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..

You see ld I simply point out something to you which you accept I'm right about but don't want to acknowledge so ignore it. But it's me that's wrong! Come on just walk back your statement a bit. There's no formal statement an acknowledgment of a mistake through a 3rd person but no explanation of what that mistake is. Now reading the wr rules of knock which count as any hinges knee or above then it becomes clearer on what that mistake may be.

Heaf wrote:

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 ...

I'm pretty sure 6 plus 7 is 13 and that is more points than 12?

Morally Wales won.

rodders wrote:

Heaf wrote:

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 ...

I'm pretty sure 6 plus 7 is 13 and that is more points than 12?

Except they took a 3 point penalty instead - so at best 4 more and more likely given the position and the kicking performance on the day 2 more ...

I'm pretty sure 6 plus 7 is 13 and that is more points than 12?

Your maths are right - but they can either have 3 points for  the penalty (which WAS actually scored) or - lose the penalty three points (they can't have both the awarded penalty and the non-try try) and have a potential 5 points for the non-try - or have a potential 7 points (5 for the non-try plus the 2 points conversion for the non-try) and remember the non-try was not scored right on the touchline, so the non-conversion (which never happened) is not a given.

Clear now?

I stand corrected TrailApe.

Suck it up Wales, you guys lost.

I stand corrected TrailApe.

No problem Sir - it's easy to get sucked into the chase - all good fun and if we consider the uproar here - just think what's going on in the World Rugby Officials e-mail box.

Bet there's a few 'terse' emails going back and forward amongst the interested parties...

It’s mainly non-Welsh posting on this thread!

I'm so pleased there is no game this weekend. Now we can carry on discussing a 2 point difference in the 23rd minute for a whole extra week. Hooray for rest weeks!

The Oracle wrote:It’s mainly non-Welsh posting on this thread!

World Rugby states that the correct term is un-Welsh and not 'non-Welsh'. Non is a negative term and implies un-Welsh people are lesser people than Welsh people. 'Un' is more Emoto-Neutral and Alain Rolland has designated it Legitimate Terminology for Rugby Union parlance now and in the future.

Seeing as the real game cannot be replayed i' suggest all English and Welsh 606ers meet up and replay the game this weekend.

Who's in?

can the un-Welsh officiate and be the TMOs and everything?

Swindon is halfway between our two stadiums, lets find a venue or park and get it played.

I'm so pleased there is no game this weekend. Now we can carry on discussing a 2 point difference in the 23rd minute for a whole extra week. Hooray for rest weeks!

naah - that's just soooo last week.

I want to talk about Gatland's reaction when Wales beat Ireland 19-13 in the 2011 Championship – you know the one were the Welsh knowingly broke the laws (quick lineout even though the ballboy had passed over a different ball)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/9423377.stm

Warren Gatland toasts 'lucky' Wales try over Ireland

"It wasn't the same ball so that's a little bit of luck that's gone our way," said Wales coach Gatland.

"Sometimes you deserve a bit of luck and we haven't had some luck at times. We'll take one of those decisions that go our way."

The cheeky bugger eh? getting away with knowingly breaking the Laws  is 'lucky'??

tut tut Mr Gatland.

LOL

"Yeah, well.... roy-at....
but y'can't say the ballboy didn't know he was wrong in the first place by mykin' a mistake that any kid his ige under the circumstances was likely to myke if they thought they were actin' in accordance with the rules of the gyme as they saw it at the tyme.  
I think the young man showed courage and fortitude and the Oirish - they let themselves down a bit there, didn't they.  Let us see the ugly soyde of them to be picking on children when they didn't have the balls to beat us themselves."

Sir - I draw the line at punishing children, the child in question was not at fault.

The fault lies entirely in the hands (well - out of his hands as he threw the bally thing) of the professional rugby player who should have known the laws regarding quick throw ins.

Law 19.2 (d) of the International Rugby Board's Laws of the Game which states: "For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch."

Now if it had been a girly back taking the quick throw you could put it down to ignorance, however it was the hooker that took the quick throw and as such should have been fully cognoscente of all laws appertaining to lineouts.

Of course you could question the mentality of any of the front five getting into a position to take a quick throw (couldn't have been working hard enough in the tight obviously) so the obvious conclusion is that in fact it was not the hooker taking the quick throw - BUT ANOTHER PERSON - replicated to look like the hooker. The Welsh probably kept him (it? - whose to say it was not a replicant) hidden behind a grassy knoll just waiting to deploy him/it at a crucial moment.

So the Welsh actually had 16 in play at that time!

Fact!

sorry


FACT!!!!

Also, I have him back on ignore now, but I know he has been up to his old tricks again, but can somebody please point out to no 7&1/2 that World Rugby have said that Wales SHOULD have been awarded the try. I will post the link again:-

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

And he should read this bit in particular:-

The governing body added: "In accordance with law 21.1 b, Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball." wrote:

Old tricks of asking you to clarify your mistakes. Hide away again much easier for you to not be challenged. New bit added to that link from wr. Looks like they are ignoring the knock on altogether then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Old tricks of asking you to clarify your mistakes. Hide away again much easier for you to not be challenged.  New bit added to that link from wr. Looks like they are ignoring the knock on altogether then.

Challenged...... or stalked?! Hounded, perhaps!?

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Old tricks of asking you to clarify your mistakes. Hide away again much easier for you to not be challenged.  New bit added to that link from wr. Looks like they are ignoring the knock on altogether then.

Challenged...... or stalked?! Hounded, perhaps!?

Your right Oracle. But do me a favour, please don't quote him. I just do not want to read his nonsense.

He will not leave you alone until you give him the answer he wants, even when he is being given all the evidence available.

Hmm nonsense. You failed to reply until a link was changed.

Oracle, challenged. He posted something initially based on nothing more than a sentence from howley and then reverts to playing the victim when questioned.

On a similar note anyrhing about the hartley spit you were claiming the other day?

Might as well take you off ignore and this is now what you are switching to:-

No 7&1/2 wrote:On a similar note anyrhing about the hartley spit you were claiming the other day?

Not once have I said anything about this. You see, this is why you frustrate me on here, you just make crap up and keep on like a dentist drill.

No doubt you will keep re-posting this crap now until I give you an answer that suits you.

Go on, quote me saying anything about Hartley.

LordDowlais wrote:Might as well take you off ignore and this is now what you are switching to:-

No 7&1/2 wrote:On a similar note anyrhing about the hartley spit you were claiming the other day?

Not once have I said anything about this. You see, this is why you frustrate me on here, you just make crap up and keep on like a dentist drill.

No doubt you will keep re-posting this crap now until I give you an answer that suits you.

Go on, quote me saying anything about Hartley.

He was talking to Oracle. And calm down.

TightHEAD wrote:Morally Wales won.

How do you score a morally?

Rob Howley says World Rugby's Alain Rolland has confirmed the error.

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

Tin Foil Hat time here.

In the absence of anything on the World Rugby website and the 6N website alluding to the incident (ie 'official' sources not BBC Wales or the Western Mail), is there a pub somewhere in Wales called 'World Rugby' ran by some dodgy geezer called Alan Rolland?

Just wondered.

Scottrf wrote:He was talking to Oracle. And calm down.

No he wasn't. But now you've given him an out. Also, why do you think I am not calm ? Nothing I have typed has made my look overly excited.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He was talking to Oracle. And calm down.

No he wasn't. But now you've given him an out. Also, why do you think I am not calm ? Nothing I have typed has made my look overly excited.

He addressed him by name. It couldn't be much easier.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Morally Wales won.

How do you score a morally?

Usually coaches score them when it's too late to have a real crack at a game. The coaches come in left field and score heavily on the morallys if they have an interviewer with the patience to listen to them.

TrailApe wrote:

Rob Howley says World Rugby's Alain Rolland has confirmed the error.

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

Tin Foil Hat time here.

In the absence of anything on the World Rugby website and the 6N website alluding to the incident (ie 'official' sources not BBC Wales or the Western Mail), is there a pub somewhere in Wales called 'World Rugby' ran by some dodgy geezer called Alan Rolland?

Just wondered.

Wha about BBC sport? Why ignore that report?

Scottrf wrote:He addressed him by name. It couldn't be much easier.

He was referring to his original reply.

The Oracle wrote:Wha about BBC sport? Why ignore that report?

Again, it's BBC Wales' interpretation of what he said. I've seen the BBC label Anthony Watson as Anthony Joshua. Maybe this off the record conversation only covered grounding and Howley passed that on as WR saying it should be a try.

Without a statement lets stop saying what World Rugby did or didn't say.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He was talking to Oracle. And calm down.

No he wasn't. But now you've given him an out. Also, why do you think I am not calm ? Nothing I have typed has made my look overly excited.

Dear god    I'll try and explain in a way your simple mind might understand.

Oracle posted this:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Old tricks of asking you to clarify your mistakes. Hide away again much easier for you to not be challenged.  New bit added to that link from wr. Looks like they are ignoring the knock on altogether then.

Challenged...... or stalked?! Hounded, perhaps!?

You then posted this

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Old tricks of asking you to clarify your mistakes. Hide away again much easier for you to not be challenged.  New bit added to that link from wr. Looks like they are ignoring the knock on altogether then.

Challenged...... or stalked?! Hounded, perhaps!?

Your right Oracle. But do me a favour, please don't quote him. I just do not want to read his nonsense.

He will not leave you alone until you give him the answer he wants, even when he is being given all the evidence available.

7.5 then replied to both posts. Firstly to you:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm nonsense. You failed to reply until a link was changed.

Then to Oracle

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oracle, challenged. He posted something initially based on nothing more than a sentence from howley and then reverts to playing the victim when questioned.

On a similar note anyrhing about the hartley spit you were claiming the other day?

Is that clear enough for you buttercup? As for you being calm, I picture you as a permanently red faced blustering oaf, so its quite reasonable for Scott to ask you to calm down

Scottrf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Wha about BBC sport? Why ignore that report?

Again, it's BBC Wales' interpretation of what he said. I've seen the BBC label Anthony Watson as Anthony Joshua. Maybe this off the record conversation only covered grounding and Howley passed that on as WR saying it should be a try.

Without a statement lets stop saying what World Rugby did or didn't say.

An interpretation of what who said? Howley? No, the article has been updated. They’re quoting World Rugby directly now.

The Oracle wrote:They’re quoting World Rugby directly now.

In part. Lets see a statement. Maybe world rugby said: "if not for the knock on...In accordance with law 21.1 b, Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball."

Either way, it's a knock on. And more importantly, the grounding was unclear, so a try shouldn't be given.

You can't come back days later and say the grounding was clear.

Still selective hearsay without a direct statement from WR ...

So we can expect legal action against the BBC then? For fake news and making up comments from World Rugby. Cool. And so they should for that.

Wayne Barnes should ref all England v Wales games given that he is biased towards both sides.

The Oracle wrote:So we can expect legal action against the BBC then? For fake news and making up comments from World Rugby. Cool. And so they should for that.

As I said on the other thread. Rugby has rules which can be interpreted slightly differently by different people.

Why is judgement of one guy who used to ref somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time?

Scottrf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:So we can expect legal action against the BBC then? For fake news and making up comments from World Rugby. Cool. And so they should for that.

As I said on the other thread. Rugby has rules which can be interpreted slightly differently by different people.

Why is judgement of one guy who used to ref somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time?

As I posted on the other thread, the guy who refs didn’t see it properly, hence the referral!

It was Gatland that asked for clarification from World Rugby, yes?

Gatland only asked about the non-try, yes?

Gatland wouldn't have and didn't enquire about the non-knock-on footage from seconds earlier in the same sequence of play?

Do we know if Rolland and his boys looked at that other piece of footage before making their judgement on the non-try?  

You can't isolate everything and say a try was legitimate if the proceeding play wasn't.  

Had the non-try been allowed, we'd now be debating Jone's complaint/clarification request to World Rugby about the non knock-on and why it wasn't spotted in such an important game with so much riding on the result etc etc.

World Rugby told BBC Sport Wales it "has clarified to the Wales team management... that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match".

Click on the link and it's location is

Wales>Welsh Rugby>Six Nations: World Rugby confirms TMO error in England v Wales match

World Rugby told BBC Sport Wales it "has clarified to the Wales team management... that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match".

So nothing from the organisations  - World Rugby or 6Nations, just second hand accounts. Call me paranoid but the conversation could easily have went

BBC Wales: Hello there, is that World Rugby?
World Rugby: (cautiously) err Yes?
BBC Wales: Can I have your view on that certain try that your thieving sod of a Kiwi TMO stole from out Lads?
World Rugby: err - sorry butt, this is a pub - you want the other 'World Rugby'
BBC Wales: aww go on mate - just give us a quote - anything
World Rugby: No way mate, I got hauled over the coals for saying something about Mike Philips try back in 2011, bleddy lawyers and some big owld lads from Dublin - all sorts. I'm sayting nothing
Bugger. (hangs up)

5 minutes later and the right phone number

BBC Wales: Hello there, is that World Rugby?
World Rugby: (cautiously) umm yes?
BBC Wales: Can I have your view on that certain try that your thieving sod of a Kiwi TMO stole from out Lads?
World Rugby: Ok - right there's been a hell of a punch up in the conference room, but we have come to a conclusion. The TMO was wrong but it still doesn't count as it was knocked forward.
BBC Wales: So the TMO was wrong eh?
World Rugby: Yeah, but as I said that's irrelevant because...hello? hello?


So Headlines are made.

Eddie seems to believe World Rugby have made a statement too. All over the media. What a sucker.

See from another source:

"World Rugby responded to Gatland on Monday to confirm that Newman “made a mistake” because Anscombe has “grounded the ball”, but Jones was critical of the decision to look back at the incident and added that the governing body “have a record of doing it” in the past."

On the other report he was talking to Howley, now it's Gats and the extent of the mistake is different. Doesn't fit. And if it doesn't fit...you know the rest.

Paranoid.

Maybe. I just don't think WR should be commenting on this anyway.

Already we have a situation where every try or big decision is referred to the TMO, now they will take twice as long to make decisions.

We already had a 50 minute half earlier this season due to TMOs at Franklin Gardens. It's not good for the spectator.

Hmm working through this now. I never said anything about you claiming hartley spat ld. Directed that at oracle.

Thanks to the people who understood my English! Back to that question then oracle you ok with hartley not spitting or you still waiting for the citing?

Lol.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thanks to the people who understood my English!  Back to that question then oracle you ok with hartley not spitting or you still waiting for the citing?

Still looks like a spit from the video but someone kindly provided a photo that showed a different angle and his spitting was ahead of the player, not on. That’s all I was asking for - another angle, some evidence to disprove the video - which you couldn’t provide 7.5. Yet like the predator that you are (not a compliment by the way) you hounded and hounded until I decided not to read the thread any more.