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

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.

If its impossible for the ball to have touched the ground how come there is a shot of exactly that happening? If anything the shape of a rugby ball makes it easier ... if you look on the Wales Won thread most on there seem to accept now having seen the new angle that the ball was touched down ... doesn't change the result, Wales won and might very well go on to win a GS and good luck to them, but it does look like the wrong call - understandable if the TMO didn't have access to this angle as has been suggested ...

A lot of things get suggested... Listen at your peril!

true - and this may not be the case I really don't know - but it could be as that angle wasn't shown at the time to the broadcast audience ... still either way its done and dusted now ...

Heaf wrote:it could be as that angle wasn't shown at the time to the broadcast audience

But the TMO must have had access to all the camera angles, surely?

LP - you would have thought but I honestly don't know ... they did say on the build-up to the Scotland v France match that he didn't have this angle - whether that is accurate or not I can't say

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

Heaf wrote:it could be as that angle wasn't shown at the time to the broadcast audience

But the TMO must have had access to all the camera angles, surely?

I think that what we see on the broadcast is what the TMO is looking at

I think you're right - so either he didn't have access to that angle for some reason or didn't look at it I guess?

Regardless of whether the ref/TMO awarded a try, I thought it was interesting how Walsh eventually started pulling Wales up for consistently going off their feet at attacking rucks as he started to get frustrated. Wales are very clever at committing just enough players to seal off the ball to ensure the recycle for their aggressive phase game and enough forwards to take the next phase. If they can't seal it off they would be very exposed to the turnover and counter attack. Suspect the call from opposition players against Wales in the future will be " off their feet ! Sir !"

I also thought it was a fine tackle by Warburton on Tuilagi short of the line but if you follow Warburton back from the English lineout where he races to get back onside , he fails by probably two yards and that made the difference to getting to Tuilagi before he got too close to the line.

Harsh yellow card for Priestland but then Roberts had been offside virtually all the first half and it was no surprise when England had the better of the first twenty minutes in the second half with Roberts gone.

Suggest those are the type of ref calls that should be debated.

Thank goodness Walsh at least spotted Jamie Roberts a mile off-side in the line every single time this week.

Note also the absence of Jiffy shrieking "Ooooh! Grrr-ate lian-speed from Way-ulls!"

I saw new footage today. There were definitely two shooters. I won't bore you with the details but angles and simple math make the theory of one shooter impossible. Here´s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

Wow these sour grapes are really turning into desperation now and to be honest getting really boring. So now Wales are always off their feet and offside. Well I guess we must be the only team in the world to do this. Shame on us!

ZZZzzz.....

It's not sour grapes. "Sour grapes" refers to a situation when someone claims to not want something that they can't have. For example, an Australian might say "Who needs a front 5? The set piece is over-rated, especially the scrum" (sour grapes), or an Scotsman might say "Some of the most successful teams in history didn't bother scoring tries!" or a Welshman might say "Who needs discipline when you can get away with murder week in, week out?" (sour grapes).

Get it?

I think those are in fact the examples the OED gives for sour grapes. Oh and of course your one above. Spooky!

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

4 including Shane Williams

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/891562-shane-williams-the-future-looks-rosy-for-england-despite-wales-loss

I thought he’d touched the ball down from the view behind the posts

Their is a moment where Strettle has his hand under the ball, but tilts it back and down where it may have been grounded. After that it gets scooped up and rolled back over the line and grounded short.

The video evidence is as inconclusive as the Scotland try against England, a fair decision not to award....but those saying they are certain it wasnt grounded must be smoking pot or just that desperate to prove a point.

Ref handled it very well, and the AR said the right thing. Handed to the TMO who replied with a sensible answer. Walsh may have forgotten that he was playing advantage but Id definatly consider have crossed the line holding the ball to be advantage over. Well done Welsh defenders.

Recwatcher wrote:I also thought it was a fine tackle by Warburton on Tuilagi short of the line but if you follow Warburton back from the English lineout where he races to get back onside , he fails by probably two yards and that made the difference to getting to Tuilagi before he got too close to the line.

Harsh yellow card for Priestland but then Roberts had been offside virtually all the first half and it was no surprise when England had the better of the first twenty minutes in the second half with Roberts gone.

Suggest those are the type of ref calls that should be debated.

I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned about Warburton seeing as he's actually admitted he was offside.

I'd suggest ref calls like not binning somebody for deliberately pulling down a man jumping in the lineout should be debated, particularly with this obsession with tip tackles etc. Funny how no English person mentions this, or if they do blame Warburton for closing the gap or Lydiate for apparently dropping Warbs

Risca Rev wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:I also thought it was a fine tackle by Warburton on Tuilagi short of the line but if you follow Warburton back from the English lineout where he races to get back onside , he fails by probably two yards and that made the difference to getting to Tuilagi before he got too close to the line.

Harsh yellow card for Priestland but then Roberts had been offside virtually all the first half and it was no surprise when England had the better of the first twenty minutes in the second half with Roberts gone.

Suggest those are the type of ref calls that should be debated.

I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned about Warburton seeing as he's actually admitted he was offside.

I'd suggest ref calls like not binning somebody for deliberately pulling down a man jumping in the lineout should be debated, particularly with this obsession with tip tackles etc. Funny how no English person mentions this, or if they do blame Warburton for closing the gap or Lydiate for apparently dropping Warbs

I dont think he did delibertaly pull him down. If you look what happened he was illegaly lifted ( held low) and let go by his lifters (pretty much thrown up) Robshaw was coming across much lower to comepte (too late and he had no chance of ever getting high enough because of teh illegal lift) legally but then had 18 stone of welshman tipping toward him. He sticks his arm up possibly as a cr@p attempt to get the ball or possibly to defend himself and then gets landed on. It was no more dragging the player down or taking him out that two people jumping for a kick and colliding.
Walsh did judge it as a deliberate take out though, fair enough. That is not an automatic yellow card in a lineout, its optional for an egregious one which that really wasnt at all. Whether is should be or not becauise of the relative danger is what Moore kicked off about on the commentry. Taking a player out in the air in open play or tip tackling them ( lets not mention warburon on farrell) would be.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:


Their is a moment where Strettle has his hand under the ball, but tilts it back and down where it may have been grounded. After that it gets scooped up and rolled back over the line and grounded short.

The video evidence is as inconclusive as the Scotland try against England, a fair decision not to award....but those saying they are certain it wasnt grounded must be smoking pot or just that desperate to prove a point.

Ref handled it very well, and the AR said the right thing. Handed to the TMO who replied with a sensible answer. Walsh may have forgotten that he was playing advantage but Id definatly consider have crossed the line holding the ball to be advantage over. Well done Welsh defenders.

One frame forward or backward from here
http://thesun.mobi/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_union/4154280/England-agony-at-HQ.html?mob=1
would confirm the try.

Strettle had the ball in one hand and touched the ground with it. I'd say that's a try, speaking as an Engineer.

The Scotland "try" should have been a clear penalty to England. Youngs was climbed over and pulled back. (I understand there may have been cause for a Scotland penalty a few moments earlier).

Based on the voting to date, it clearly was a try

Why not have voting pads for the Twickenham crowd and instead of the TMO, they can ask the Audience.

And whilst at it, phone a friend to come and help (Dan Carter for the last 10 minutes), and remove two wrong defenders from your path.

More seriously, I wonder if the technology could be improved. Some software to combine camera angles into one ball positioning algorithm. Or perhaps a radio transmitter tag based in the ball - GPS isn't accurate enough but a local system could.

Well Alex that appears to show he didnt ground it, but youd need a few shots in the preceeding and proceeding milliseconds to be sure one way or the other. It may have been as far down as the ball got or it may have got further.
One still photo doenst prove the case. It was certainly damn close, and thats the moment from behind that he appeared to have gounded it. To me it shows why some people (including Swilliams) thought it was grounded...but also why the TMO was right ot call it inconclusive

I've just watched it again, and I can confirm once again that it was a try, and that England were playing under advantage.

Not sure why so many are protesting.

No try - move on

RubyGuby wrote:No try - move on

Theres no way that kick against SA went over, move on

We won regardless, Mitey.

Must be a hollow victory to know that in reality you didn't LP?

In reality we did win. It's quite straightforward, really.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:No try - move on

Theres no way that kick against SA went over, move on

What Kick? - we lost fair and square

Crikey,
If the replay is so close that we are still debating its merits, then it is hard to see how the Try could be given. And I originally thought it was a good score. So, time to move on, eh mates? The match was decided by inches and thats good enough for me.

Here is my analogy, there is a car accident and paramedics pronounce a passenger dead at the scene and the body is taken away to the morgue.

At the morgue whilst the coroner is recording the death, the passenger shows a weak sign of life and is rushed to ER and resuscitated.

After a 3 month coma, the passenger regains consciousness.

Later in a review of the incident the paramedics at the scene discover they made a mistake based on a malfunctioning piece of equipment.

6 months later the passenger discovers that their life insurance policy has been paid out by the insurer because the in the confusion the process to issue a death certificate was set in motion and nobody remember to stop it.

Now in observable reality the passenger is not dead, although according to the paper work, the passenger is dead.

What we have with the Wales/England game is an observable reality that England scored a try and saved the game, but recorded paper work showing a Wales victory.

But you know LP, if you want to go tell this person that they are dead, then fine, you be that person.

Paddy O'Ireland wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:No try - move on

Theres no way that kick against SA went over, move on

What Kick? - we lost fair and square

What lineout/penalty of Ferris? - we lost fair and square

Crikey someone should invite Greyghost back just so he could bury the hatchet with Wayne Barnes and get on with his life.

Their dead mate, bury them and move on

miteyironpaw wrote:Here is my analogy

Nobody asked you for your analogy. Shouldn't you be focussing on France now and a match you might win, rather than on a match you've lost?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Here is my analogy

Nobody asked you for your analogy. Shouldn't you be focussing on France now?

We dont know how France are going to cheat yet. Probably eye gouging though, thats usually a safe bet with them.

The thing is you can't say either way in this case, as when you make your mind up you see it from another angle and then you begin to doubt it again.

But in the interest of the game as a whole I hope that in the future the benefit of the doubt will go to the attacking team, as that’s what people want to see.

God! you took your time cleaning that Range Rover out - nice to have you back

I still haven't sorted out the scratch Ruby

The bar stewards!

Some welsh twxt probably Hersh - I'll ask around mate, did you see a fella in a red scarf driving away in a Vauxhall Viva

RubyGuby wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:No try - move on

Theres no way that kick against SA went over, move on

What Kick? - we lost fair and square

How quickly we forget...

HERSH wrote:But in the interest of the game as a whole I hope that in the future the benefit of the doubt will go to the attacking team, as that’s what people want to see.

I can't agree with that. You need proof that a try's been scored before you award it. And you say that people want to see the benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team - well surely that's only the supporters of the attacking team!

But there was also no proof that it wasn't scored due to the poor camera angles, so in effect the game was decided by the person responsible for the positioning of the cameras or the cameraman, that’s not right!

So any time a player crosses the line under a pile of bodies, you say a try should be awarded? I couldn't disagree more. Crossing the line might be sufficient in American football, but in rugby it's not.

Defence is just as important / vital / integral to the game of rugby as attack; the one aspect shouldn't be given more weight than the other.

Proof isn't needed by the defence, it's needed by the attack.

HERSH you do make a good point though regarding camera mans positioning, abilities etc...

luckless_pedestrian wrote:So any time a player crosses the line under a pile of bodies, you say a try should be awarded? I couldn't disagree more. Crossing the line might be sufficient in American football, but in rugby it's not.

Defence is just as important / vital / integral to the game of rugby as attack; the one aspect shouldn't be given more weight than the other.

I'm not saying that at all, the existing rules are fine for that example.

But like example we saw at the weekend there was clearly no proof that it was or wasn't a try then maybe the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team.

But by that HERSH shouldn't every penalty by the defence scrum on their 5 metre be rewarded with PT? Or every collapsed maul a metre short?

My point is if the attack get the benefit of the doubt we got more score, and less attacking play!

I would hate to see that, Hersh. Look at cricket: the team in the field claim a catch, the umpire isn't sure so he gives the batsman not out. The team in the field challenge it and after looking at the video replays, it's still inconclusive. The benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman: not out. That has to be the fairer way of doing things.

I beleive BOTD goes to the attacker in league and it's something some pundits have called for (Jiffy is one, I think Edwards has as well, both ex-league players). Personally I've never liked it. I've said before that it think it was grounded [English] (the view from behind was shown at the time but the TMO didn't go back to it, I used sky+) but understand why he went for inconclusive. I'd rather him do that than say "I can't see it grounded but I'm sure he probably did so I'll give it".

All of the points and examples raise are fine as they are, but like what we saw on Saturday there was no clear proof either way due to the poor camera angles rather than the TMO'S judgment, then maybe in that instance the benefit should go to the attacking team as there was enough doubt to say that it could have been a try.

Let’s be honest 95 times out of 100 the slow motion replay and camera work is pretty good, but in this case it wasn’t.

thebluesmancometh wrote:But by that HERSH shouldn't every penalty by the defence scrum on their 5 metre be rewarded with PT? Or every collapsed maul a metre short?

My point is if the attack get the benefit of the doubt we got more score, and less attacking play!

Err no thats not what hes saying at all. In situations where you would normaly go to the TMO the benefit would go to the attacking side if the evidence is considered inconclusive and theres reason to think the ball may have been grounded/foot wasnt ion touch or whatever.
Thats what happens under the current system if the question is " can you see any reason to not award the try".
In this case both the ref and AR thought it had been held up. The TMO had no reason to overturn their view. Benefit goes to the on the field officials. HERSH wanst that changing.

The situations you describe wouldnt go to the TMO in the first place.

The unfortunate truth is the camera man cannot cover all angles.

It is an impossibility to know where a try will be scored and where is the best place to place a camera.

The borad casters place their camera's at the angles that benefit the viewers not the referees.

What might help, but you will still have bodies in the way, is a slow mo camera on the try line as they have in cricket for run outs.

But as I say, if it is a three on one situation it is unlikely you will see it anyway.

Perhaps then the law must change to accommodate the playr only having to cross the lineas in American football. However I wouldn't want to see that happen.

I think there are other occasions when forwards go over the line by metres, and the defence fall away it is clearly a try but the TMO isn't allowed to give it because he can't see the ball being grounded, thats when refs need to be a bit ballsier IMO, but as it is it is as quantified as it can be and can't be changed.

The TMO was brought in so that the on-field officials wouldn't have to guess whether or not a try had been scored. If, after looking at the evidence, the TMO himself would be guessing whether or not a try had been scored, surely there's enough doubt there for 'no try' to be the fair decision.