Guinness SIX Nations 2021

bilston

Scratchly wrote: »

Anyone showing evidence of clear grounding on twitter seem to have confused itojes shoulder for the ball. I'm starting to think that's what people here seen too. Because there's absolutely no clear view of the ball touching grass.

I know why people think it might be his shoulder, but I think it's the ball. It doesn't look natural enough to me fornit to be his shoulder.

bilston

Movementarian wrote: »

Thats his shoulder/jersey not the ball, hes carrying it lower in his stomach/mid chest area

I really don't think it is his shoulder.

If thats his shoulder then his left arm/hand is carrying it.

I think it's the ball

Scratchly

bilston wrote: »

I know why people think it might be his shoulder, but I think it's the ball. It doesn't look natural enough to me fornit to be his shoulder.

It's his shoulder. The red is the rose. You can see the French hands on the ball under his chest. They had hands on the ball the entire time.

Farce if that Itoje try was not given. TMO got the ref out of jail there.

While I'm at it, refusal to give the Welsh try (Adams?) earlier was ridiculous. The idea that ball did not contact the grass before he was in touch is nonsense.

Another talking point. Refs using replays to reverse their own decisions outside of the review protocols should be prohibited.

Quantum Baloney

It's his shoulder, but the ball is grounded. It would have to be a very peculiar rugby fan arguing that tries like that are not given. I think anti-English bias is coming into play here, which is a bit ridiculous in light of the calls that went against them in the Wales game. France aren't good enough for a grand slam and haven't been in many many years.

this is the other angle from the initial drive

even if his own arm is under the ball the tip of the ball makes contact

in this twitter video

https://twitter.com/VMSportIE/status/1370804267578187777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1370804267578187777%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balls.ie%2Frugby%2Firish-tmo-itoje-try-463421

Ginger83

thomond2006 wrote: »

England were probably going to score anyway to be honest. If anything awarding the try gave France enough time to reply.

What makes you say that? They scored 3pts in the second half

What utter cretins that take issue with a referee because they are female. Can't help but feel that vibe came off some of the posts in this thread earlier.

Imagine being so incredibly weak and insecure that a female referee is threatening. Pathetic.

Tough to call the try, in real time I thought it was 100% a try and with the way he went over I can’t imagine any way Itoje didn’t get it down, that said I have not seen a clear angle to show it was.

Best I have seen England in a long time, still a long way from our best but hopefully more to come over the next couple of years. I actually thought England were deserving winners and in the end the score flattered France, you never thought they would score a try in the second half and were only kept going by some outstanding turnovers in and around their 22!!

As always being an England fan this is the game you want to win, would rather win the whole tournament of course but beating France is always the big one!!

dh1985

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Farce if that Itoje try was not given. TMO got the ref out of jail there.

While I'm at it, refusal to give the Welsh try (Adams?) earlier was ridiculous. The idea that ball did not contact the grass before he was in touch is nonsense.

Another talking point. Refs using replays to reverse their own decisions outside of the review protocols should be prohibited.

In relation to your last point , what's the reasoning for that. I would think that the correct decision no matter when determined by the referee is a big plus. For example the turnover for england by ben earl near the end. It was overturned by ref after reviewing replay correctly. Why is that a bad outcome

dh1985

dh1985 wrote: »

In relation to your last point , what's the reasoning for that. I would think that the correct decision no matter when determined by the referee is a big plus. For example the turnover for england by ben earl near the end. It was overturned by ref after reviewing replay correctly. Why is that a bad outcome

It's not about the outcome in this instance.

The question is, do we want refs to keep one eye on the replay to see if they still think they were right after the call or not?

I say not.

dh1985

ecoli3136 wrote: »

It's not about the outcome in this instance.

The question is, do we want refs to keep one eye on the replay to see if they still think they were right after the call or not?

I say not.

I think if it helps with getting the correct outcome at the end it's no bad thing. Too often wromg decisions leave teams and fans frustrated. Why not have the option to correct these wrong decisions if it works as well as it did today

dh1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What utter cretins that take issue with a referee because they are female. Can't help but feel that vibe came off some of the posts in this thread earlier.

Imagine being so incredibly weak and insecure that a female referee is threatening. Pathetic.

Pathetic is great description.
Fair play to Joy Neville for having the balls to go against the on field call when it was fairly evident that the ball was grounded. Too often we see Tmo's bottling it, afraid to make a decision. Some of the crap been posted on line is a poor enditment on mankind in this day and age.

Ginger83

dh1985 wrote: »

I think if it helps with getting the correct outcome at the end it's no bad thing. Too often wromg decisions leave teams and fans frustrated. Why not have the option to correct these wrong decisions if it works as well as it did today

But it didn't work as a team was robbed as there was no "clear evidence" the ball was grounded.

irelandrover

dh1985 wrote: »

Pathetic is great description.
Fair play to Joy Neville for having the balls to go against the on field call when it was fairly evident that the ball was grounded. Too often we see Tmo's bottling it, afraid to make a decision. Some of the crap been posted on line is a poor enditment on mankind in this day and age.

I'm 90% sure that it was a try. And if the on field decision was try then I dont think anyone would disagree.

But I don't see a clear grounding so I don't think the on field decision should be overruled

Ginger83

Ginger83 wrote: »

But it didn't work as a team was robbed as there was no "clear evidence" the ball was grounded.

Explain to me how this is not down:

[/QUOTE]

c.p.w.g.w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What utter cretins that take issue with a referee because they are female. Can't help but feel that vibe came off some of the posts in this thread earlier.

Imagine being so incredibly weak and insecure that a female referee is threatening. Pathetic.

People are giving out, because the TMO footage didn't show enough evidence to overturn the on field decision...

Most people are defending the TMO because of their gender, if it was poite many more folks would be critizing the TMO decision

c.p.w.g.w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Explain to me how this is not down:

[/quote]

It needs to be conclusive, that certainly is far from conclusive enough, by the rugby rules standards

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

People are giving out, because the TMO footage didn't show enough evidence to overturn the on field decision...

Evidence of a try was categoric as far as I'm concerned.

Most people are defending the TMO because of their gender

Show me some examples of this if you don't mind. I'm seeing plenty of anti-women comments, but nothing gender related from those who think it was a try.

c.p.w.g.w

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Evidence of a try was categoric as far as I'm concerned.



Show me some examples of this if you don't mind. I'm seeing plenty of anti-women comments, but nothing gender related from those who think it was a try.

The evidence isn't enough to overturn the on field decision...It's really that simple

lawred2

This thread is about to descend into culture wars isn't it!?

lawred2

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

It needs to be conclusive, that certainly is far from conclusive enough, by the rugby rules standards

Jaysus that ball looks on the ground to me.

irelandrover

lawred2 wrote: »

Jaysus that ball looks on the ground to me.

It does. But I also see itoje's hand and Thomas' hand underneath it. It's possible it's held up and hence I don't think the on field decision should be overruled.

I'd be pissed if it wasn't given for ireland. I'd be pissed if that was given against Ireland.

dh1985

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The evidence isn't enough to overturn the on field decision...It's really that simple

How is it not enough. You see the ball in etojes control on the ground with Thomas' hand not under it. What do some people need to make a decision. If it was Ireland and that was not awarded we would do some bitching.

Ginger83

Deleted User wrote: »

Explain to me how this is not down:

[/QUOTE]

Without being rude do you see that thing with the five fingers attached to it?
I respect your opinion and am all for fairness but there has to be clear evidence and it's not clear.

For example Liverpool dropped two points to City two years ago because all but 11mm of the ball crossed the line. It was harsh and cost them the league but clear evidence.

dh1985

Ginger83 wrote: »

But it didn't work as a team was robbed as there was no "clear evidence" the ball was grounded.

Your talking about the try and I was referencing the turnover penalty that was retrospectively changed

Ginger83

dh1985 wrote: »

Your talking about the try and I was referencing the turnover penalty that was retrospectively changed

My mistake, sorry.

Ginger83

Ginger83 wrote: »

Without being rude do you see that thing with the five fingers attached to it?
I respect your opinion and am all for fairness but there has to be clear evidence and it's not clear.

For example Liverpool dropped two points to City two years ago because all but 11mm of the ball crossed the line. It was harsh and cost them the league but clear evidence.[/QUOTE]

You can only make your own opinion, you don't need to respect mine.

That ball is clearly controlled and on the ground. I wouldn't in good faith be able to rule against it.

Dave_The_Sheep

I hope POM is happy with what he set in motion.

MaybeMaybe

you'd want that try given in your favour all day long