Natwest Six Nations 2018

I think he and Patchell will swap positions some time during the game. Patchell is an excellent attacking full back even though he prefers 10 so they say.
 
robbed buy the tmo, blind t***.

To say that Watson got to the ball first was an error. Downward pressure??

England are used to winning and can scrap out a close one but if they want to win the next World Cup they've got a bloody long way to go.
 
robbed buy the tmo, blind t***.
Even if the decision went with us it would have made no difference to the result.
However, I see what you mean:

specy by mex on Talk Photography

specy.1 by mex on Talk Photography

But hey ho, that's the way it goes. Had the ref said to the TMO " try yes or no" then we would have been awarded it and the outcome might have been different. No grumbles here.
 
Last edited:
Easy for me to say this, I'm Welsh too but that is very clear, it doesn't come any clearer. Hope the TMO stays away from the Cardiff branch of Specsavers. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
But hey ho, that's the way it goes. Had the ref said to the TMO " try yes or no" then we would have been awarded it and the outcome might have been different.

He did say "try yes or no". "Any reason not to award" and it would have been a try. Maybe the TMO was busy watching a ball boy get bundled like the rest of us on the ITV coverage.......

But yeah, in slow mo that looked awfully like a try.

Underhill's tackle to deny that later try was awesome though. I have no idea why the Beeb called it "desperate".
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
Even if the decision went with us it would have made no difference to the result.
However, I see what you mean:

It would - or at least could - have made a difference, surely? Wales lost by 6, and a converted try is worth 7.

This is ironic though. Last week I commented that there's this rules crisis in the NFL, to the extent that even experienced commentators are saying they don't know what counts as a catch these days. I wonder whether there's a similar issue in rugby now?

Here's what I see from the video. The ball is on the ground. Anscombe's hand is in contact with the ball. So is that a try? I don't know. There was never a stage where Anscombe had control of the ball. I don't think he applied downward pressure, though I understand that's not required now. I don't think he grounded it, which I understand is the current requirement, and anyway I don't see how that's any different from applying downward pressure. All I think happened was that there was a brief instant where the ball was in contact with the ground and Anscombe's hand was in contact with the ball. Is that a try? I don't know. Does anybody know?
 
I hope the TMO isn't reading the Times sport section this morning. He's going to feel pretty stupid when he sees the photo of Anscombes fingers clearly on the ball with Watson hands nowhere near it.

Eddie Jones was bristly in his interviews giving the media boys a hard time. It makes him look like a dick, good coach or not, and lets face it, if you can't make a decent side out of all the talent that England have got then you're not much of a coach anyway.
 
It would - or at least could - have made a difference, surely? Wales lost by 6, and a converted try is worth 7.

This is ironic though. Last week I commented that there's this rules crisis in the NFL, to the extent that even experienced commentators are saying they don't know what counts as a catch these days. I wonder whether there's a similar issue in rugby now?

Here's what I see from the video. The ball is on the ground. Anscombe's hand is in contact with the ball. So is that a try? I don't know. There was never a stage where Anscombe had control of the ball. I don't think he applied downward pressure, though I understand that's not required now. I don't think he grounded it, which I understand is the current requirement, and anyway I don't see how that's any different from applying downward pressure. All I think happened was that there was a brief instant where the ball was in contact with the ground and Anscombe's hand was in contact with the ball. Is that a try? I don't know. Does anybody know?

The 2 for the conversion is not a given though....
 
The 2 for the conversion is not a given though....

Also.........didn't they essentially swap a try for a penalty? So it's not strictly a loss of 5/7 points. It's a loss of 5/7 minus 3.

But if it had been closer with 2 mins to go they wouldn't have kicked that penalty.

Isn't Tuesday morning quarterbacking fun?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
you wasn't the tmo was you.:LOL:

He touched the ball, didn't ground it though, wasn't in control, whereas the england player had two hands grounding it millisecs later?
Difficult one.
How come it wasn't a knock on off his knee?
 
He touched the ball, didn't ground it though, wasn't in control, whereas the england player had two hands grounding it millisecs later?
Difficult one.
How come it wasn't a knock on off his knee?

Off his knee is fine.
 
He touched the ball, didn't ground it though, wasn't in control, whereas the england player had two hands grounding it millisecs later?
Difficult one.
How come it wasn't a knock on off his knee?

Definition of grounding is: (the ball must be touching the player when coming into contact with the ground) in the opposition's in-goal area (on or behind the goal line).
 
I though the ball had to be "under control"? While there was definitely contact with the ball behind the line, there was no control (IMO).
 
Definition of grounding is: (the ball must be touching the player when coming into contact with the ground) in the opposition's in-goal area (on or behind the goal line).

That isn’t the definition in the laws of rugby union.

Law 21

GROUNDING THE BALL
1. The ball can be grounded in in-goal:
a. By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
b. By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21


So, was the Welsh player holding it or pressing down on the ball with a hand? His fingers were touching the ball, but were they actually pressing down as required in the law?
 
I though the ball had to be "under control"? While there was definitely contact with the ball behind the line, there was no control (IMO).

It's about 1m30 in on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43018868

In the second slow mo version it *looks* like Anscombe hits it whilst it is in the air and knocks it into Watson's hands and Watson has it as it hits the ground.

But........TMO's decision is final. Pick up the ball and play on.
 
But........TMO's decision is final. Pick up the ball and play on.


Yup! Couldn't agree more.

However, I think he got it right - that video shows the ball moving away from any possible control (IMO).
 
I
Yup! Couldn't agree more.

However, I think he got it right - that video shows the ball moving away from any possible control (IMO).

I would agree,the Welsh touch was pushing the ball forward.
 
Yup! Couldn't agree more.

However, I think he got it right - that video shows the ball moving away from any possible control (IMO).

It doesn't have to be under control. He only has to touch it while it's on the ground. You see it many times when a grubber kick goes into the goal area.

Anyway plenty of positives for Wales from the game. Englands "finishers" didn't make the impact on the scoreboard that they normally do and it's been a while since a side stopped England scoring in the second half. However if the World Cup was next week neither of them would have a hope in hell of winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
Reading the rule that Dave linked to above (http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=21&language=EN), it seems that there does still need to be downward pressure (the copyright notice at the bottom says 2018 so I can only assume it's still current!) The attacking player was touching the ball, as can be seen but he wasn't holding it and didn't press down on it with any part of his upper body.

And as Jonathan said a few posts up, the TMO's decision was final - no try!
 
Result for Scotland, although a little lucky I reckon.

I tend to agree. It was good to see Scotland come back after last week's game and I think they deserved the win, but just. They were much better in the second half although their progress on the score sheet was helped by the, not unusual, tiredness and lack of discipline of the French - though it could be argued Scottish pressure contributed to that.

I thought France looked very good in the first half for a side that had a few less experienced player. However, I feel I have thought the same in other years too.

Dave
 
Ok so we've got to the bottom of the try/no try. Can anyone explain why it wasn't a knock forward off his knee/leg?
 
Ok so we've got to the bottom of the try/no try. Can anyone explain why it wasn't a knock forward off his knee/leg?

Because the knee isn't part of the arm ;)

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON. A knock-on occurs 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.

He didn't have possession of the ball so he didn't lose possession and hitting it with part of your leg is a kick.
 
Back
Top