6N 2018
-
Best game of the weekend this one. Scotland playing like they did in November and France putting up a good fight.
Yep, got it all. A few tries (gotten out of the way in first half, no need for any more of that bullshit in the 2nd). Both teams constantly "in the game". Probably a close finish. Crazy sequences of passing including both the "volleyball pass" and the "Spencer between the legs pass" in a single phase.
-
France were as clueless and as unprofessional as ever. The amount of silly and unnecessary penalties that they conceded in the last 20 brought Scotland back into the game. Has there been a more underachieving team in world sport than France, considering the resources and talent available to them?
-
France were as clueless and as unprofessional as ever. The amount of silly and unnecessary penalties that they conceded in the last 20 brought Scotland back into the game. Has there been a more underachieving team in world sport than France, considering the resources and talent available to them?
France have always had the potential to lose to the Scots at the drop of a hat and then beat one of the big guns a week later......I do have to admit this current team looks godawful though.
-
France were as clueless and as unprofessional as ever. The amount of silly and unnecessary penalties that they conceded in the last 20 brought Scotland back into the game. Has there been a more underachieving team in world sport than France, considering the resources and talent available to them?
France have always had the potential to lose to the Scots at the drop of a hat and then beat one of the big guns a week later......I do have to admit this current team looks godawful though.
I thought they were quite good for 60 minutes. Not world beating, but worthy. They slowly disintegrated as fitness waned and pressure came on though.
-
Finn Russell allowed them to stay in the game. He really had a mare. And France were also kept in the game thanks to Teddy Thomas who did the most with the few balls he got on his wing. He has some serious wheels but has the tendency to stay on his wing rather than looking for work in other parts of the pitch.
-
Finn Russell allowed them to stay in the game. He really had a mare. And France were also kept in the game thanks to Teddy Thomas who did the most with the few balls he got on his wing. He has some serious wheels but has the tendency to stay on his wing rather than looking for work in other parts of the pitch.
I think you found the reason why in your own post. His key ability is to use his speed. It isn't often these days that you see, even a winger, stand up and gas a defender on the outside.
I don't think he has the power to mix it up much.
Therefore France need o find attacking plans that give him room. Squeeze the defence in close then give him 10 metres minimum to work in. -
I just saw it (away for the weekend) and on first watch I thought it was a try all day long. But on replay, I thought he knocked it on. It certainly wasn't as clear as obvious as Gatland made it sound in the presser (which I had seen earlier). Hard to argue with it, anyway, pretty much a line call (I'd have been OK with it going the other way but I thought he knocked it on).
-
WR have come out and said the TMO got it wrong.
(Still waiting on their comment regarding what happened at the end of the Lions series....)
Not sure how anyone can doubt the validity of the try tbh.
In this frame you can see Anscombe reaching the ball first. Hand, ball and grass all connected.
If you are doubting whether he had pressure on the ball then look at this next frame where the ball has considerably been pushed into the turf as Anscombes hand slides to the side. At this point no other player has touched the ball.
The relevant Law:
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:
By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
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.
-
I just saw it (away for the weekend) and on first watch I thought it was a try all day long. But on replay, I thought he knocked it on. It certainly wasn't as clear as obvious as Gatland made it sound in the presser (which I had seen earlier). Hard to argue with it, anyway, pretty much a line call (I'd have been OK with it going the other way but I thought he knocked it on).
Pretty much my assessment, although I didn't see the knock on at the time. S'funny, there's been a bit of press over here emanating from the Wales management team about the non-try. The headline reads "Wales should have been awarded a try" says World Rugby. The meat of the story though is Howley saying Alain Rolland "of World Rugby" has confirmed in a phone call that the TMO made a mistake. Additionally World Rugby told BBC Sport Wales it "has clarified to the Wales team management... that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match".
The governing body added: "In accordance with law 21.1 b, Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball." Note no mention of the knock on or not.
But of course no official statement from World Rugby. The bit that makes me laugh a bit though is this from Howley "I haven't spoken to any of the match officials. It's happened, it's disappointing that happens in professional sport. But we focus on the next two weeks and getting ready for Ireland."
If so, why keep banging on about it?
-
@Catogrande probably ensuring it is on the record to pull out again at performance review time. Got to protect those bonus payments.
-
I reckon he bounced it, but then watching again, I thought he scored it.
I've seen it 50 times now I reckon.
He certainly grounded it first, so it has to be a knock on or a score. On that basis, I chose knock on, but now looking at it again, maybe it is a score as perhaps it is always in contact with his hand until it touches the ground. But, it still looks like he bounced it to me when I watch the replay.
And I was watching expecting it to be a score - I support Wales all day over the Poms.
But, even with my red glasses on, I thought it wasn't totally legit.
But, then I can't exactly see the point where it isn't, so it actually must be a try.
Anyway, if world rugby has said it is a try, then that's fine with me.
-
I reckon he bounced it, but then watching again, I thought he scored it.
I've seen it 50 times now I reckon.
He certainly grounded it first, so it has to be a knock on or a score. On that basis, I chose knock on, but now looking at it again, maybe it is a score as perhaps it is always in contact with his hand until it touches the ground. But, it still looks like he bounced it to me when I watch the replay.
And I was watching expecting it to be a score - I support Wales all day over the Poms.
But, even with my red glasses on, I thought it wasn't totally legit.
But, then I can't exactly see the point where it isn't, so it actually must be a try.
Anyway, if world rugby has said it is a try, then that's fine with me.
The knock on (or not) came from Steff Evans before Anscombe grounded (or didn't) the ball.
At the time I thought it was likely a try and wouldn't have had too much to grumble about if it had been given, but it's all moot isn't it. The try was not given, Wales went back for the penalty and the game then evolved accordingly. Who knows what would have occurred thereafter if the try had been given.
The game is over. England won. End of story.
-
@gt12 by 'bounced it' and/or 'knocked on' do you mean you think he touched it then lost contact then touched it again?
Those shots I posted are about 2/10ths of a second apart. The first is at his first contact.I think the WR comment that the law was incorrectly applied is the key. 'Presses' is the key word. Forget the commentary rubbish about 'forcing' the ball. If his hand is in contact and applying ANY downward pressure then it is a try under the law. Recently though, we have seen Super Rugby TMOs only award tries when the hand remains on top of the ball and doesn't slide off. I guess that was an effort to remove contentious calls when players clip the side of the ball only or slide down the side before the ball touches the ground.
Could well be that Newman was ruling the way his SANZAAR bosses told him to and finding it at odds to WR. -
Yep, I thought he actually bounced it between the shots (actually, maybe even before the first one). But, when I really slow it down, I can't see it.
BTW, I haven't heard any commentary @Crucial , or seen any other stuff @Catogrande so no idea what you are talking about with the other knock on. I'm only talking about the 1/2 second around this ball being forced or not.
Anyway, after all that, I'm happy with it being ruled a try.
I still think he bounced it though.
@gt12 by 'bounced it' and/or 'knocked on' do you mean you think he touched it then lost contact then touched it again?
Those shots I posted are about 2/10ths of a second apart. The first is at his first contact.I think the WR comment that the law was incorrectly applied is the key. 'Presses' is the key word. Forget the commentary rubbish about 'forcing' the ball. If his hand is in contact and applying ANY downward pressure then it is a try under the law. Recently though, we have seen Super Rugby TMOs only award tries when the hand remains on top of the ball and doesn't slide off. I guess that was an effort to remove contentious calls when players clip the side of the ball only or slide down the side before the ball touches the ground.
Could well be that Newman was ruling the way his SANZAAR bosses told him to and finding it at odds to WR. -
Jerry Guscott's view was that the grounding was fine and the TMO made a mistake but it should not have been a try due to a previous knock on. Opinion piece and video here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43026443
His point in question arises about 20 seconds into the vid. To my mind it would have been very easy to miss. At the time I thought there was no knock on. Now...?
-
@catogrande said in 6N 2018:
Jerry Guscott's view was that the grounding was fine and the TMO made a mistake but it should not have been a try due to a previous knock on. Opinion piece and video here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43026443
His point in question arises about 20 seconds into the vid. To my mind it would have been very easy to miss. At the time I thought there was no knock on. Now...?
I certainly can't see a knock on in those angles. Guscott talks about some other view on twitter which I can't find.
-
@crucial Certainly not absolutely conclusive. Separately, Guscott makes the point that the footage available to the TMO is not fit for purpose, that he does not have frame by frame view available to him. If true this is just a bit shit really.
