Try or No Try...

First topic message reminder :

I know this has been debated to death on the game thread, and I also know that, whether to WUM, or real believe or just nationalistic pride, there has been some real "aggressive" (shall I say) debating over the TMOs decision.

But, as every pundit I've heard as stated it was, in their opinion a try, except for Guscott who agreed it was grounded by Anscombe, but points to the knock on by Evans, I would like to know what you guys actually thought, without the need to argue and take a nationalistic stance.

If you want to leave comments to back your theory, do so, but please PLEASE, lets stay civil.

So, I'll put my thoughts in a response, rather than the opening comment ...

So, the poll is was it a Try or Not..

Scottrf wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I don't think it's a knock on.

In fact, by the laws a knock on is only during a tackle or tackle attempt.

Erm ... I think that's one way of knocking on but not the only way .... otherwise fumbling a ball forwards from a pass or kick wouldn't be a knock on ...

I agree that's how it's judged, but it's not in the laws.

What you describe in the laws is one way of knocking on - it's not defined as the only way otherwise how would a player knock-on when attempting to catch a ball?

Look I agree that's a knock on in reality. But check the laws.

The laws can be vague alright.

Knock-on under the rules 11 is;
1. A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum.
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
b. A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.
==========


However there is also a definition of a knock-on;

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

and also a kick is defined

Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
=======

Again lovely and vague. 11.2 talks about the tackler, not the player in possession. By the definition of a knock-on and part 11.1 if the player loses possession and it goes forward it is a knock-on (nice and vague), if it was to be claimed that the hand was possession and the ball goes backwards then he hits it with his knee then that isn't an legitimate kick (again quite vague) and the 'kick' would be debatable as his hands being down displayed more intent to gain possession.

Got to love this sport

. ignore this

Not only was there a knock on off te hand, off the thigh is usually ruled a knock on anyway, and he looked offside anyway...

From the IRB law definitions:


Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

So knee or above is not a kick. It is a knock on

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I don't think it's a knock on.

In fact, by the laws a knock on is only during a tackle or tackle attempt.

Erm ... I think that's one way of knocking on but not the only way .... otherwise fumbling a ball forwards from a pass or kick wouldn't be a knock on ...

I agree that's how it's judged, but it's not in the laws.

What you describe in the laws is one way of knocking on - it's not defined as the only way otherwise how would a player knock-on when attempting to catch a ball?

Look I agree that's a knock on in reality. But check the laws.

The laws can be vague alright.

Knock-on  under the rules 11 is;
1. A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum.
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
b. A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.
==========


However there is also a definition of a knock-on;

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

and also a kick is defined

Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
=======

Again lovely and vague.  11.2 talks about the tackler, not the player in possession.  By the definition of a knock-on and part 11.1 if the player loses possession and it goes forward it is a knock-on (nice and vague), if it was to be claimed that the hand was possession and the ball goes backwards then he hits it with his knee then that isn't an legitimate kick (again quite vague) and the 'kick' would be debatable as his hands being down displayed more intent to gain possession.

Got to love this sport

That’s not vague. Evans explicitly didn’t kick the ball, but did lose possession forward

He didn't have possession as he didn't gather it. So only hand or arm can be knock on, not the knee.

Which his hand did ...

Heaf wrote:Which his hand did ...

True but that aside, what Scottrf has said isn’t accurate. He made contact with the ball whilst trying to catch it. That is losing possession. He has lost possession. You don’t have to actually have possession individually to lose it - his team had possession, played the ball to him and he failed to keep it and knocked the ball forward

Otherwise it’s just rewarding him for an extra layer of incompetence

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Heaf wrote:Which his hand did ...

True but that aside, what Scottrf has said isn’t accurate. He made contact with the ball whilst trying to catch it. That is losing possession. He has lost possession. You don’t have to actually have possession individually to lose it - his team had possession, played the ball to him and he failed to keep it and knocked the ball forward

Obviously is accurate or they would say it hit his knee so it's a knock on.

It's a knock on because it came off his hand, not because team possession means his knee is a knock on.

OK, back to the World Rugby definitions:

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

By that definition, Evans had possession of the ball in attempting to catch it, and so it was a knock on regardless of whether it came off his hand or his knee (as we have already established that you can no longer use a knee to kick the ball). I know to all of us who have played the game that sounds absurd, but certainly how looking at this I interpret the Laws as written.

If you're taking the laws to that minutae,  there's not even any need to say a knock on has to be from hands and arms. Any body part if you're trying to catch it.

Doesn't seem like the referee or TMO agree with that interpretation though, even though it appears correct.

Scottrf wrote:If you're taking the laws to that minutae,  there's not even any need to say a knock on has to be from hands and arms. Any body part if you're trying to catch it.

Doesn't seem like the referee or TMO agree with that interpretation though, even though it appears correct.

Exactly my point, even if I think the Law as written is a nonsense and also not applied...

Why does it matter whether it was a try or not? Teams have won the Slam before with either dubious scores or on the back of those disallowed against them.
The referee said it was a try so therefore it was. Undermining the officials as arbiters of the game is simply anti-rugby!

No9 wrote:

cascough wrote:Of course we all know the real injustice here. When the referee asks "Is there any reason I can't award the try?" how on earth does the TMO decide that Cueto was clearly and obviously in touch!? I mean, the sheer number of replays it took to decide would logically suggest it wasn't clear and obvious!

Ok, not going to bring that up or this thread will, like others, turn into a WUM fest..

BUT, it does raise the point that I think many have said. How could the TMO come to the conclusion that Watson grounded it, which is what he said, in such a short time. He could only have looked at the replay a few times and no matter how many times we've looked at it, its not conclusive.

So, although I really believe it was a try, I dont see how it could have been given with any certainty, but that means on the flip side I dont see how in the short time he had he could say it wasn't a try and I definitely think his rational was completely wrong.

Whatever happened to the doubt given to the attacking side, as always the case with the All Blacks

It was clearly a joke. In both cases however we are talking about a 2 point swing. Pretty inconsequential. As for your last point, it depends entirely on the question. "Any reason I can't..." benefit with the attacking team. "Try yes or no" need clear evidence.

Just checked the records, 'AGAIN!' and Wales didn't score a try at Twickers in 2018. end of debate.

Knock-on then not grounded.

Even if they awarded the try, pretty sure the final score would have still been 12-10??

Although I imagine this would have spurred us on to up our game and we would have won 55-10 with 9 tries and a BP.....instead of a lousy 12-6 win and only 4pts.

Sounds like the IRB agree the TMO was wrong, Newman is to be removed from International duty and being asked to explain how he came to his decision that it was Watson who grounded the ball first.

He was wrong as he dismissed the knee/knock on too early.

Lucky for him the right decision of a no try was correct, even if he got to that conclusion the wrong way.

Off the knee is not a knock on, and there was no offside either.

Its unfortunate for England now that if they do win the title, this is what people will talk about for years to come and not winning 3 in a row.

That must be on the players minds as well that they got out of jail here.

rodders wrote:Off the knee is not a knock on, and there was no offside either.

Its unfortunate for England now that if they do win the title, this is what people will talk about for years to come and not winning 3 in a row.

That must be on the players minds as well that they got out of jail here.  

It came off Evans fingers.........If we win the title (big if) that won't happen at all, what a bizarre comment.

How did we get out of jail? Even if the try stood, we were still up on the scoreboard and it's highly possible the conversion would have been missed, making it only 2pts more than what Wales got anyway.

If we win the 6N this year, it will be because we were there best side in the championship, like the last 2 years.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
If we win the 6N this year, it will be because we were there best side in the championship, like the last 2 years.

I think if they win it will be tarnished in controversy, would Wales have won it is hard to say but the doubt will always be there.

rodders wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
If we win the 6N this year, it will be because we were there best side in the championship, like the last 2 years.

I think if they win it will be tarnished in controversy, would Wales have won it is hard to say but the doubt will always be there.

Well, I'll tell you rodders, if that's how things pan out, I ain't going to be losing any sleep worrying about that Wales no-try incident.

There's more than enough time on the clock left for more contentious decisions and more time left for Wales to potentially benefit from one or two.  Gatland nor his team will be accepting any errors that go in their favour hence forth?

Nah.  Rest easy rodders.  Life's too short for controversy.

Go easy there fly, you know fine well Joe and Rory would hand the trophy back if it were us.

The English player will be hoping the other teams lose at least twice to keep daylight between them and the runners up.

I think if they win a slam or title by 1 game it really will be a hollow victory now.

Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

Collapse2005 wrote:Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

Only has to touch a blade of grass, so the likelihood is that he scored.

People are becoming desperate!!!!!

Collapse2005 wrote:Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

I noticed that he did.

Desperate? I don't really care who wins that fixture. Didn't look like it touched the ground at all on the replay. The Welsh try had much clearer grounding IMO.

rodders wrote:Off the knee is not a knock on, and there was no offside either.

What about fingers?

rodders wrote:

I think if they win a slam or title by 1 game it really will be a hollow victory now.  

Nah, it won't.

I didn't realise you were on the wum at first, I get it now. I really should be getting used to it, there's more wumming than actual rugby chat on here.

Collapse2005 wrote:Desperate? I don't really care who wins that fixture. Didn't look like it touched the ground at all on the replay. The Welsh try had much clearer grounding IMO.

I'm not implying that it is you that are desperate (you might be happily married), but i've seen that excuse going round on social media.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

I noticed that he did.

............................ let me see................ claim etiquette rule 6.5A: Yep, just as I thought. Get your video footage up there, Scott and let's all start at the very beginning of this NEW controversy.

Plus - I want someone to put the coin toss video up 'cause I'm not so certain it didn't fall on its edge.

Collapse2005 wrote:Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

Nope but look not surprised really, this carry on is always happening at Twickers.

So basically we're looking at a 2 score victory here for Wales.

Collapse2005 wrote:Did anyone notice that Jonny May didn't actually ground the ball for England's first try?

He did, and it was crystal clear, although I can appreciate how you missed it.

He initially doesn't as he slides over the line, but then as he is spinning round, he makes a second motion to place the ball (which he does quite successfully). This was only shown in real time as it happened, then all the replays cut away before we see him ground it.

https://i.imgur.com/INN3U9s.jpg

Scottrf wrote:https://i.imgur.com/INN3U9s.jpg

I don't know. It looks a little suspect from that angle, to be honest. This started out as a joke, but I think Collapse has found a serious issue here.

Get out of here.

Id say the grounding of the Welsh try is much clearer.

He's got his leg up there, dangerously showing his studs to stop a would be tackler. No try!




Just kidding

Haha

This is a better angle for me. Watson seems to give his approval for the fine try scored too!

The grounding was great, I didn't think Anscombe had it in him, but shame about the knock on by Evans.

World Rugby admit to 'TMO error' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43046791)

BBC wrote:
Wales assistant Rob Howley says World Rugby have admitted that a mistake was made by the television match official (TMO) in the 12-6 defeat to England.

TMO Glenn Newman ruled Anthony Watson had beaten Anscombe to the ball, with Wales coach Warren Gatland describing it as "a terrible mistake."

Howley says World Rugby's Alain Rolland has confirmed an error was made.




"It was good to have dialogue with World Rugby... they confirmed the TMO made a mistake," Howley confirmed.

NO... what has the world come to, when Wales arch nemesis referee comes out and agrees with Wales... Does this mean we haver a valid claim to replay the 2011 RWC semi final ...

Should have been a knock on then.

It's getting a bit boring, and Wales are starting to come across as bad losers.

Can't we just retrospectively give them the try?

Not forgetting to take off the penalty they kicked instead when the try was scored, and we can be generous and assume the conversion was kicked.

So they can at least bask in close 12-10 defeat that they got 3 days after the event, with only their 3 string

Wales never lose, the other team just score more points!

Afro wrote:It's getting a bit boring, and Wales are starting to come across as bad losers.

Can't we just retrospectively give them the try?

Not forgetting to take off the penalty they kicked instead when the try was scored, and we can be generous and assume the conversion was kicked.

So they can at least bask in close 12-10 defeat that they got 3 days after the event, with only their 3 string

As a Welsh poster I tried to bring this thread to an early, light hearted conclusion with a 'get over it' comment, only to be told that it was a valid discussion point and to stop trying to ruin the thread. Good luck, Afro!

Should have been a knock on then

Gatland's not going to bleat on about that though is he? - over to you Eddie for the follow up whinge about the officials.

A 10-2 penalty count might need a bit more clarification...

http://rugbylad.ie/world-rugby-admit-huge-mistake-made-in-wales-england-clash/

Wales are bad losers for querying a very dodgy call yet Jones is fine to report a player to World Rugby for an 'incident' that didn't even involve his side ?

Ok...