england were robbed

dantes74

ok so we'll all agree the better team won in the end but englands dissallowed try at the start of the second half was a perfectly good try (altough i was hoping the tmo would say no try). also the last penalty by south africa that made it 15-6 was never penalty and that was the score that put them out of sight
having said that i'm glad that they lost

toomevara

Never a try, clearly in touch before grounding of the ball, and I was backing England.

davyjose

Just looking at the photo's on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm (pics 8 & 9) and the decision was ridiculously harsh. No surprises as to where the TMO is from!!!!

toomevara

...and to be frank, the better team won on the night regardless, England were matched up front and in the kicking game, can have no complaints. Well done the Boks.

ThomasH

davyjose wrote: »

Just looking at the photo's on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm (pics 8 & 9) and the decision was ridiculously harsh. No surprises as to where the TMO is from!!!!

You can't judge it from a photo, look at a video clip. The tip of his toe touched the line and then he grounded the ball. Pic 9 was before the tip of his toe touched the line so there is a pic missing!

That has nothing to do with it. It was not a try, simple really.

toomevara

davyjose wrote: »

Just looking at the photo's on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm (pics 8 & 9) and the decision was ridiculously harsh. No surprises as to where the TMO is from!!!!

Thats not the angle, his foot clearly hits touch before the grounding of the ball. Check out the view of the video replay from directly behind, dont see what all the drama is about to be honest.....

Irish Wolf

davyjose wrote: »

Just looking at the photo's on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm (pics 8 & 9) and the decision was ridiculously harsh. No surprises as to where the TMO is from!!!!

And pic 10 says it all tbh.

davyjose

I'm only kidding about the Aussie TMO, but I've seen worse than that given.

MrJoeSoap

Right decision, better team won. End of.

copacetic

davyjose wrote: »

I'm only kidding about the Aussie TMO, but I've seen worse than that given.

maybe so but that doesn't make it a try, the two pics you picked out don't show it properly. even the uk agencies aren't making out it was a try.

shrapnel222

that was never a try, but what i found strange was that all the angles the TMO looked at were pretty close, and if the TMO had given it, i wouldn't have been hugely shocked. But after the game, they showed another angle , which was from behind and underneath where it's very conclusive that the foot went into touch before the ball was grounded. why was that camera angle never used by the TMO at the time?

Ghost Train

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgo6NaA0_w

I think it would have been good for the game if england had got the try, but I think he probably just grazed the edge of the line. Wouldnt really complain if the try was given, since its such a close call

HaroldGodwinson

I am English, I dont think we were robbed and I think the best team has won the world cup.

Drapper

would have like to have seen that score given, the last 17 mins was too defensive and no excitment! I think England player outa thier shirts! Well impressed! (and I'm irish, but its 2007 so who cares!) Our bunch of novices would have been trashed there last night!

Ponster

shrapnel222 wrote: »

... why was that camera angle never used by the TMO at the time?

I don't know what channel you were watching the rugby on but I saw that angle twice while the TMO was deciding.

Imhof Tank

England robbed themselves.

Moody and Kay conceeded needless pens in innocuous positions from which SA scored. Another scoring penalty came from an unforced error from Tait.

These lapses made the difference, and thats why SA were the worthy winners.

Except for the lapses, I thought the teams cannelled each other out.

rkeane

I was delighted England lost, I though SA outplayed them on the day and deserved their win.

philstar

its all swings and roundabouts really, i don't think it was a try.

but what was that final peno for SA for...crossing??..i could'nt see any crossing

but then again Flood should have been sent off for that deliberate push on Montgomery..he could have broken his neck

MrJoeSoap

Drapper wrote: »

would have like to have seen that score given, the last 17 mins was too defensive and no excitment! I think England player outa thier shirts! Well impressed! (and I'm irish, but its 2007 so who cares!) Our bunch of novices would have been trashed there last night!

That post makes little or no sense to me. You seem to be part of this nouveau wave of England supporting Irishmen, as if we have a duty to support them. I didn't support them, nor did I support South Africa in this WC, so I don't see why that would change come last night. Absolutely nothing against them, but I just don't see why I would support them over, say, France or Australia.

You seem to think that there was some sort of an onus on the officials to give the try to make the last period of the game exciting. If you don't like "defensive and no excitement" rugby then why were you shouting for England? Didn't you see their games against Australia and France? They scored one try in two games, relied solely on the genius clutch play of Wilkinson, and defended to the last. They played to their strengths, which is completely understandable and admirable, but it was only exciting because it was close, it wasn't exactly appealing rugby.

Anyway, the try wasn't given and South Africa deserved their win.

Marshy

England definitely were not robbed. Yes there were decisions that could've gone their way but SA were unlucky in that regard also. Rolland could've easily sinbinned one of the English players towards the end of the first half for a professional foul on their own line. But people don't talk about these points, its all about how the losing team were robbed by the referee. Same old story.

Endurance Man

It was not a try, correct decision.

Endurance Man

Endurance Man wrote: »

It was not a try, correct decision.

eolhc wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgo6NaA0_w

I think it would have been good for the game if england had got the try, but I think he probably just grazed the edge of the line. Wouldnt really complain if the try was given, since its such a close call

+1


Toe in touch = out of play. Anyone who disagrees needs to either A) learn the rules or follow a sport where they actually understand the rules.



If there were to be any complaint it would be the crossing decisions that was and wasnt given both benefiting S.A.



Better team won get over it.

philstar

i let you decide, but imo....no try.

moe_sizlak

while technically it may have been the correct descision not to award the try as paul wallace said in most cases it would have been awarded for such good play , besides from what ive seen watching this world cup and also shane horgans dodgy try v england in the last minute in 2006 when we won the tripple crown i thought it was close enough , certaintly more of a try than the one argentina scored against south africa in the semi final when the argentinian forward dropped the ball over the line

i thought the referee was particulary poor , he failed to award a penalty to england when south africa were clearly obstructing , in contrast he awarded one against england for what seemed a very dubious call of obstruction

that said england are a poor team who appart from wilkinson have no means of scorring and i thought the south african defence combined with there busness type approach to the game made them deserving winners
man on man there a far superior team to england , it was a pretty awfull match and by the end i was wishing that nz had gotten to the final as compared to south africa even though there a good team , play much more exciting rugby

Ponster

Deleted User wrote: »

If there were to be any complaint it would be the crossing decisions that was and wasnt given both benefiting S.A.

Exactly. Commentary said that the first involved no contact of ball or player so wasn't given (don't know the rules well enough to comment) but the one that was given was just bizarre.

Stev_o

Rollaind started off where he left with the Australia match, horrible refing of the breakdown area and both sides ILLEGALLY got away with murder. Also i never seen such bullsh*it decisions for crossing i mean bloody hell he gives one fair one against England which was right then Habana does the exact same and isnt pinged for it then Ben Kay runs forward no one moves around him or infront of him and its crossing?? Well my manager is going to shout at him at the next Leinster Branch Referees meeting

BarryM

Imhof Tank wrote: »

England robbed themselves.

Moody and Kay conceeded needless pens in innocuous positions from which SA scored. Another scoring penalty came from an unforced error from Tait.

These lapses made the difference, and thats why SA were the worthy winners.

Except for the lapses, I thought the teams cannelled each other out.

Whatjamean 'lapses' I was DELIRED that the Irish ref, almost alone amongst all the others, finally penalised England for their typical, childish, nonsensical fouls and general dirty play.

Did you notice how Roland actually anticipated the trip?? (ankle tap) He gave the penalty as soon as the ball was caught, because he pretty well knew that someone would try to stop the follow-up, typical.....

Bye, Barry

BarryM

Stev_o wrote: »

Rollaind started off where he left with the Australia match, horrible refing of the breakdown area and both sides ILLEGALLY got away with murder. Also i never seen such bullsh*it decisions for crossing i mean bloody hell he gives one fair one against England which was right then Habana does the exact same and isnt pinged for it then Ben Kay runs forward no one moves around him or infront of him and its crossing?? Well my manager is going to shout at him at the next Leinster Branch Referees meeting

See my other post about him....

In general I think the whole crossing thing is a joke, and refs have to try to decide when it matters, which is crazy.

My overall impression of the WC reffing is that O'Brien (refs boss) and the IRB had to take account of the viewing opportunities on tv for 'non-regular' rugby viewers (18m French for the England game), the general movement towards more action less whistle and balance it against the rules. Overall, they didn't do a bad job in this respect. Some refs were poor, most were reasonable. Interesting was how little we saw of the UK ones in the last 8 games..... does that say something??

Bye, Barry

davyjose

The point is, I don't think there would be this much discussion on the try if it had been given. Even if that meant England had won. The bottom line is, tries like that were being scored AND given long before the TMO was invented. Sure, in the strictest sense of the game, that was not a try, but in any previous era of the game that would simply just have been a try, no doubt (look at Blanco '87 against Australia). IMO, it was a very, very pedantic decision because quite simply I would say 1/100 of those haven't been given in the history of the game.

Latchy

It wasn't a great game and it would have put a different slant on the game if the english try had being giving , but the English coach excepted it with good showmanship as expected.

copacetic

i really don't understand that attitude davyjose, they were given in error before so now even though we have the video ref try and reduce errors they should still be given?

It's not 'pedantic' to not give a try that wasn't a try, it's the feckin rules. Everyone who thinks it should have been given seems to think it should have been in spite of it not actually being a try. I think you would have seen a lot more debate if it had been given (what with it not being a try and all).

What I can't believe is the debate over it not being given, after all it wasn't a try. It's ridiculous tbh.

is_that_so

moe_sizlak wrote: »

... as paul wallace said in most cases it would have been awarded for such good play ...

Daft IMO. That's a bit like saying a football player deserves a brilliant individual goal, even though he handled it. :rolleyes: Rules are rules as they say.

ThomasH

moe_sizlak wrote: »

while technically it may have been the correct descision not to award the try as paul wallace said in most cases it would have been awarded for such good play , besides from what ive seen watching this world cup and also shane horgans dodgy try v england in the last minute in 2006 when we won the tripple crown i thought it was close enough , certaintly more of a try than the one argentina scored against south africa in the semi final when the argentinian forward dropped the ball over the line

i thought the referee was particulary poor , he failed to award a penalty to england when south africa were clearly obstructing , in contrast he awarded one against england for what seemed a very dubious call of obstruction

that said england are a poor team who appart from wilkinson have no means of scorring and i thought the south african defence combined with there busness type approach to the game made them deserving winners
man on man there a far superior team to england , it was a pretty awfull match and by the end i was wishing that nz had gotten to the final as compared to south africa even though there a good team , play much more exciting rugby

Paul Wallace is he daft if he believes it should have been awarded for good play. Argentinian try was good, he touched down before it slipped away.
Rolland was not bad in the final. Good and bad calls went to both sides.

Yea NZ should have been in the final because their running rugby would have won them the game against the English :rolleyes: NZ played the running rugby against France and were knocked out :eek: and it is also the same reason why NZ haven't won a WC since 1987

Marshy

is_that_so wrote: »

Daft IMO. That's a bit like saying a football player deserves a brilliant individual goal, even though he handled it. :rolleyes: Rules are rules as they say.

Yeah thats right. His foot was in touch, not a try, full stop.

davyjose

copacetic wrote: »

i really don't understand that attitude davyjose, they were given in error before so now even though we have the video ref try and reduce errors they should still be given?

It's not 'pedantic' to not give a try that wasn't a try, it's the feckin rules. Everyone who thinks it should have been given seems to think it should have been in spite of it not actually being a try. I think you would have seen a lot more debate if it had been given (what with it not being a try and all).

What I can't believe is the debate over it not being given, after all it wasn't a try. It's ridiculous tbh.

I'm just playing the devils advocate TBH, but it IS true that if every World Cup try ever scored had the same strict application of the law applied to it, we would have a very different history of the tournament. I'm not saying the TMO was wrong, but I AM saying that IMO 90% of those ARE given, even now (I'm pretty sure they'd have traded JW's try against Scotland for it) and I don't think SA would have argued it as much as it's being argued now. The South African coach even said the English were unlucky!

Eoin

HaroldGodwinson wrote: »

I am English, I dont think we were robbed and I think the best team has won the world cup.

I haven't been reading much of the English media, but certainly the players and management have all been as gracious in defeat as you have.

Anyway, from what I could make out - the penalty that SA got for England crossing wasn't obvious, because the blocking occurred a little off the ball - one of the second rows created a channel for the English winger, by standing in the way of a would-be SA tackler. This happened a couple of yards from where the eventual tackle took place, so wasn't very obvious - but it seemed the right call.

As for the crossing incident that SA weren't penalised for - did it affect play one bit? I don't think anyone could claim it did.

Maybe a referee can correct me, but I can't find any particular reference to "crossing" - just "obstruction". The distinction could be made that it isn't really obstruction if no other players were anywhere near.

Law 10 - foul play:

(b) Running in front of a ball - carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Edit: I don't buy into this thing of how a score made the difference when there's still the guts of a full half to play. Who is to say that SA wouldn't have gone all out if they found themselves behind?

shrapnel222

Ponster wrote: »

I don't know what channel you were watching the rugby on but I saw that angle twice while the TMO was deciding.

the one we saw when the TMO was looking was from the touch line. after the game the angle was ffrom directly behind. even martin johnson was surprised by the new angle as if he'd never seen it before.

Ponster

The angle that from directly behind which showed his toe in touch was shown twice on French TV while the TMO was deciding. Maybe different coverage in Ireland?

Do the public get to see all the same video replays as the TMO ?

Jip

Ponster wrote: »

The angle that from directly behind which showed his toe in touch was shown twice on French TV while the TMO was deciding. Maybe different coverage in Ireland?

Do the public get to see all the same video replays as the TMO ?

Nah, it was also shown on TV3. I thought the coverage was managed centrally from France and that every channel showing the game get the same feeds so no matter what country or channel you're looking at, everyone sees the same thing ?

shrapnel222

everyone gets to see the same thing. oh well may be i just hallucinated (and so did Martin Johnson). Either that or you're all blind:D:p:D

Ponster wrote: »

The angle that from directly behind which showed his toe in touch was shown twice on French TV while the TMO was deciding. Maybe different coverage in Ireland?

Do the public get to see all the same video replays as the TMO ?

it wasn't that angle, it was another one much lower which let you see from behind and underneath not from the touchline.

marco_polo

Ponster wrote: »

The angle that from directly behind which showed his toe in touch was shown twice on French TV while the TMO was deciding. Maybe different coverage in Ireland?

Do the public get to see all the same video replays as the TMO ?

No the TMO has access to every possible available angle and can chose to view any replay he wishes as many times as likes. It is not like he is up in the box watching the Setanta or TV3 feed .

Zulu

It was no try. TBH I couldn't understand why the TMO took so long calling it.



(...besides, it was borderline and it was England - no brainer - no try)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Balfas

I dont think it was a try. I dont know if you have seen this picture but he looks in touch. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/22102007/58/world-cup-o-brien-video-ref-right.html

Blisterman

davyjose wrote: »

Just looking at the photo's on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm (pics 8 & 9) and the decision was ridiculously harsh. No surprises as to where the TMO is from!!!!

If you look at picture number 8, you can see the mark in the touch line from where his foot hit it.

So, no try. Although, like it matters really.

Zulu

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why was it clear? This foot touched the line before the ball was grounded. That's not a try. It was clear from where I was sitting.

Fratton Fred

the replays clearly show his foot was in touch. Shame though because that may have stirred things up a bit.

I thought South Africa were worthy winners because they don't appear to have a weakness. I don't think they are teh "ree Flowing" rugby team the Saffas talked about before, but they are a very solid young side.

one question though, how far back is the TMO expected to look, if his foot had gone into touch three strides earlier, would he have noticed it?

Eoin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

one question though, how far back is the TMO expected to look, if his foot had gone into touch three strides earlier, would he have noticed it?

Aren't they supposed to only be allowed rule on the grounding? Anything before that, including foul play by the attacking team, can't be ruled on except by the ref or the linesmen.

Edit: Not too sure if the TMO is restricted to the in-goal area, rather than just the grounding - or if the ref can give more latitude to the TMO.

Imhof Tank

BarryM wrote: »

Whatjamean 'lapses' I was DELIRED that the Irish ref, almost alone amongst all the others, finally penalised England for their typical, childish, nonsensical fouls and general dirty play.

2 lapses in discipline (Moody and Kay) and one lapse in concentration (Tait).

These were 3 isolated incidents yeliding 9 points for SA and I think its fair to say they made the difference.

If Eng were guilty of systematic general dirty play as you suggest, why werent they whistled off the park by Rolland?

komodosp

Hmmm... there might be a technical reason for this, or maybe it's too much effort for such a rare occurrence, but... why don't they synchronise the camera angles so the TMO can watch the ball, pause it the instant it's touched down, then flick over to the other angle which will be at the same instant in time, then reverse play to see if the foot touched the line.

That would pretty much make it clear and not have to worry about what you can see from the various angles...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.