possible conversion that might have followed would be a very very long way from guaranteed - and with my rose tinted glasses there were definitely other mistakes by the ref (the penalty in the first minute for one) - but England ran out of ideas and energy when it mattered most.

There was the line out they had when Wales were still down to 14 when I thought this is it - this is a pivotal moment. What happened? - England secured the ball then ballsed it up. They should have had some move planned - or someone just steaming up from deep but they had nothing - the move came to nothing and that was it.

I take it thats a No then LIW

lost
Good point about the feeble rolling maul when we (finally) had the ball during the sin bin period - with Wales short of a back, why try taking on their forwards straight off the lineout? Much better to have Manu T run hard at the 10 channel and then look to spread a quickly recycled ball out to the wing. Tactical naivety.

Yes, Walsh made a few mistakes (the Jonathon Davies knock on and subsequent penalty win was a big momentum shifter), and probably on balance they went against us, but I thought he had an OK game and certainly didn't think there was any bias in his decisions.

I said its not a try - because the ball wasn't grounded - simples

I think it was a try as the ball was grounded. Walsh asked the wrong question. If this had not been at the end of the match and therefore a match-changing score, it would probably have been awarded.

That's sport, that's rugby. As an Englishman, I could continue to harp on about this. I could also question why, in fairness to all teams, Walsh is still a referee in such games, given his record.

However a better, more experienced England team should have put more points on the board when the game was going their way.

However Wales scored more points, are a fantastic team, and deserved to win the game.

Hopefully both teams will continue to develop and evolve, and this fixture will be one of the most exciting each year.

Well played both teams. Let's hope the good-will outweighs the unpleasant muppetry !

No try as the ball wasnt grounded.
Simples.

charliehesketh wrote:I think it was a try as the ball was grounded. Walsh asked the wrong question. If this had not been at the end of the match and therefore a match-changing score, it would probably have been awarded.
!

Walsh asked the right question. Did you hear what he said tot eh touch judge" did you have a good view" TJ "no" ref " I thought it was held up" therefore "try / no try"is the right question.

If the ref had thought it was good or the TJ did then "any reason why not to award" would have been right

Admittedly, we didn't do TMO training on my level 1 ref course ! However, I maintain my earlier viewpoint, and I think the way this and future TMO decisions are handled could be improved. Having had experience in the broadcast industry, I think there may be ways to assist the correct decision as well, possibly constant "locked off" camera angles, in addition to those needed for the broadcast vision mix.

The conversation between ref and touch judge, as well as the ref all through the match, is intriguing. However, this would have affected both teams. There is little choice but to play with the ref you have, at any level.

As before, I think it was a try, but it's over, Wales won, well done both teams, bring on the next game, and let's enjoy the rugby. It's a shame if this debate splits along partisan lines, but I think for the majority, it doesn't.

Hope you enjoy your rugby !

Nice posts Charlie well done mate

As a neutral, my first impression watching live (well, watching the recording Saturday night, but I didn't know the result at the time) was "try". But the more replays I saw, the less sure I got.

TJ wrote:

charliehesketh wrote:I think it was a try as the ball was grounded. Walsh asked the wrong question. If this had not been at the end of the match and therefore a match-changing score, it would probably have been awarded.
!

Walsh asked the right question. Did you hear what he said tot eh touch judge" did you have a good view" TJ "no" ref " I thought it was held up" therefore "try / no try"is the right question.

If the ref had thought it was good or the TJ did then "any reason why not to award" would have been right

Spot on, TJ

It was definitely a try. One camera angle clearly showed the ball being grounded. But forget the TMO. Strettle said after that he got the ball down. Now he would have to be a liar now if he didn't and I don't think he is. So a try without doubt.

Strettle also said that England should have beaten France in the RWC - That makes him a liar, sorry

RubyGuby wrote:Strettle also said that England should have beaten France in the RWC - That makes him a liar, sorry

rubyguby, you are supposed to know this.


Making a statement of assumption is not a lie, in this case his assumption was proven incorrect.

Making a statement of fact which is incorrect, can fall either under misinformed statement or a lie.

There's lies, damn lies then there's the strettleism - When is a try not a try? when its not been scored in the first place TC

The mere implication of stating a try was not scored is in actual fact extremely incorrect.

A try cannot, not exist. When a try is scored it is created, hence we call it creating a point scoring opportunity. Only once the point scoring opportunity is created can a try be scored.

If by implication you create a try scoring opportunity, the try does not yet exist. Hence to say a try was not scored s merely a statment of possibility, but not of denying the existence of an already created try.

so in summary, grammatically it is incorrect to say a try was not scored.

Was it a Try? - No

Did I see a try being scored? - Yes.

Why wasn't it a Try? - Ref didn't award it.

If I think it was a try? - I have to say "Why?" Okay - WHY.

Keep Trying Bilt and leave the floating s's for the english backline

RubyGuby wrote:Keep Trying Bilt and leave the floating s's for the english backline

Yes but Walsh asked the wrong question and it was a very hard call for the TMO

shame he didn't have the shot at 18:51 on the Scrum V highlights ... ball clearly grounded ... oh well

Heaf, not sure what you are seeing in the highlights. Go to 18:40 for the start of it, although still hard to see. The time he comes close to grounding it his arm is underneath it, then he brings it in towards his breast. So how could the ball have touched the ground? The only time it does touch the ground it is by the hand of North.

This is clear to me, at least: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cql3t/Scrum_V_2011_2012_Six_Nations_Special/

Getting a bit worried about the integrity of this info either side of the debate, since apparently, Mr Strettle now has breasts Now if he was a an honourable prop, like me ....

if I could work out how to include a picture I could show you the shot I'm looking at ...

Heaf wrote:shame he didn't have the shot at 18:51 on the Scrum V highlights ... ball clearly grounded ... oh well

We can't tell whether that was over the line or not though

As I said elsewhere. Look at how Strettle is holding the ball. Given the shape of a rugby ball, it is impossible for it to have touched the ground as his wrist and palm would have prevented that, before he brings it in towards him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cql3t/Scrum_V_2011_2012_Six_Nations_Special/#18m51s

Did that work?

gowales wrote:Yes but Walsh asked the wrong question and it was a very hard call for the TMO

It was the right question- the line judge didn't think it had been scored so he was right to ask that question

gowales wrote:Yes but Walsh asked the wrong question and it was a very hard call for the TMO

No because if you listen to Walsh he actually says to the Touch judge "I think it was held up" the touch judge says "I don't know" and that's when Walsh asks the RIGHT QUESTION - try yes or no

Rampage then spent 2 mins looking at it.

Given that...

Walsh doesn't think it was grounded
Touch judge bottled it
TMO couldn't see it

Why do people think its a try? Because the England Physio said so?

I've got it: the shape of the ball makes it impossible for an Englishman (with or without breasts) to score a try. If only a few of our coaches had had that excuse up their sleeves in years gone by, it would have explained alot ! Hey I'm kidding

slartibartfast wrote:

Why do people think its a try? Because the England Physio said so?

Because Strettle never tells a lie apparently.