Scotland vs France | Auld Alliance Trophy

Do you think Scotland went into their shell because of the way the game unfolded last week?
Terrified that if they opened up on a talented French team they would cut us apart like Wales did. It certainly seemed that way and they were definitely sticking to team orders today.
The French boys were out on their feet halfway through the second half and it didn’t really improve when they brought on the subs. Townsend should have pulled the pin then and really went after the French because I think they would have collapsed under a fast tempo.
It was an incredibly strange decision to leave our team relatively unchanged for the whole match and not emptying the bench earlier to make some sort of impact.

Away from the on field drama, many fans have been complaining about the lack of available tickets to the match vs how many French supporters had tickets. Bit of a strange one. From watching it on TV France made all the noise throughout the match. Very strange home atmosphere.

Positives the morning after?

Scotland played well and more importantly stopped France. I thought Dancer was superb - a real masterclass
Forwards got us parity - no turnovers tho but no breakdown penalties either - good discipline. Patterson looked good and nice attacking patterns from the backs. french defense was very good but we threw everything at them

It was not getting points at the end of the first half that cost us. You don't get many chances against France. You have to take them

On a very positive note...

we should have; Blarehorn, ADHD Kid, Seaman, Rowe, Speedy McReedy and Banjo Patterson all available for the Engurland match.
We can have hours and hours of meaningless drivel arguing who should be the starting back three. Just as long as no-one mentions a 6/2 split.

Positives:

Line out was very very good.

Finn captained very well.

Young HP was a saucy option at Full back.

Negatives:

*Deep intake of breath*

Engurland

Oh dear.

Mcsweens wrote:Positives:

Line out was very very good.

Finn captained very well.

Young HP was a saucy option at Full back.

Paterson was good. Finn Russell was good for the most part especially how he won the ball back in the dying minutes. However, that game was there for the taking. Scotland at key moments lacked urgency and ambition and leadership including Russel are accountable for that.

The thing i'm struggling with the wider coverage is that there seems to be the view that their isn't conclusive proof, from all the stills i've seen and watching it live, there absolutely is conclusive proof. Unless we have all gone collectively mad, it's impossible for the ball to be on anything other than the ground.

I think it was highly likely it was a try but disagree there was proof.

Collapse2005 wrote:I think it was highly likely it was a try but disagree there was proof.

Needless to say I disagree, I'm not going to regurgitate all the stills on twitter, but they show a ball on the ground. It's not possible for it to be anywhere else.

It all came down to wording by Berry. Seeing as he said in his opinion it was held up so no try, the TMO has to have conclusive proof to overturn decision.
Seeing as there wasn't a clear shot of ball touching ground the TMO couldn't overturn onfield decision. if Berry had said onfield try, TMO would definitely given it.

Also, the pictures showed ball rolling from on boot to what everyone is assuming is the ground. However, did said rolling of ball off boot occur before or after Berry blew whistle? That also has a bearing as if he saw it held up by dint of being on a boot etc then blew then regardless of whether it actually hit ground is a moot point.

Anyway.

EST wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think it was highly likely it was a try but disagree there was proof.

Needless to say I disagree, I'm not going to regurgitate all the stills on twitter, but they show a ball on the ground.  It's not possible for it to be anywhere else.

You are right to feel hard done by but I dont think the TMO was wrong to say there was no proof. Scotland should never have left that game to the dying minutes anyway. It is a shame because they were the better side IMO and I was rooting for them.

mountain man wrote:It all came down to wording by Berry. Seeing as he said in his opinion it was held up so no try, the TMO has to have conclusive proof to overturn decision.
Seeing as there wasn't a clear shot of ball touching ground the TMO couldn't overturn onfield decision. if Berry had said onfield try, TMO would definitely given it.

Also, the pictures showed ball rolling from on boot to what everyone is assuming is the ground. However, did said rolling of ball off boot occur before or after Berry blew whistle? That also has a bearing as if he saw it held up by dint of being on a boot etc then blew then regardless of whether it actually hit ground is a moot point.

Anyway.

Seriously, what else could it be? Everybody is assuming it's the ground, because that's where the ground is. Tuilagi's left arm is away from ball, the ball is next to Skinners body on the ground.

But crucially no conclusive evidence. If there was then try would have been awarded .


However was that before or after whistle blown and Berry says held up?

The ball was on the ground BUT and its a big BUT Berry made a hasty ill judged call
which put the TMO is an impossible position.

One of many poor decision by Berry in the match - the worst refed match in the 6N so far.

bsando wrote:Away from the on field drama, many fans have been complaining about the lack of available tickets to the match vs how many French supporters had tickets. Bit of a strange one. From watching it on TV France made all the noise throughout the match. Very strange home atmosphere.

Price of the tickets. £150 a pop for the rafters...

mountain man wrote:It all came down to wording by Berry. Seeing as he said in his opinion it was held up so no try, the TMO has to have conclusive proof to overturn decision.
Seeing as there wasn't a clear shot of ball touching ground the TMO couldn't overturn onfield decision. if Berry had said onfield try, TMO would definitely given it.

Also, the pictures showed ball rolling from on boot to what everyone is assuming is the ground. However, did said rolling of ball off boot occur before or after Berry blew whistle? That also has a bearing as if he saw it held up by dint of being on a boot etc then blew then regardless of whether it actually hit ground is a moot point.

Anyway.

Being pedantic here but when was.it ever a requirement that a TMO has to physically see the ball touch the ground? Many a TMO decision has been given where that's not the case, whether because there is a pile of bodies, leg in the way etc. but it is obvious the ball has touched the ground.

I get in this case it needed a degree of judgement, but I disagree that the TMO needs to actually see the ball touch the turf.

Because onfield decision was held up, no try. So to reverse that decision there has to be conclusive proof of ball on ground and although it looks like it must have been there wasn't a clear picture of ball in touch with grass.

If I were a Scotland supporter I'd be fuming btw.

Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

RDW wrote:

mountain man wrote:It all came down to wording by Berry. Seeing as he said in his opinion it was held up so no try, the TMO has to have conclusive proof to overturn decision.
Seeing as there wasn't a clear shot of ball touching ground the TMO couldn't overturn onfield decision. if Berry had said onfield try, TMO would definitely given it.

Also, the pictures showed ball rolling from on boot to what everyone is assuming is the ground. However, did said rolling of ball off boot occur before or after Berry blew whistle? That also has a bearing as if he saw it held up by dint of being on a boot etc then blew then regardless of whether it actually hit ground is a moot point.

Anyway.

Being pedantic here but when was.it ever a requirement that a TMO has to physically see the ball touch the ground? Many a TMO decision has been given where that's not the case, whether because there is a pile of bodies, leg in the way etc. but it is obvious the ball has touched the ground.

I get in this case it needed a degree of judgement, but I disagree that the TMO needs to actually see the ball touch the turf.

How can you be sure there isn't a hand or a boot under the ball if you cant see it touch the ground?

The ref was right in front of it, perhaps he should have made a better effort to see if it was grounded or not because he more than anyone will have the best views and angles to make a call.

EWT Spoons wrote:Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

I thought that was the case too myself.

Tramptastic wrote:

bsando wrote:Away from the on field drama, many fans have been complaining about the lack of available tickets to the match vs how many French supporters had tickets. Bit of a strange one. From watching it on TV France made all the noise throughout the match. Very strange home atmosphere.

Price of the tickets. £150 a pop for the rafters...

Thats just outrageous. I love the six nations and used to go every year but it has become so corporate.

Normal fans can affort it anymore nor could they probably get a ticket if they could anyway.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:

bsando wrote:Away from the on field drama, many fans have been complaining about the lack of available tickets to the match vs how many French supporters had tickets. Bit of a strange one. From watching it on TV France made all the noise throughout the match. Very strange home atmosphere.

Price of the tickets. £150 a pop for the rafters...

Thats just outrageous. I love the six nations and used to go every year but it has become so corporate.

Normal fans can affort it anymore nor could they probably get a ticket if they could anyway.

That’s mad. I remember buying two tickets for sco vs Eng, east stand 2012 6N for £80 a pop off Bru.

I completely sympathise with those who think Scotland should have closed out the game with earlier opportunities. But, if this isn't a shot of a ball touching the ground, I don't know what is. And it's much more obviously grounded when watched in slow motion, as the TMO did multiple times from this angle. I also think refs and TMOs do a thankless task that is difficult, and I don't think the TMO should be demonised, we're all human and make mistakes. But this was a mistake, and it did directly decided the outcome of the game - so I do feel pretty sorry for the Scotland team that they lost in this way.

That is pointing to a Scotland players leg....

mountain man wrote:That is pointing to a Scotland players leg....

What, with a pointy end and the beginning of the word 'GILBERT' written on it?? That must be a very interesting leg that player has.

EWT Spoons wrote:Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

If there is any doubt, here is the ruling from World Rugby on what is offside at a tackle -

World Rugby wrote:Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/14/?highlight=tackle

Given no players were on their feet & over the ball then Duhan wasn't offside.

Appreciate this isn't the biggest talking point of the day, but Ugo Moyne (on the bbc rugby daily pod) is trying to suggest Duhan should have received a yellow card for it and as such we should be totally cool with the try not being awarded

Big wrote:

mountain man wrote:That is pointing to a Scotland players leg....

What, with a pointy end and the beginning of the word 'GILBERT' written on it??  That must be a very interesting leg that player has.

Easy tiger, I'm joking as label on a leg. Anyway, was that view TMO had during match?

mountain man wrote:

Big wrote:

mountain man wrote:That is pointing to a Scotland players leg....

What, with a pointy end and the beginning of the word 'GILBERT' written on it??  That must be a very interesting leg that player has.

Easy tiger, I'm joking as label on a leg. Anyway, was that view TMO had during match?

It was meant as a jokey reply - the problem with text is you lose the laughter, sorry! Yes, that was the view the TMO had. Over a few frames you see the pointey end come down and the ball squashed down. Not sure if he just didn't see it, or saw it and still wasn't convinced.

EWT Spoons wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

If there is any doubt, here is the ruling from World Rugby on what is offside at a tackle -

World Rugby wrote:Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/14/?highlight=tackle

Given no players were on their feet & over the ball then Duhan wasn't offside.

Appreciate this isn't the biggest talking point of the day, but Ugo Moyne (on the bbc rugby daily pod) is trying to suggest Duhan should have received a yellow card for it and as such we should be totally cool with the try not being awarded

First of all I think Scotland scored at the end.

However I'm not sure Duhan wasn't offside as when the French player arrived at the tackle to pick the ball up I believe that created the offside lines?

The French player arrives and picks up the ball, it's not a ruck it's just a lad with the ball in his hands at that point.  As per the rule I posted, he wasn't over the ball and the ball wasn't on the ground, therefore still no offside line.

If you look at the link I posted, there's a wee graphic which shows where offside lines would occur had a player been over the ball, but as there was no one over it and the French player picked it up and moved it from the tackle area it's open play

Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it? Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

It was also high even if you don't think it was offside.

I didn't think it was high as there was no contact with the neck - just being over the shoulder is not deemed high now ...

The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Heaf wrote:I didn't think it was high as there was no contact with the neck - just being over the shoulder is not deemed high now ...

There was neck contact. You see those given all the time. Sometimes focuses the mind too much when it's that close to the line tho!

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Forgive me on this one 7&1/2

But I'll go with Nigel's opinion over yours on this.

It was fairly clear to the ref and TMO in the match and yet was not given, suggesting Nigel was correct.

Re Scotland's 'try' at the end - from what I've seen, the ball was originally placed on a tackler's leg, so was well off the ground. Second movement was the ball moving back and downwards. I very strongly suspect it was grounded briefly before being lifted by another defender, but the video pictures do not give conclusive proof of this.

So summary:
In fact, the wrong decision, in that the ball was grounded and a try should have been awarded.
By the processes in place: correct decision, no conclusive evidence to change the ref's original call.

BigGee wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Forgive me on this one 7&1/2

But I'll go with Nigel's opinion over yours on this.

It was fairly clear to the ref and TMO in the match and yet was not given, suggesting Nigel was correct.

No problem. He's wrong on this though and you probably know deep down the next time you see a tackle slip up let alone start off that high its going to be a high tackle.

BTW Owens said it was offside so....

EWT Spoons wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

If there is any doubt, here is the ruling from World Rugby on what is offside at a tackle -

World Rugby wrote:Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/14/?highlight=tackle

Given no players were on their feet & over the ball then Duhan wasn't offside.

Appreciate this isn't the biggest talking point of the day, but Ugo Moyne (on the bbc rugby daily pod) is trying to suggest Duhan should have received a yellow card for it and as such we should be totally cool with the try not being awarded

Monye didnt really put it like that. He was very vocal in his opinion that it should have been a try.

Heaf wrote:Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it?  Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

No, it's actually fairly clear, I'm just making a terrible job of explaining it. I would recommend looking at the link I sent, if I knew how to post a picture here, then I would, to show the graphic from World Rugby's site as it would probably clear all this up.

He has to form a ruck to create an offside line, all he's done in this instance is pick up a loose ball. He if left the ball and formed a ruck, for a separate player to come in, and duhan was ahead of the player on the ground (which he was), then yes absolutely he would have been offside. However there was no ruck, therefore no offside line, therefore Duhan was onside.

To be clear I'm not sure Duhan was that aware of what was happening and it was potentially more fluke than anything that he was able to be involved in play from where he was, but he was fine to do what he did.

Collapse2005 wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Just on a previous point, DVDM wasn’t offside.  No ruck was formed, therefore no offside line.

If there is any doubt, here is the ruling from World Rugby on what is offside at a tackle -

World Rugby wrote:Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/14/?highlight=tackle

Given no players were on their feet & over the ball then Duhan wasn't offside.

Appreciate this isn't the biggest talking point of the day, but Ugo Moyne (on the bbc rugby daily pod) is trying to suggest Duhan should have received a yellow card for it and as such we should be totally cool with the try not being awarded

Monye didnt really put it like that. He was very vocal in his opinion that it should have been a try.

You're right he did say it should have been a try, but he then went on to say that whilst we are aggrieved with that decision, we got away with decisions going for us, such as Duhan being offside and what he suggested should be a yellow card and pen try. Which is incorrect.

What would be correct to mention however is that Tuilagi punched a player and it wasn't picked up, or the knock on for the French try. I'm only highlighting these because he incorrectly pointed to a decision that rightly went in our favour

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it?  Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

No, it's actually fairly clear, I'm just making a terrible job of explaining it.  I would recommend looking at the link I sent, if I knew how to post a picture here, then I would, to show the graphic from World Rugby's site as it would probably clear all this up.

He has to form a ruck to create an offside line, all he's done in this instance is pick up a loose ball.  He if left the ball and formed a ruck, for a separate player to come in, and duhan was ahead of the player on the ground (which he was), then yes absolutely he would have been offside.  However there was no ruck, therefore no offside line, therefore Duhan was onside.

To be clear I'm not sure Duhan was that aware of what was happening and it was potentially more fluke than anything that he was able to be involved in play from where he was, but he was fine to do what he did.

Not trying to be awkward just really trying to understand the laws which are as usual ambiguous. You don't need a ruck now for offside lines to be created, just a tackle, the ball on the ground and a player from either side over it. I guess the grey area is what does 'over it' mean. For me though I suspect if a Scotland player had come from directly behind the French player that picked the ball up and grabbed him nobody would have been surprised if he'd been pinged. I'm pretty sure there's also something about approaching the tackle area (which I believe is normally interpreted as within 1m of the tackle) from your own side?

7.5 says Nige said it was offside - I didn't hear that bit though tbh.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Nige was very clear that the refs had been given a directive that unless the neck was targeted it wasn't a high tackle any more.

Regarding tackle, I think any other ref gives that as a seat belt tackle. Over shoulder, seat belt. I didn't think it actually had to be around neck and I've definitely seen "seat belt" tackles which were not by neck penalised.
As for Owens, hmm good ref but he's not the be all and end all. Far too many take whatever he says as gospel.

I agree based on what we've seen up until recently that tackle would have been pinged for sure - it's just that Nige was saying there had been a new directive issued, and to be fair now I think about it I have seen some tackles recently that I thought should have been pinged that weren't, before I'd heard about this apparent new directive.

Heaf wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

Heaf wrote:Hmm not sure - how does he pick it up if he's not over it?  Yet another rugby laws grey area maybe?

No, it's actually fairly clear, I'm just making a terrible job of explaining it.  I would recommend looking at the link I sent, if I knew how to post a picture here, then I would, to show the graphic from World Rugby's site as it would probably clear all this up.

He has to form a ruck to create an offside line, all he's done in this instance is pick up a loose ball.  He if left the ball and formed a ruck, for a separate player to come in, and duhan was ahead of the player on the ground (which he was), then yes absolutely he would have been offside.  However there was no ruck, therefore no offside line, therefore Duhan was onside.

To be clear I'm not sure Duhan was that aware of what was happening and it was potentially more fluke than anything that he was able to be involved in play from where he was, but he was fine to do what he did.

Not trying to be awkward just really trying to understand the laws which are as usual ambiguous.  You don't need a ruck now for offside lines to be created, just a tackle, the ball on the ground and a player from either side over it.  I guess the grey area is what does 'over it' mean.  For me though I suspect if a Scotland player had come from directly behind the French player that picked the ball up and grabbed him nobody would have been surprised if he'd been pinged.  I'm pretty sure there's also something about approaching the tackle area (which I believe is normally interpreted as within 1m of the tackle) from your own side?

7.5 says Nige said it was offside - I didn't hear that bit though tbh.

No worries pal, I think I've worked out how to post a picture

This is what World rugby class as over the ball, the French player was never 'over' the ball, purely beside it picking it up

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:The sage that is Nigel Owens said not high, as not targeting the neck.

Another new directive to refs.

Agree it would have been deemed high not that long ago.

Seat belt tackles are not a foul then as none target the neck? Not how the law is written and I'm fairly certain you will see a lot of examples of that being a foul the rest of the season.

Also it wasn't even a seat belt tackle as it started above the shoulder line.

Nige was very clear that the refs had been given a directive that unless the neck was targeted it wasn't a high tackle any more.

Guess we won't see any pens for seatbelts then...