Scotland vs France

Ben Healy has played international rugby, he played in the last RWC.

That wouldn't have happened if he stayed in Ireland

As an aside and I'm not aiming this at you but I said earlier today, in another thread, it's really not up to a fan on a rugby forum somewhere to decide if his decision is correct or not, only the individual themselves will know the full facts.

That's why I specifically said it wasn't aimed at you.

Tbh, I think most Irish rugby fans would like to see him a success. Obviously, they will be some who won't but that's human nature.

Scotland are like every other country, they want what's best for them.

A few months ago, the second in line (at outhalf ) in Ireland was dropped like a hot potato, next year, he'll be playing his rugby in France.

There are a high number of players with one international cap, I'm sure that look back at that cap with pride.

I totally get what you are saying. On the one hand it sounded like the referee actually wanted the TMO to direct him to overturn it. I think he felt that having seen it again it was a try. Then it became a mess.

However, if a referee was allowed to not make an on field decision then I think it doesn't look right. People would trust their instincts to make the call more so than allowing a referee to study the footage until he came to the decision he wanted to. Fans would have more reason to question referee neutrality in my opinion.

Your could say that about many players Dillane, Farrell, Jackson, Goggin, JJ pre Connacht are just a few which many Irish fans would still keep an eye on when they are playing outside Ireland

Healy is unique as he went to find an international cap elsewhere. Scotland are too dependent on Russell and Healy is an unknown he could have made the difference yesterday. And he would imho slotted that drop goal

Anyway...... The thread title is Scotland v France. Uninspiring muck. The French attack was basically one off runners bulldozing it up the middle.

The TMO was asked about grounding, you're adding two questions that were neither asked or discussed.

The TMO literally says it's grounded, Berry is about to change his decision based on that, before the TMO stutters and says he's going to look again. For me if Berry had agreed and said he saw the grounding too the TMO wouldn't have interjected, but Berry put it all on the TMO.

The problem is the TMO doesn't know where the ball is grounded or if it was grounded because it was dropped. The TMO should have stated that while he feels it was grounded, he doesn't have conclusive video evidence that it was grounded on or over the try line.

It was a bit of a mess, which I was surprised at. I would have thought the first think you'd be taught as a TMO in situations like this is the concept of clear evidence of the ball being grounded on or over the line. I wonder if the TMO got a word from someone he was sitting with about needing clear evidence. His change of mind was fairly sudden, or maybe it just dawned on him.

Especially when he had actually reached the right decision to award it.

I think "benefit of the doubt" should kick in here, team going forward should deffo get BOTD in situations like this.

Its also shows how crap the current "held up" laws are. You shouldn't lose possession in situations like this IMO.

But didnt the ref overrule himself for the JGP try for Ireland?

He saw the replay and it was clearly lost while grounding. If he can change his mind by looking at a TV screen, why cant he not change his mind just because he has asked the TMO?

If the TMO says "nothing 100% obvious" but the ref feels that on reflection, his initial call was wrong, then surely he should be allowed to change it. Its a ridiculous hole in the laws if he can only change his mind as long as he doesnt bring in the TMO.

He can change his mind but he's looking at a big screen from afar, it's easier to see an obvious knock on than any of the things I listed that might have happened or the touch down happening after the whistle had gone.

I agree with Syd, the conversation between the two of them could have been better but that doesn't mean they made the incorrect decision

For me, if the player gets the ball on the grass over the line, then unless there is something to 100% say it wasn't grounded, then award the try.

Far better for the game, in the absence of definitive proof either way, give BOD to the attacking team and everyone just move on.

I dont think we would have heard a word of complaint from France had the try been awarded.