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

by idris Sun 26 Feb 2012, 8:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 29 Feb 2012, 12:53 pm

The lunatic is on the grass... Whistle

by Chunky Norwich Wed 29 Feb 2012, 12:56 pm

Of course it wasn't a try. There's not one bit of evidence that shows it was a try.

So it wasn't a try.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 29 Feb 2012, 12:59 pm

Right this was a case of one that looked it it was held up, and in the absence of evidecne that it wasnt ( although there is a moment uncoverd by clear footage or stills where it may have been) no try is the correct result.
Had the player slid over the line with the ball under him and a player comepeting for it with the actual moment of grounding obscured the refs may have looked at it as a case of he probably wouldve groundedthat and i cant see anything to make me think he didnt so benefit of the doubt.

Id actually say that in this case the correct question was asked, and teh correct result given. The AR said it looked like it was held up but needed the TMO to verify. The TMO could see nothing to overule that, whilst noting that that wasnt a definate.

Ive still seen no clear evidence that the ball was grounded or that it must have been, let alone form the footage the TMO had to review.

Very professionaly dealt with.

by geoff998rugby Wed 29 Feb 2012, 1:18 pm

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote: Fact is I've never seen a try disallowed with this much evidence of a grounding, maybe it's not 100% but perhaps 90%. I've seen many a try awarded with only 50% proof or less of grounding.

Youy either haven't been around very long, were not watching the England v Scotland game or have rose tinted specs on - which is it

by geoff998rugby Wed 29 Feb 2012, 1:19 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:It doesn't really matter whether they would have made the kick as the try wasn't given. I was under the impression this was more to do with the technicalities of grounding the ball and the TMO. Also some excellent suggestions for determining groundings.

Regarding Shane Williams, well he thought his try against Scotland a couple o years ago was fair. It would be like if Cueto said it was a try.

Was Jiffy on Scrum V and what did he say? He's always been a benefit of the doubt going to the attacker kind of guy

But Cueto's was a try too

Only to the English - the rest of the World know the truth

by ChequeredJersey Wed 29 Feb 2012, 1:21 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:It doesn't really matter whether they would have made the kick as the try wasn't given. I was under the impression this was more to do with the technicalities of grounding the ball and the TMO. Also some excellent suggestions for determining groundings.

Regarding Shane Williams, well he thought his try against Scotland a couple o years ago was fair. It would be like if Cueto said it was a try.

Was Jiffy on Scrum V and what did he say? He's always been a benefit of the doubt going to the attacker kind of guy

But Cueto's was a try too

Only to the English - the rest of the World know the truth

I remain convinced it was. But then, if we had won that RWC playing as poorly as we did it would have made a mockery of the game and South Africa were the best team on the pitch that day

by geoff998rugby Wed 29 Feb 2012, 1:25 pm

For the record I was cheering for England that day but as soon as I saw it I said 'No Try'

by dummy_half Wed 29 Feb 2012, 1:37 pm

I think PSW and (a lot earlier) Kiwi summed this up well -

My first impression was that he grounded the ball, but I became less certain on watching the replays. I've had a couple of looks since, and I can see a moment where Strettle has the ball clearly over the line and where it might just be in contact with the ground (a fraction before North arrives), but the camera angle from beyond the dead ball line doesn't allow this to be definitive. The side-on angles don't show the ball clearly on the ground at any point until North has pulled it back over the line and away from Strettle.

Walsh thought not grounded, and from his angle that was a reasonable interpretation, his linesman couldn't see clearly because of Strettle and JD2's bodies. As such, he didn't have much choice but to ask the TMO 'try or no try'. Video was inconclusive, therefore no try awarded.

As for the Cueto RWC 'try', I still haven't seen anything that unamgiguously shows Cueto's foot in contact with the touchline. I am though fairly convinced the TMO got the decision right even if his interpretation of the incident was wrong (he stated that Cueto's foot was well into touch, because he hadn't noticed that MC raised his lower leg) - I think Cueto lifted his leg just a bit too late and that his toe was in contact with the ground for about half the width of the touchline, therefore was in touch.

Two examples though of England wingers not finishing tries that they really should have done.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 29 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm

Dummy :

2:36 on the video

Cuetos foot touches the line ans hes diveing jsut before he lifts it. Ludicrously close but correct. Theres a frame you can freeze on that shows it, and the papers published still from other angles that show it later.

Like most people at the time I thought try, because I was focussed on the knee that slides over just after.

It shows how low the expectations of England have slipped for Lancaster. Now we are happy to lose at home to Wales. Then we sacked Ashton for losing to SA in a world cup final.

by **Biltong** Wed 29 Feb 2012, 3:06 pm

dummy_half wrote:
As for the Cueto RWC 'try', I still haven't seen anything that unamgiguously shows Cueto's foot in contact with the touchline. I am though fairly convinced the TMO got the decision right even if his interpretation of the incident was wrong (he stated that Cueto's foot was well into touch, because he hadn't noticed that MC raised his lower leg) - I think Cueto lifted his leg just a bit too late and that his toe was in contact with the ground for about half the width of the touchline, therefore was in touch.

by RubyGuby Wed 29 Feb 2012, 4:44 pm

You see what we have to put up with now Bilton Headscratch

Ok you can have both trys - There you go all done - move on then thumbsup

by **Biltong** Wed 29 Feb 2012, 4:48 pm

RubyGuby wrote:You see what we have to put up with now Bilton Ok you can have both trys - There you go all done - move on then

I have to ponder this situation, it might be necessary to cnvince the IRB we shouldn't play rugby for points. That way we don't need a referee, TMO or any laws.

by A World Cup and 3 Finals Wed 29 Feb 2012, 5:27 pm

For the record, I do think it was a try but I think the result was just about fair. Would Flood have slooted the conversion? Maybe not.

The ref got very confused asking the TMO if it should be a 5M scrum to England, then asking if the play was after full time, when he should have bought it back for the penalty for the collapsed maul moments before as he hadn't signalled the end of advantage as it was only about 30 secs before the Strettle no try. But still Wales hung on and got the win with a bit of fortune on their side and next time maybe we'll benefit from the same.
The point is, this established Wales side should have put the England babes to sword way before this but in fact were outplayed for long periods of the match. Good times to be an England fan!

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 29 Feb 2012, 5:32 pm

Or there´s another way to look at it. 15 men failed to score a point against 14 men. England had enough opportunities to take the match. How are these good times losing at home? It was a good performance by England but not a good result.

JOC scored in Hong Kong and he had a kick from the right against the angle to win the match. Call me a pessimist but those kicks have a tendency to go over. The misses usually come in the middle of a game or at the beginning when people forget their bearing on the match.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 29 Feb 2012, 5:40 pm

I´m waiting for the follow up vid when he was waiting for the video ref´s decision. Probably still the same icy muted reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyC8qT0fbzU&feature=related

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 29 Feb 2012, 6:19 pm

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:For the record, I do think it was a try but I think the result was just about fair. Would Flood have slooted the conversion? Maybe not.

The ref got very confused asking the TMO if it should be a 5M scrum to England, then asking if the play was after full time, when he should have bought it back for the penalty for the collapsed maul moments before as he hadn't signalled the end of advantage as it was only about 30 secs before the Strettle no try. But still Wales hung on and got the win with a bit of fortune on their side and next time maybe we'll benefit from the same.
The point is, this established Wales side should have put the England babes to sword way before this but in fact were outplayed for long periods of the match. Good times to be an England fan!

Not having signalled advantage over does not mean that it hasn't ended. Crossing the try line with the ball in hand is considered advantage.
He was then getting confirmation that time was over.

It was handled very professionally.

Id look at it that England were very lucky to win their first game, rode theire luck in the second, did well to hold out against the early blitz and find their feet, lost the game by failing to capitalise on the man advantage then loosing their heads later on against a fitter and more professional team.
Too little, too late.

by dummy_half Wed 29 Feb 2012, 7:58 pm

Biltong
Note the rest of my comment - I think the TMO was right, but I don't think the video and photo evidence is entirely conclusive. (and I can't spell unambiguous ;-) ). ANd yes, I had seen the vid that PSW referred to previously.

Sometimes the close calls go your way (such as Laidlaw's near try v us in the first game) and other times they go against, as with both the Cueto and Strettle non-tries.

by slartibartfast Wed 29 Feb 2012, 8:03 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:For the record I was cheering for England that day but as soon as I saw it I said 'No Try'

Cheering for england And you're not English?

What is the world coming to!?

by miteyironpaw Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:03 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Not having signalled advantage over does not mean that it hasn't ended. Crossing the try line with the ball in hand is considered advantage.
He was then getting confirmation that time was over.

So let's get this straight - not scoring a try and the game ending in a loss is "advantage" enough? and there is no need to come back for a penalty for the 3rd consecutive Welsh infringement in three phases as England pounded away at the Welsh line with seconds remaining?

So what you are saying then is that every team should continue committing professional fouls rather than let a game slip? and that referees should react by blowing for full time?

by thebluesmancometh Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:20 pm

Yes!

Exactly the same as England did to Scotland... kiss

by HERSH Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:32 pm

what was the full time score Bluesman? Laugh

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:34 pm

mitey what are you proposing...they go back to the first penalty offence and let the team keep trying again till they win?

england had a clear chance to score across the line , that is a better position than a scrum 5/ tap penalty/ kick for a lineout.
advantage over when you dive for the line, every time. any different to the scotland one ( aside from that that shouldve been penalty england....)

by iso Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:39 pm

The more angles I see, the more I reckon it was a try.

by Cadair Idris Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:47 pm

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:For the record, I do think it was a try but I think the result was just about fair. Would Flood have slooted the conversion? Maybe not.

The ref got very confused asking the TMO if it should be a 5M scrum to England, then asking if the play was after full time, when he should have bought it back for the penalty for the collapsed maul moments before as he hadn't signalled the end of advantage as it was only about 30 secs before the Strettle no try. But still Wales hung on and got the win with a bit of fortune on their side and next time maybe we'll benefit from the same.
The point is, this established Wales side should have put the England babes to sword way before this but in fact were outplayed for long periods of the match. Good times to be an England fan!

I love this nonsense that keeps getting spouted about England's babes! The average age of the Welsh team team is younger than England's (only slightly admittedly). We are considerably more experienced in terms of caps but the vast majority of the Wales team that played on saturday have only emerged in the last year or two so are hardly old hands. I would be happy to predict that the Wales' team (and squad) will remain very stable over the next 4 years, injuries permitting - I'm not sure of how many of England's team from last Saturday will be playing in the 2015 RWC. Not that many I suspect. Of course that doesn't mean that England might not have a great team in 4 years time but I'm not sure why so many people seem to be getting so excited about the current crop.

by PJHolybloke Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:49 pm

My school used to make us run over Cader Idris, most unpleasant. Was it a try? If you think yes then say why - Page 4 1078893766

Any relation?

by Cadair Idris Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:53 pm

PJHolybloke wrote:My school used to make us run over Cader Idris, most unpleasant.

Any relation?

Very clever post. So do you actually disagree with any of what I said?

by Standulstermen Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:54 pm

I actually thought strettle did ground it but then i am just some bloke in a pub watching and I don't have to make the decision. If the decision rested on me then I would be very hesitant I admit.

Can't believe cueto is being brought up in this. Possibly the best TMO decision ever, again I was convinced it was a try but replays showed Dickinson got it spot on.

I do think the ref/TJ should have spotted north slap the ball out earlier but I don't think you can criticise Walsh for that last minute.

Again I think England should focus on the positives. Both teams have a glut of youngsters and played well. IMO ireland are in a lot worse position than both those teams.

by PJHolybloke Thu 01 Mar 2012, 12:04 am

Cadair Idris wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:My school used to make us run over Cader Idris, most unpleasant.

Any relation?

Very clever post. So do you actually disagree with any of what I said?

Sorry, I didn't really read it, I just saw your username and it reminded me of sadistic school masters making us run over Cader while they sat in a convenient pub somewhere close to the finish line, but even closer to a fire.

There was nothing smart about it, I just wondered if your username was related to the mountain as it's so similar, I googled it and it's one and the the same just a different spelling. Was it a try? If you think yes then say why - Page 4 3610695981

Was it a try? If you think yes then say why - Page 4 3610695981

Now I've read your post I wouldn't say there's anything that jumps out at me as disagreeable, it all looks pretty much in order, who knows what the teams will look like in 4 years time?

In terms of the excitement regarding the "current crop" I wouldn't say that it's necessarily down to anything other than a change to the "old format" of relying on the same tried, tested and ultimately failing players.

SL has rung the changes in terms of breaking the bonds of conservative selection, I'm not sure of the average age comparisons I CBA to check it out, but out of the starting XV last Saturday, I think it would be fair to say that the "old hat" was Tom Croft, Strettle has had a lengthyish England career with not too many caps and Hartley, Cole and Corbisero could possibly be considered to be "established" as they along with Ashton and Foden are now in their second/third 6N tournament, Botha, Parling, Robshaw, Morgan, Dickson, Farrell, Barritt and Tuilagi their first 6N tournament.

There isn't a huge amount of experience in the squad, and to be fair it's shown. However, prior to the tournament, it wasn't out of the question that England could have been heading into Saturday's game with no points at all and with France in Paris and Ireland (anywhere) to come, it could have been wooden spoon with a whitewash time.

They were fortunate in the game against Scotland, kept their heads and discipline well against Italy (even after gifting 2 tries in quick succession just before halftime), and conducted themselves very well against a Wales team that is on fire and packed with genuine tried and tested talent and a fair bit of experience (relatively speaking). A Wales team that was widely predicted to be on a search and destroy mission, and whilst they were the better side, had the better game mangement and control at the key moments, never got away from England until the 75th minute.

I and most other England fans are loving the way Wales are playing rugby, and are genuinely pleased as it's not only good for Wales but good for the rest of the NH game as well, nobody is supposing that Englands "current crop" are hot on the heels of Wales in terms of development, but it is a start and has shown that it's possible to experiment with a new look lineup and not get trashed in the process.

I wouldn't be surprised if they win the match in Paris, but if they did I wouldn't get carried away either, it would be just another step forward.

Change Cadair, that's the exciting bit. Very Happy

by overlordofthewest Thu 01 Mar 2012, 1:18 am

I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of people claiming it was a try. I've seen the video evidence over and over and at no point did he ground the ball.

You could argue Laidlow scored a try.

You could argue Hogg scored a try.

You could argue Jones scored a try.

There is no way Strettle scored a try. Even the angle claimed, you can't see the ball hit the ground you may (if youre English) assume it until you see the other angle at the same point in time and it was nowhere near to being grounded.
This isn't a case of ' it was a try but wasn't seen so couldn't be given' more a case of it clearly wasn't a try as CAN be seen by the video evidence. Walsh was being generous going to the Tmo as he clearly stated he didn't think it was a try but the assistant ref wasn't 100% at the time.

by **Biltong** Thu 01 Mar 2012, 6:19 am

Standulstermen wrote:I actually thought strettle did ground it but then i am just some bloke in a pub watching and I don't have to make the decision. If the decision rested on me then I would be very hesitant I admit.

The fact is he did ground the ball, but it was short when he grounded it the first time, then he had his own arm in the way. So he had to roll over his own arm to ground the ball and there is unfortunately not enough evidence to show it was grounded.

You can assume the ball was grounded, if you look at where his arm was in relation to the try line, but becuase there were 3 defenders around him, and once again most likely that the ball was held up, the TMO could not make any decision based on assumption.

Hence no try.

If there was only one defender, it would have been more likely that evidence could show grounding on or behind the line.

by eirebilly Thu 01 Mar 2012, 6:54 am

Keep it goin lads, this may just get more posts than Ferris' tackle Wink

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 01 Mar 2012, 8:27 am

Excellent post, PJ.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 01 Mar 2012, 8:48 am

overlordofthewest wrote:
There is no way Strettle scored a try. Even the angle claimed, you can't see the ball hit the ground you may (if youre English) assume it until you see the other angle at the same point in time and it was nowhere near to being grounded.
This isn't a case of ' it was a try but wasn't seen so couldn't be given' more a case of it clearly wasn't a try as CAN be seen by the video evidence. Walsh was being generous going to the Tmo as he clearly stated he didn't think it was a try but the assistant ref wasn't 100% at the time.

Yeah way to go in trying to turn this into a " England vs Wales bickering thread.

If you bothered to read teh previous responses youd see the last peopel to say they thought it was or could have been grounded were two welshmen, a south african, and an Irish chap.

Im not objecting to your view that theres no direct evidnce it was grounded, Im onjecting to your assertion that people are claiming it may have been simply because they are English ( like Shane Williams for example)

The debate on here about it has been very open and fair minded with most people fitting into a concencous, much more so than on most issues. We could do without posters like yourself trying to project your own predjudice onto other people.

by PJHolybloke Thu 01 Mar 2012, 9:54 am

Cheers Lucky, loving the boyos brand.

For the record, I thought it was grounded, but we all know that thinking isn't enough and I'm not hung up about it as the result was fair enough.

Let's look forward to Paris now. Yahoo

by dummy_half Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:00 am

PJ
and what odds would you have given on Flood getting the conversion anyway? Havong only been on for 10 minutes or so and not having had a shot at goal, landing one from near the right touchline would have been a very good effort - under the circumstances, I'd have given him maybe 1 in 10 chance.

As such, the discussion is really only whether England lost by 7 or lost by 2...

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:29 am

dummy you are forgetting the cueto rule, its 11 points for a try ruled out by the TMO

by PJHolybloke Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:51 am

dummy_half wrote:PJ
and what odds would you have given on Flood getting the conversion anyway? Havong only been on for 10 minutes or so and not having had a shot at goal, landing one from near the right touchline would have been a very good effort - under the circumstances, I'd have given him maybe 1 in 10 chance.

As such, the discussion is really only whether England lost by 7 or lost by 2...

I guess the bit about me not being hung up about it and that the result being fair enough should answer that, but to be specific, what's the point in hypothesising about the conversion?

The prima facie point is that the try was not given, Wales won, fair result.

Sorted. thumbsup

by miteyironpaw Thu 01 Mar 2012, 3:39 pm

PJHolybloke wrote:
dummy_half wrote:PJ
and what odds would you have given on Flood getting the conversion anyway? Havong only been on for 10 minutes or so and not having had a shot at goal, landing one from near the right touchline would have been a very good effort - under the circumstances, I'd have given him maybe 1 in 10 chance.

As such, the discussion is really only whether England lost by 7 or lost by 2...

I guess the bit about me not being hung up about it and that the result being fair enough should answer that, but to be specific, what's the point in hypothesising about the conversion?

The prima facie point is that the try was not given, Wales won, fair result.

Sorted.

Would have been nice if Steve Walsh had given him the 1 in 10 chance, rather than blowing for full time though.

by maestegmafia Thu 01 Mar 2012, 8:33 pm

Rugby Dump wrote:Strettle has since insisted that he felt the ball touch the ground, despite television match official Iain Ramage having numerous looks at the incident and finding the footage inconclusive.

"I felt the ball touch the floor," said Strettle. "If it is inconclusive you have to go with the attacking team. When they showed it on the big screen it looked like it went down as well," he added, before saying that he felt the touch judge was in the best position to adjudicate on the decision.

"The strange thing for me was that I was hoping the touch judge might have seen it because our physio was standing right next to him and he says it was grounded. I can't understand why we have not gone back for that penalty," he added, referring to the advantage played by ref Steve Walsh.

by yappysnap Thu 01 Mar 2012, 8:42 pm

Watched it again. Can't see how any one can figure it out, so no try.

But why as mentioned did Brown not try to draw his man a bit more, or in fact why did Strettle not go for the actual corner. When they hit the line there must still be about a meter of space left that he could have dived into.

Can not wait for next year game already.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 01 Mar 2012, 9:46 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how in these kind of situations the highest level professional players dont understand the laws and their application, and the protocol match officials follow.

by Super D Boon Thu 01 Mar 2012, 9:56 pm

In the video replay you could only see the ball cross the line momentarily before it was shuffled off the line by the Welsh players.

T'was however not a try as he had his arm underneath the ball when it crossed the line so no grounding occurred in that moment.

by Morgannwg Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:10 pm

Evening guys. Just seen an interesting pic on Facebook. It shows the ball not being grounded at the moment that most thought it WAS grounded. Is it worth me trying to get it uploaded onto here?

by Morgannwg Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:15 pm

It appears to be before the line too. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced I was right all along about it being impossible for the ball to touch the ground due to the way it was held and the way Strettle went on to grasp it into him. Just saying like innit.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:31 pm

Super, thats not the moment that he thought it was grounded. Theres a period before that well over the line where he leans back. Its obscured from all but the rear camera view.

Morgan theres already been a picture posted on here that shows the angle existed at which he could have grounded it. A still proves nothing, unless you have ones immediately before or after it how do you know it didnt go down the extra centimeter? We have evidence he couldve grounded it, but no proof he did.

Hence ist still inconclusive till someone can produce a series of frames from the angle where you could see the contact (or lack of)

Theres no reason that he couldnt have rolled his arm a touch further from here, but we dont know if he did or if that photo caught it at the absolute limit it reached. To be honest its that damn close id assume he wouldve done and got the brief touch, but I fully endorse the officials call on what they saw.

Spoiler:

by miteyironpaw Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:33 pm

I've just seen a picture of the ball grounded over the line, the tip of the ball is clearly touching the ground 2 or 3 inches over the line and Strettle's hand is wrapped around the side of the ball.

Clearly a try in physical reality. However, in these cases physical reality doesn't count. I don't believe any individual video evidence showed the ball grounded and that is what the TMO has to go on. The on field officials did the right thing referring it, and so I think the correct decision was made given the evidence available at the time.

I'm more concerned about the failure to go back for the penalty advantage, and the fact that George North, heavily involved in the defensive work was still on the field after deliberating batting the ball into touch.

This too is a little irrelevant as the TJ and ref also forgot that rule (or didn't see it clearly enough to make the call).

I think both decisions were close enough that whichever call was made, it would have outraged aggrieved fans of whomever was on the end of it.

For me the most important thing, given the margin of error in the actual result is to forget the outcome on the scoreboard and look at the performance.

England were capable of winning the game on the day and considering all the Welsh were concerned with "smashing" and "humiliating us" I think it is at least a moral victory in having proven ourselves within a referees tough call of victory.

For me that's enough for the day to have been a massive success for Lancaster's young inexperienced players and a tick in the "found new coach" box.

As this young, inexperienced team bond together and Lancaster has a chance to develop his plans more fully, I can see the return fixture next year being merely a speed bump for what is clearly destined to be one of the best English, if not rugby teams, ever.

The future is white. Swing Low!

by Morgannwg Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:34 pm

Peter, that is the same pic, but a different angle. The pic also shows at that point, the ball was not on or over the line. I agree with you though.

by miteyironpaw Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:34 pm

I've just seen a picture of the ball grounded over the line, the tip of the ball is clearly touching the ground 2 or 3 inches over the line and Strettle's hand is wrapped around the side of the ball.

Clearly a try in physical reality. However, in these cases physical reality doesn't count. I don't believe any individual video evidence showed the ball grounded and that is what the TMO has to go on. The on field officials did the right thing referring it, and so I think the correct decision was made given the evidence available at the time.

I'm more concerned about the failure to go back for the penalty advantage, and the fact that George North, heavily involved in the defensive work was still on the field after deliberating batting the ball into touch.

This too is a little irrelevant as the TJ and ref also forgot that rule (or didn't see it clearly enough to make the call).

I think both decisions were close enough that whichever call was made, it would have outraged aggrieved fans of whomever was on the end of it.

For me the most important thing, given the margin of error in the actual result is to forget the outcome on the scoreboard and look at the performance.

England were capable of winning the game on the day and considering all the Welsh were concerned with "smashing" and "humiliating us" I think it is at least a moral victory in having proven ourselves within a referees tough call of victory.

For me that's enough for the day to have been a massive success for Lancaster's young inexperienced players and a tick in the "found new coach" box.

As this young, inexperienced team bond together and Lancaster has a chance to develop his plans more fully, I can see the return fixture next year being merely a speed bump for what is clearly destined to be one of the best English, if not rugby teams, ever.

The future is white. Swing Low!

by slartibartfast Thu 01 Mar 2012, 10:41 pm

miteyironpaw wrote:I've just seen a picture of the ball grounded over the line, the tip of the ball is clearly touching the ground 2 or 3 inches over the line and Strettle's hand is wrapped around the side of the ball.

Clearly a try in physical reality. However, in these cases physical reality doesn't count. I don't believe any individual video evidence showed the ball grounded and that is what the TMO has to go on. The on field officials did the right thing referring it, and so I think the correct decision was made given the evidence available at the time.

I'm more concerned about the failure to go back for the penalty advantage, and the fact that George North, heavily involved in the defensive work was still on the field after deliberating batting the ball into touch.

This too is a little irrelevant as the TJ and ref also forgot that rule (or didn't see it clearly enough to make the call).

I think both decisions were close enough that whichever call was made, it would have outraged aggrieved fans of whomever was on the end of it.

For me the most important thing, given the margin of error in the actual result is to forget the outcome on the scoreboard and look at the performance.

England were capable of winning the game on the day and considering all the Welsh were concerned with "smashing" and "humiliating us" I think it is at least a moral victory in having proven ourselves within a referees tough call of victory.

For me that's enough for the day to have been a massive success for Lancaster's young inexperienced players and a tick in the "found new coach" box.

As this young, inexperienced team bond together and Lancaster has a chance to develop his plans more fully, I can see the return fixture next year being merely a speed bump for what is clearly destined to be one of the best English, if not rugby teams, ever.

The future is white. Swing Low!

Idon't think England can swing any lower

by maestegmafia Fri 02 Mar 2012, 12:46 am

slartibartfast wrote:
miteyironpaw wrote:I've just seen a picture of the ball grounded over the line, the tip of the ball is clearly touching the ground 2 or 3 inches over the line and Strettle's hand is wrapped around the side of the ball.

Clearly a try in physical reality. However, in these cases physical reality doesn't count. I don't believe any individual video evidence showed the ball grounded and that is what the TMO has to go on. The on field officials did the right thing referring it, and so I think the correct decision was made given the evidence available at the time.

I'm more concerned about the failure to go back for the penalty advantage, and the fact that George North, heavily involved in the defensive work was still on the field after deliberating batting the ball into touch.

This too is a little irrelevant as the TJ and ref also forgot that rule (or didn't see it clearly enough to make the call).

I think both decisions were close enough that whichever call was made, it would have outraged aggrieved fans of whomever was on the end of it.

For me the most important thing, given the margin of error in the actual result is to forget the outcome on the scoreboard and look at the performance.

England were capable of winning the game on the day and considering all the Welsh were concerned with "smashing" and "humiliating us" I think it is at least a moral victory in having proven ourselves within a referees tough call of victory.

For me that's enough for the day to have been a massive success for Lancaster's young inexperienced players and a tick in the "found new coach" box.

As this young, inexperienced team bond together and Lancaster has a chance to develop his plans more fully, I can see the return fixture next year being merely a speed bump for what is clearly destined to be one of the best English, if not rugby teams, ever.

The future is white. Swing Low!

Idon't think England can swing any lower

I think that your posting does enough to humiliate mate...!

Please can you post a link to your photo. It was not printed anywhere in the press..!!!

by Sponsored content