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..

To an extent I can understand the supporters keeping on about it. From personal experience, you invest so much emotion behind your side and you are heartbroken when you feel they have been unfairly robbed.

My comment was aimed at the fact that they had been speaking to World Rugby about it, almost like they have gone running to them crying. They are professionals and should show some dignity and move on

munkian wrote: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...

Aussies!!!!!

munkian wrote: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...

I still don't understand why Jones got himself involved in that. He also needs to wind his neck in. Nothing to do with him.

munkian wrote: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...

Eddie Jones can do no wrong in England. He was become a national treasure. It will be fun to watch it all unravel when they start losing again.

Accepted that you never know the impact that a score will have on the momentum of the game, but on pure numbers, it being a try or not a try wouldn't have effected the end result.

Collapse2005 wrote:

munkian wrote: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...

Eddie Jones can do no wrong in England. He was become a national treasure. It will be fun to watch it all unravel when they start losing again.

Not in my book. He needs to keep his mouth shut more. IMO him and Gatland have a lot in common in that regard

The media do seem to fawn over him a little at pressers and in general in England.

I suppose it's to be expected. Press and fans will overlook a lot of things when its part of success. Like you said, that can quickly change when things aren't going as well

When England lose next the post match presser will be an omnishambles

Afro wrote:To an extent I can understand the supporters keeping on about it. From personal experience, you invest so much emotion behind your side and you are heartbroken when you feel they have been unfairly robbed.

My comment was aimed at the fact that they had been speaking to World Rugby about it, almost like they have gone running to them crying. They are professionals and should show some dignity and move on

I think you miss the point here completely.

They are being professional, they realise it wont change the result and that if the try had been awarded it could have changed the game completely. It could have triggered an English onslaught that Wales could cope with or it could have been a catalyst where the Welsh team played some sublime rugby and beat England by a record score. The fact is we don't know and never will.

BUT, this is a professional game and we need a professional approach. So, the WRU management taking this to World Rugby is exactly what was needed as officials, as well as players and coaches have to be accountable for their decisions. If they have made a mistake, then so beit, no-one is after blood. But if they have made such an incompetent mistake (as I feel this was) then they should be accountable for that and maybe face further training or removed from the officials list all together at this level.

I wonder what Eddie would have said if this happened to England at the next World Cup.

As for Eddie, respecting the TMO and never questioning them... yeah, I'm sure I've never heard him criticise an officials decision before (as for him sticking his nose in and apparently reporting AWJ in a game England had no involvement in, I would have hoped World Rugby told him where to go.)

I started this thread, to canvas honest opinions and just knew it had a very short lifetime before it turned into a bickering post, but I had to respond to your comment.

I guess the question is what's the trigger point for the management complain to WR as I'm sure we've all seen numerous calls (or lack of) we think were completely wrong and realistically what are they expecting to achieve?

Did Wales complain to world rugby? Or did they just have dialogue???

No9 wrote:

Afro wrote:To an extent I can understand the supporters keeping on about it. From personal experience, you invest so much emotion behind your side and you are heartbroken when you feel they have been unfairly robbed.

My comment was aimed at the fact that they had been speaking to World Rugby about it, almost like they have gone running to them crying. They are professionals and should show some dignity and move on

I think you miss the point here completely.

They are being professional, they realise it wont change the result and that if the try had been awarded it could have changed the game completely. It could have triggered an English onslaught that Wales could cope with or it could have been a catalyst where the Welsh team played some sublime rugby and beat England by a record score. The fact is we don't know and never will.

BUT, this is a professional game and we need a professional approach. So, the WRU management taking this to World Rugby is exactly what was needed as officials, as well as players and coaches have to be accountable for their decisions. If they have made a mistake, then so beit, no-one is after blood. But if they have made such an incompetent mistake (as I feel this was) then they should be accountable for that and maybe face further training or removed from the officials list all together at this level.

I wonder what Eddie would have said if this happened to England at the next World Cup.

As for Eddie, respecting the TMO and never questioning them... yeah, I'm sure I've never heard him criticise an officials decision before  (as for him sticking his nose in and apparently reporting AWJ in a game England had no involvement in, I would have hoped World Rugby told him where to go.)

I started this thread, to canvas honest opinions and just knew it had a very short lifetime before it turned into a bickering post, but I had to respond to your comment.

I appreciate what you are saying, but in a professional game, it has to be responsibility of the governing bodies to monitor the game and pick this up themselves.

It shouldn't be for the teams/coaches etc to have to point something out when they feel wronged.

And Gatland's comments after the game make it appear that it was done out of emotion, not out of some responsibility to the game.

The most bizarre part was the TMO stated that Watson grounded the ball first!

I suppose that if you subscribe to the theory that Anscombe didn't have controlled downward pressure, then Watson did ground it first.

I personally thought Ascombe had knocked on, and not grounded the ball.

Afro wrote:

No9 wrote:

Afro wrote:To an extent I can understand the supporters keeping on about it. From personal experience, you invest so much emotion behind your side and you are heartbroken when you feel they have been unfairly robbed.

My comment was aimed at the fact that they had been speaking to World Rugby about it, almost like they have gone running to them crying. They are professionals and should show some dignity and move on

I think you miss the point here completely.

They are being professional, they realise it wont change the result and that if the try had been awarded it could have changed the game completely. It could have triggered an English onslaught that Wales could cope with or it could have been a catalyst where the Welsh team played some sublime rugby and beat England by a record score. The fact is we don't know and never will.

BUT, this is a professional game and we need a professional approach. So, the WRU management taking this to World Rugby is exactly what was needed as officials, as well as players and coaches have to be accountable for their decisions. If they have made a mistake, then so beit, no-one is after blood. But if they have made such an incompetent mistake (as I feel this was) then they should be accountable for that and maybe face further training or removed from the officials list all together at this level.

I wonder what Eddie would have said if this happened to England at the next World Cup.

As for Eddie, respecting the TMO and never questioning them... yeah, I'm sure I've never heard him criticise an officials decision before  (as for him sticking his nose in and apparently reporting AWJ in a game England had no involvement in, I would have hoped World Rugby told him where to go.)

I started this thread, to canvas honest opinions and just knew it had a very short lifetime before it turned into a bickering post, but I had to respond to your comment.

I appreciate what you are saying, but in a professional game, it has to be responsibility of the governing bodies to monitor the game and pick this up themselves.

It shouldn't be for the teams/coaches etc to have to point something out when they feel wronged.

And Gatland's comments after the game make it appear that it was done out of emotion, not out of some responsibility to the game.

Your damn right Gats was emotionally charged after the game, I would be more worried if he wasn't, considering the TMOs call. I don't want to repeat myself, if you want, scan back over my previous responses in this thread. The key thing is, was the TMO didn't take sufficient time and study all replays available to him. He couldn't have, in the time he took to respond. Then, when he did respond, he made the wrong call. I know this will start the responses that it was the right decision because of the knock on, then those saying it was off the knee, etc.. The thing is, he said Watson grounded it first, which wasn't correct. So, does he need further training, did he just make a mistake, was he being put under pressure by the broadcasters (we know ITV want to go to the ads on time it pays their bills). Or was he just out of his depth, maybe shouldn't be a TMO. Either way, accountability is needed.

I'm sure World Rugby monitors this themselves, but does that mean we just shut up or do we make sure they know they have to look at it by bringing it up with them. Of course we do, we make sure they cant just deal with it on the quiet, we make sure they know their accountable by questioning them. No body should be allowed to investigate themselves without accountability.

I’ve got an idea: let’s make them replay the game, say in around a years time, but play it in Wales instead, winner takes all! Yeah. I’ll put it to world rugby.

The Oracle wrote:I’ve got an idea: let’s make them replay the game, say in around a years time, but play it in Wales instead, winner takes all! Yeah. I’ll put it to world rugby.

England will still win.

25 wins out of 26 games is a pretty impressive record......is it any wonder the English like EJ?

England do have an impressive record no doubt. Is the English media still enamoured with Eddie? He’s taken a few pops at them (eg Brown, etc) and they probably don’t like that.

They see it for it is. It's not unusual when you consider mourinho and Fergus on at man u.

Well, World Rugby have come back and said it was a try after all.

So change end result to 12-10.

Hope that helps.

Next!

Afro wrote:Accepted that you never know the impact that a score will have on the momentum of the game, but on pure numbers, it being a try or not a try wouldn't have effected the end result.

It's not just maths though is it? A team needing 7 points to win will play a different type of game (riskier and more open) from a team needing just a penalty. Similarly a team defending a lead of more than 3 points will be less worried about giving away a penalty.

Scarpia wrote:

Afro wrote:Accepted that you never know the impact that a score will have on the momentum of the game, but on pure numbers, it being a try or not a try wouldn't have effected the end result.

It's not just maths though is it? A team needing 7 points to win will play a different type of game (riskier and more open) from a team needing just a penalty. Similarly a team defending a lead of more than 3 points will be less worried about giving away a penalty.

Thank you for making my point. Anything could have happened. A wales try could have changed the way England played as much as wales. Being only a couple of points ahead could have pushed them to attack more, gonfor drop goals.

IF,IF,IF, If it was given ( it might of made a difference) but it was not given  and Wales did not win.


Time to move on i think.

IF my Auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

Anyone got a spare ticket for next years game in the MS. Can't wait.

For god's sake move on.

Speaking of uncles, my Kiwi uncle Glenn has been having a rough ride these past few days. He was so happy coming over here to be the TMO for the Eng v Wales game.

Unless something else has come out wr haven't did it was a try. They've apparently said there was a mistake. That could well be that there was a knock on as none of us realised above the knee counted.

cascough wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To me it was a try.

It may have grazed Evans' finger but it took a super slowed down version of the footage to see that and if you are analysing every try at that level you would be bound to find more faults. Also there is no evidence really that the contact with Evans' finger made the ball go forward but its clear that the contact with the knee did. Based on the television footage presented it should have been awarded.

The second part of the try it is so obvious that the Welsh player grounded the ball before Watson did I think the TMO should be asked to justify how he concluded Watson grounded it first. Terrible decision.

This is a misunderstanding. The question wasn't "any reason I can't award the try". If so, the ref is saying, I think thats a try, give me evidence to the contrary. Therefore it then needs to be clear and obvious that evans knocked it on (which we all agree it wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe DIDN'T ground it (which we all agree it wasn't). If that's the question, then the TMO, unable to give any clear and obvious evidence to the contrary of the ref's decision, gives the try.

But it wasn't the question. It was try yes or no, so the ref is saying, I don't know if that's a try so give me evidence to show it is. Then it needs to be clear and obvious that evans DIDN'T knock it on (which it clearly wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe correctly grounded it (which it clearly wasn't). If just one of those things ISN'T clear and obvious, then the TMO can't give the try as he cannot provide the ref clear and obvious evidence on the two issues at hand. Neither were clear for me, so it's the correct decision.

The video I have seen of the Evans incident was that it was a definite knock on - ball hits knee pivots and rebounds, as it pivots one end of the ball comes into contact with the third finger (big deflection) and then fourth finger (small deflection) before rebounding.

With regard the grounding having looked at slo-mo from two angles, Anscombe clearly touches the ball in a slapping motion first when the ball is in the air, which moves the ball forward and downwards, it is not 100% clear that his hand is still in contact with the ball when it grounds, but the ball does hit the ground and is about to rebound from the ground when Watson makes certain of a grounding.  I haven't seen a frame by frame breakdown of this - the uncertainty here was whether Anscombe's hand was still in contact when the ball went to ground from his slap - it is not 100% certain from the footage that this is the case (it looks to be 50:50 guess).

Given that the TMO only seemed to take a few seconds to make a decision, he decided there was no knock on (to see the knock on you had to slow the video down one frame at a time and look at the ball as it pivoted on Evans knee and then look at the fingers - that would have take probably a good minute or two) ... and he decided that Watson grounded the ball ... this was probably the best judgement that could have been made in such a short time and available footage at the time.

No name Bertie wrote:The video I have seen of the Evans incident was that it was a definite knock on - ball hits knee pivots and rebounds, as it pivots one end of the ball comes into contact with the third finger (big deflection) and then fourth finger (small deflection) before rebounding.

With regard the grounding having looked at slo-mo from two angles, Anscombe clearly touches the ball in a slapping motion first when the ball is in the air, which moves the ball forward and downwards, it is not 100% clear that his hand is still in contact with the ball when it grounds, but the ball does hit the ground and is about to rebound from the ground when Watson makes certain of a grounding.  I haven't seen a frame by frame breakdown of this - the uncertainty here was whether Anscombe's hand was still in contact when the ball went to ground from his slap - it is not 100% certain from the footage that this is the case (it looks to be 50:50 guess).

Given that the TMO only seemed to take a few seconds to make a decision, he decided there was no knock on (to see the knock on you had to slow the video down one frame at a time and look at the ball as it pivoted on Evans knee and then look at the fingers - that would have take probably a good minute or two) ... and he decided that Watson grounded the ball ... this was probably the best judgement that could have been made in such a short time and available footage at the time.

Well it wasnt was it because it was pretty obvious to everyone else who watched it in the same time frame that what he said didnt happen.

If he had gone with inconclusive and or uncertain that the contact constituted a proper grounding then the level of complaint wouldnt be as bad. Its absolutely as borderline as it gets. But to get the reasoning for not awarding a try so wrong is just poor.

Same with the knock on, did he even review that? Know the laws? Tbf its the kind of thing that often wouldnt get called and certainly as an "in game" call it wouldve taken a brave ( and well positioned) referee to blow for it.

But the only justification for having TMOs is to make calls on things the on field referees simply cant. If on review they still get it worng ( or right for tthe wrong reasosn) we end up with the a worse mess we would from hanging the on field umpire out to dry an making them guess from 30m away. At least if the on field officials had just said "unclear who got their first" and then we had seen it was marginaly a welsh player who probably grounded it but had knocked it on there would be anywhere near the level of flapping and anger ( just calls for video refs *eyeroll*)

Anyway it was a no try because it wasnt awarded. Thats what matters in the end. Anotehr day this decision couldve gone Wales' way. England fans have barely got over the Cueto non try in 2007 ( a correct decision without the aid of a video ref) which wouldve given them enough points to lose that game by slightly less.

Close chances and controversial decisions happen. Its what makes sport exciting and stirs up passion. IMO we dont need video refs to add 5 minutes of dead time to every game to have that.

Well World Rugby disagrees with a lot of people on this thread, about 42 of them, or about 62% of them.

I will go with the people who are in charge of making the rules, and say Wales were wronged.

Anywho, you lot can go on disagreeing with the rule makers until the cows come home, I'm done on this one now.

Well World Rugby disagrees with a lot of people on this thread, about 42 of them, or about 62% of them

Incorrect - most people (40%) voted that it was no try due to the knock on that was missed by Garces (who lets be fair did miss a lot of Welsh infringements).

I notice the Welsh camp have been very quite on this aspect of the lead up to the try and have focussed on the grounding.

Perhaps Eddie should stir the Poopie a bit and question Garces interpretation of the knock on with World Rugby?

When will it all end?

Was there anybody offside when the match kicked off?

I think there are a few things for the TMO (and the whole review process) to learn in this, based on how cricket and rugby league review decisions. It's more important to be right than be quick and to establish the facts in sequence, which in this case would be:
1 - Were players on side at the time of the kick (yes, but was not obviously reviewed)
2 - Was the ball knocked on by Evans? Review of multiple angles (as was done)
3 - Did Anscombe ground the ball by 'pressing down' with the ball in contact with the ground as per the Law?
4 - If answer to 3 is yes (and I think the majority although not everyone consider the contact Anscombe made as being sufficient to consider it 'pressing down'), was Watson pressing down on the ball simultaneously? (noting that simultaneous grounding would be no try)

Also worth remembering that the question asked was 'try or no try'?
And there is Law 21:20 (complete with grammatical error - the new Laws document was obviously reviewed by a blind monkey)
20. If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.

I was done with it on Saturday the moment the TMO gave his decision.

NO TRY.

Dowlais wrong again above then.

dummy_half wrote:Also worth remembering that the question asked was 'try or no try'?
And there is Law 21:20 (complete with grammatical error - the new Laws document was obviously reviewed by a blind monkey)
20. If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.

Grammatical error, and terminological error... I've yet to see anyone, at any level of the sport, throw a ball into a scrum...

TrailApe wrote:

Well World Rugby disagrees with a lot of people on this thread, about 42 of them, or about 62% of them

Incorrect - most people (40%) voted that it was no try due to the knock on that was missed by Garces (who lets be fair did miss a lot of Welsh infringements).

World rugby disagree with them also.

World Rugby.  How many people in World Rugby look after the Warren Gatland Clarification Department?

I'd say at a guess it's four or five?

Easily outnumbered by more technically savvy 606ers.  It was a knock on.  Any try would have been null and void.  Alain Rolland has made an error.  
But he had to say something to get Gat's boot out of his doorway, innit.

There hasn't been a wr statement has there?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There hasn't been a wr statement has there?

They're still deciding whether to give Wales the match points or order a replay.

I knew taking No 7&1/2 off ignore was a mistake.

Here you go:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43046791

So no, I was not wrong, again. You are wrong, as always.

rodders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There hasn't been a wr statement has there?

They're still deciding whether to give Wales the match points or order a replay.

Gats has asked the Pope to make a formal statement. He's thinking about it...

I think it's generally impossible for someone to be always wrong. Stopped clock and all that. But this is a statement from howley not wr saying the tmo got it wrong. Now please point me to the bit where it says whig part of the decision was wrong please. When you read it through again and realise wr may well have said te tmo got he knock on decision wrong or should have checked for offside first you can take that sentence back can't you?

You see, this is exactly why I put you on ignore. Back on I think.

Amazing, even when he is given evidence he will still try and refute it. Why do I even bother with this troll.

Cognitive dissonance LD.

They can't admit it is a try as it amounts to admitting by default that the slam is gone and Twickers has been breached.

They should do the decent thing and give back the ranking points.

rodders wrote:Cognitive dissonance LD.

They can't admit it is a try as it amounts to admitting by default that the slam is gone and Twickers has been breached.

They should do the decent thing and give back the ranking points.

To be honest rodders, I do not even care about it anymore, it's old news. I'm over it.

rodders wrote:Cognitive dissonance LD.

They can't admit it is a try as it amounts to admitting by default that the slam is gone and Twickers has been breached.

They should do the decent thing and give back the ranking points.

I guess you're just on the wind up but just to give you the benefit of the doubt you do realise that even if the try had been given they still wouldn't have scored as much as England don't you, so how do you jump to the position that England would have lost?

And of course you're ignoring the now-clear knock-on as well ...