was it a try?

Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2007' started by feicarsinn, Oct 21, 2007.

?

did mark cueto succesfully score or did the TMO get it roysh?

  1. Yes England were robbed by george

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No......typical moany limeys

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I cant make a decision because im a pussy

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. it doesnt matter south africa were the better team and would have won anyway

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    well its a poll not really that compilcated
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. nam97

    nam97 Guest

    Nah, his foot slid out as the ball dotted down. You can tell from the rear angle shot they kept showing. You could see when the ball hit the ground and his foot had definitely touched the paint. No doubt it wasn't a try.
     
  4. Chris Blore

    Chris Blore Guest

    Having seen the evidence (take a look at a freeze frame in the RWC Final thread, I think), it definitely wasn't a try.

    South Africa were the better side, didn't commit as many errors as we did and were able to beat us at our own game. It wasn't a pretty final (both teams have to take the blame for that) but overall, the best team in the tournament won. Congratulations Springboks.
     
  5. bman2112

    bman2112 Guest

    No try. But it could have gone either way. The ref was poor last night.
     
  6. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    The call had nothing to do with the ref so no point in blaming him, personally I think Rolland had a decent game although I gather ITV were whingeing about the crossing penalty.
     
  7. ikvat

    ikvat Guest

    I've the bad feeling to be on a French board.
     
  8. Klarkash-ton

    Klarkash-ton Guest

    I agree the ref had a good game.

    He referred the try which was the right thing to do in this day and age. It was an inches thing, and not his decision. Cueto touched the line, and touched is in touch.

    There was a crossing penalty against SA, but I thought the English one didn't 'cross', but looked was definitely obstruction. I watched the game (live, to my pleasant surprise) in a bar in Sweden, but no commentary, which may have been a blessing.
     
  9. yeah, england could have had a penalty for crossing, but they could have had a man in the sin-bin for the push on monty.

    however i think the ref had a good game (well, better than whoever refereed Scotland dour encounter with Italy - i just didnt trust him to do his biggest job: to protect the players)
     
  10. jawmalawm24

    jawmalawm24 Guest

  11. HarryPeters

    HarryPeters Guest

    Wasnt there an advantage by the ref?
     
  12. DC

    DC Guest

    im still wondering how 4 people could have thought that was a try

    well i guess you can add in the two from the ITV broadcast as well

    his toe clearly hit the line and kept dragging across
     
  13. candybum

    candybum Guest

    yea once his foot touch the line it was a no try, it was clear!! geeeeeez theres conclusive evidence of it!! get over it! its like saying that ali williams disallowed try was a try!lol
     
  14. And we get **** for blaming the ref :blink:
     
  15. HarryPeters

    HarryPeters Guest

    I say try. I think his toe was just in the air.
     
  16. melon

    melon Guest

    It wasn't a try. End of story.

    Can't everyone just congratulate South Africa for winning webby, and England for getting to the final against all odds.
     
  17. esoj

    esoj Guest

    the england supporters established after the nz v france game that no questioning etc of the refs is allowed or to blame for a loss. this poll therefore is stupid and as teh mite would say you are a ******* bleater
     
  18. ak47

    ak47 Guest

    To me = TRY – T.R.Y

    I am not sure if Rugby Leagues (benefit of the doubt rule), B.O.D applies, but the evidence is inconclusive to 100% be confident he was out.

    For anyone to say he was 100% out – well you are seeing things I cant see, or your interpretation differs, you see GREEN grass flick up but not WHITE….to me his foot hits the air before it gets WHITE line

    Although this youtube footage is 10% the quality I had at home, but I cant refer back to that now.

    Part of me wants a try, because of the boring trend the game is turning too…it could be clouding my judgement, the games woes need to be delt with.

    I don’t like the way Union is going at the moment.

    5-6 years ago, Rugby Union was at its peak

    Since then England have mastered the tactical kicking, and many are copying, as it’s a proven formulae for victory…….and now the more professional it becomes the harder it is to exploit the running game, as such the more increase in boring tactics, and kicking will prevail

    This needs a fix………its slower than it ever was…dare I say it……more like NFL or forcings backs than a free flowing game of anything.

    If I want stoppages I’ll watch NFL

    If I want to turn my head left n right, I’ll watch Tennis

    If I want to watching a kicking dual, I’ll watch AFL

    If I wanna watch tries, I’ll watch Rugby League.

    Apart from a good SCRUM, or RUCK…..Union cant say they do anything better but slow the game down, since 2000.

    Congrats BOK………..a country that needs unity, good on them
    Good on the Argies …….the surprise packet, to look forward to in the coming years.
     
  19. Brodizzle

    Brodizzle Guest

    ak47, I think you're a little biased over the downturn in Unions quality, as it suspicially seems to be in line with some of the Wallabies change in fortunes....

    As for the ball being out the foot touched the line marginally from what I saw, the English will whinge over and over about it but to be honest the call was brilliant by the TMO. As I said before it was just a hint of a touch on the white line and it took me viewing after viewing to show to myself it was indeed out, hence why he took so long to make his decision. As for the try being good for rugby as a whole, it would probably have validated the English play which doesn't involve tries, as if they got the try they would have reverted back to thier original game plan of looking for kicks and not towards the somewhat desperate running rugby they eventually played...the try itself was created by a single moment of brilliance by Tait, and hopefully the English bring in more players like him into the backline which will hopefully free up the style of Englands play and take out one of the major players of this unadventurous style of play....
     
  20. sanzar

    sanzar Guest

    No try. It was about as close as you can get, but all he has to do is touch one blade of painted grass with his foot and it's no try, and the replay certinaly makes it look as though he's touched the line for mine.

    In any case though, much like Frances forward pass against NZ, it's all academic now and the Boks are deserved champions.
     
  21. ak47

    ak47 Guest



    Nah mate



    The Wallabies have improved over the previous year, minus the RWC, so if anything I am not biased towards the Wallabies results.



    It’s a serious issue, and is evidented by the calls for rule reviews etc.



    Its been a talking point for years in all circles of rugby…….2 RWC cups won in a row on the back of kicking duals is enough to evident the game has evolved this way and will keep going this way unless something is ratified.



    Our forward pack could never overcome anything for me to be excited about in the next 3 years anyways………..I awake at 4am to watch qtrs, semis and 3rd place and final, regardless if my team plays, I want to be entertained, and I got it from Fiji, South Africa and Argentina



    I just hope for the sake of the sport it improves……I don’t enjoy watching our team lose, but at the same time I don’t enjoy seeing them win in a kicking dual.



    2000 bledisloe is how a game should be played, the Bok v Fiji match was best match all CUP



    They introduce bonus points in comps to reward try scoring feats………this is admitting, if you score more tries, you should be REWARDED…..scrap bonus points, scrap 3 point penalties and FG’s, and you have a formula to play running rugby……



    As it stands now the team that can pin another team back with kicks, wins – as we cant all be disciplined for the whole 80mins not to concede a penalty.



    It not attacking rugby, its playing conservidely pouncing on an indiscretion, which is prone to a REFEREES interpretation….which we all know differs from where the REF was trained. = FLAW



    Massive outcries on referee’s performances during this RWC, indicate a decision made on a discretion has cost them the game…………not good attack or bad defense, but a decision made because the teams involved played the game into the hands of the referees whistle……



    Stop blaming the refs – Teams play the game into the Refs hands by pinning teams back awaiting a discretion………if u play that way and it backfires and u lose cause the ref wasn’t consistent – too bad.



    I want a team to play to win, not play to see the other team lose it.



    Attacking Rugby is a dying art, unless your 30 points up with nothing to lose.



    But as I said Australia aren’t good enough to win either forms of the game, so its water off my ducks back, but if we aren’t playing, I wanna be entertained.



    Brodizzle – If anything I am biase towards Rugby League – I wont deny that, league spun off from Union a century ago, decades later changed the points system, and more tries are scored in League games today more than any other codes, even before the 10 rule, opening up the park.



    IRB talk rule changes



    I talk point system changes…the rules are ok as is, IMO

    Edit - I just came across this AFTER my post - Its shear coincidence, but all the facts are there to see, even for Stevie Wonder

    http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/world-c...2940908674.html
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page