But yes, one of the french players could have chopped off his hand and managed to get it under the ball which would explain why there was no arm attached to that hand so yes, you’re right.
When the ball rolls off the foot at no point can you see the top surface or the lower surface of the ball. You can’t see if there is something under the ball, you can’t see what part of the Scottish player is applying downward pressure, or indeed if there is actually downward pressure is being applied. In a civil court it would be guilty, in a criminal court not proven/guilty. They needed conclusive proof to overturn the ref’s decision = no try.
England looking sharp ☹️
Those decisions are never given, happens to every team at some point.
Yeah, but I've never seen a ref desperately trying to persuade a TMO to overturn his on field decision which is what Berry was trying to do.
Berry ****ed up, he should have been able to see the grounding and the fact he was telling the TMO that he thought it was a try tells us he knows he ****ed up.
It happens, refs are human. But the point of a TMO is to stop individual human errors getting the major decisions wrong.
I think this ref has a Welsh grandmother….
Most of that half was like a training video of stupid stuff you really shouldn't do.
Good try by Wakes in the end though
Well that was exciting!!
Any reason not to award a try?
The ref said it wasn't.
Hard to win against this ref 🤷🏻♂️
I actually think Scotland gave France too much respect, rather than 15 minutes of kick tennis to protect a 6 point lead Scotland should have had a real go instead.
The game was there to be won.
Still a crappy final decision though, but they should have never been in that position.
Hard to win against this ref 🤷🏻♂️
Could try giving away less penalties,maybe?
The ref said it wasn’t
Yes I know that. I do think that in situations like that the question or assumption should be "Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Any reason not to award a try?". Too often there's never definitive evidence and if his question has been "any reason not to award?" It would have stood.
ffs this is tedious
Extremely tedious...zzzzz
Yes I know that. I do think that in situations like that the question or assumption should be “Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Any reason not to award a try?”. Too often there’s never definitive evidence and if his question has been “any reason not to award?” It would have stood.
I prefer it that we stick with the on field decision unless it's obviously wrong.
Get in.
Yes! But yet again, very close to losing…..
I'll take it, but it wasn't pretty.
I'd have given Reffel POM, with my tigers glasses on.
Grand slam still on.....
Great performance by that young Wales team, inexperience cost them the game but they will learn from that.
That was a sore one to take!
Yep, one of those that was clearly 95% a try and then the refs on field guess decides it.
I’d have given Reffel POM
+1
TR player of the match by a mile
Biggar very good pundit too
I prefer it that we stick with the on field decision unless it’s obviously wrong.
Sure, but in this case we had Berry saying his own on field decision was wrong after seeing the video.
It was a failure of the system but it didn't happen to England so nothing will change.
It was a failure of the system but it didn’t happen to England so nothing will change.
Vinegar?
Remember that Italy game?
And the NZ game a year later after England got so upset about that Italy game they had the rules changed?
They changed the Laws because to allow people to stand in that position would completely change the way rugby would be played & essentially make it the same as League.
Remember that Italy game?
And the NZ game a year later after England got so upset about that Italy game they had the rules changed?
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. And good that you're over something that happened seven years ago.
Fwiw I think it was a try, but don't agree that the system failed. The ref called it as he saw it, and there wasn’t sufficient evidence to overrule him.
The ref called it as he saw it,
Yes, and then after seeing the video he said, 'I now think that was a try.'
If literally everyone including the ref who originally said, 'I don't think it's a try' says, 'I think it's a try' and it's still not awarded as a try then that is a failure of the system.
He said ‘I now think it’s a try but is there any conclusive proof that I was wrong originally?’
Can I just be clear that I’m going to be small minded and bitter about that decision, and claim a moral Scots victory.
If it helps, I may well be serious.
Let's be honest here Scotland almost choked last week and did this week. Very unlucky at the end and all that but they should have put France away but stopped playing again in the second half.
Stop talking sense
Can I just be clear that I’m going to be small minded and bitter about that decision, and claim a moral Scots victory.
You don't have to be that small minded about it. I went back and forth over the footage and the only way that ball wasn't grounded is if the ball itself defied physics. After it rolled off the guys foot there was zero chance at least a part of it wasn't on the ground.
Maybe at that point it wasn't on the line?
No discussion about the Ford conversion being wrong?
I think the tmo had the dilemma which was while it had no chance of not being grounded, it also wasn't actually visible it was. If the ref had called try then tmo, he'd not have overturned it, but as it was ref called no try then tmo.
Fords conversion was just a farce. Wales chanced it, the ref should have sent them back to the line. There's no doubt so it's not really worth a discussion since ultimately England won.
It showed good quality in Ford and George though that such a ludicrous decision ultimately didn't cause them to either be in the refs face about it or go off in a sulk. Good stuff.
The rule on the conversion seems simple on the face of it - don’t charge until the kicker starts his run up. However refs interpretation has been very indifferent over the years,
Who is the best ref? Nigel Owen’s. One happened on his watch & he sent the chasers back, but others have done differently. The Kolbe/Ramos one was a little different, because Ramos’ step was part of his approach to the ball.
Did Ford actually start his approach to the ball? No, he took a pace to the side, away from the ball & stood still. Luckily it didn’t decide a close match.
No discussion about the Ford conversion being wrong?
Fords conversion was just a farce. Wales chanced it, the ref should have sent them back to the line.
I am not so sure, Ford was time wasting, stood still for ages and then moved, Wales charged which is fine imo. The ref was forced to make a decision and he made one, had Ford just kicked it rather than trying to run the clock down a decision would not have had to be made. Was it right, was it wrong, not really sure but like I said don't put the ref in the situation to make a call. Was Ford hoping Wales would be sent back so he could waste more time? Who knows. What I do know is had England lost by a point it would have been really really funny!!
What I do know is had England lost by a point it would have
been really really funny!!meant two games where the result was decided by the ref
It might be funny for the anti-fans but nobody really wants that.
Ref was pretty clear in his explanation
https://twitter.com/i/status/1756366329513222234
It might be funny for the anti-fans
No, I think it would have been really funny for the Wales fans and no doubt many other rugby fans.
I am not so sure, Ford was time wasting, stood still for ages and then moved
The law says when he starts his approach. He didn't. If the ref doesn't understand that, then he's in the wrong place.
There is a clock; there's no point having it if you can't use every second if you want.
It was so blatantly wrong even Dan Biggar had to agree it was cobblers.
The law says when he starts his approach. He didn’t. If the ref doesn’t understand that, then he’s in the wrong place.
Well the professional ref disagrees. He stood still and then started moving, why if he wasn't going to kick? Dumb play fromFord regardless of the ref being right or wrong. It's a matter of opinion and he forced the ref to give his.
It was so blatantly wrong even Dan Biggar had to agree it was cobblers.
That well know agreer with refs 😄😄😄
Yet again all the post game discussion is about refereeing decisions and the TMO.
I don't hear much talk about any rugby being played.
Anyone else think this a problem?
Anyone else think this a problem?
Yes. It was said during the WC that the Refs and TMO were getting far too much camera time, and if you were astute this weekend so were the Ref's sponsored watches. I think Warburton may have commented about how many minutes were wasted due to Ref time in the England / Wales game and it being far too many.
The Ref's should be pretty invisible unless needed and then quick to assert themselves and move on. Owens and later Barnes were quote good at that. Remember Steve Walsh - good god he was a camera whore.
We should be talking the Scots outperforming a wary France, Refell, Ford's kicking, , Steward having his best game for ages, the new more effective English defensive system, and what I believe was a sensible political decision not to put Feyi-Waboso on the pitch - albeit politics and social media outcry should not determine play IMHO.
I don’t hear much talk about any rugby being played.
Because for large parts both games were quite poor?
The conversion charge was one of the more interesting bits of the match.
