RugbyRebels

Sourdust wrote:No matter how many times I see it I can't see definitive proof that the ball brushed his fingers. I think it's very likely that it did, but that's not good enough. Even assuming it did, it then came off his knee before hitting the ground. If that's a knock-on then so is a punt ahead - although TBF I have seen them given. Seriously, this attempt to justify the TMO's decision as "two wrongs make a right", just seems every bit as desperate to me as the attempt to blame four disallowed points in the first half for Wales losing the match by six points.

Exactly, it has to be definitive for the TMO to judge he kneed it on.

And again, it didn't lose us the match, but it was a try and the TMO needs some education on the laws of the game (perhaps Garces too as he accepted the explanation).

oldbackrow wrote:

WaspInWales wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the tmo with 'two wrongs make a right'. They guy got things dreadfully wrong and shouldn't be used again. At the very least, he needs to be demoted or sent back for referee training...or whatever World Rugby can do.

As for the punt suggestion, doesn't a punt have to be an intentional act? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but not 100% sure.

Under the laws "Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground."
On the other point

Nice grey area. I think it was a knock on as the ball went significantly forward off his hand before he kicked it. Perhaps if the ball had fallen more vertically before the kick he would have gotten away with it.

Quote from Howley at todays presser: "It was good to have dialogue with World Rugby over the weekend. They’ve confirmed the TMO made a mistake."

Numbers wrote:Quote from Howley at todays presser: "It was good to have dialogue with World Rugby over the weekend. They’ve confirmed the TMO made a mistake."

He did indeed, he said it wasn't a knock on!

I always liked that Alain Rolland...

Proof positive from World Rugby

It was a game we could have won if that try had been allowed to stand. As Howley said we were just starting to find our rhythm and it would have been such a fillip to the team. With the try under our belt and starting to find gaps in their defence around the breakdown could have made such a difference to the final score.

I don't see that what Howley says means it wasn't a knock-on from Evans.

It may have changed the game if it were a try. Yes. But might have meant England scoring 60 points for all anyone knows.

Lord Llandaff wrote:I always liked that Alain Rolland...

Proof positive from World Rugby

On the one hand, thats nice to know, on the other I'm not sure I'd appreciate the contents of a phone call being leaked to the media (unless Rolland was content and Howley actually asked).

Rolland remains a cnut.

Mikey Brown wrote:I don't see that what Howley says means it wasn't a knock-on from Evans.

It may have changed the game if it were a try. Yes. But might have meant England scoring 60 points for all anyone knows.

It's not what Howley is saying, it's what World Rugby has said, i.e. the try should have stood, I agree that it may or may not have had an effect on the eventual outcome and anything surrounding that is speculation, I think you may be in cloud cuckoo land if you think they could have scored 60 points in those weather conditions mind you.

I personally do not think it was a knock on as for me it was not absolutely clear... but if that is want people want we can go to the NFL type where every touch down is reviewed...otherwise we have to let the onfield official do their job . The exception is unless there is a clear and obvious mistake like when Mike Phillips had his foot in touch before scoring .
The bit about the 4th official is a problem that needs addressing...again I do not think enough referees look at the big screen and decide for themselves then let the 4th official decide if they have anything to disagree by.
There are 3 world class officials on the pitch...I would trust them ...and if we do want a 4th official then let's get more of them up to world class.

World Rugby haven't said the try should have stood have they? I understood they were going to say there was an error in the process used, and given the process used it should have been a try rather than it was a try.

Tbh the stupid purple paint which got onto a number of players remains a more important issue.

"World Rugby has clarified to the Wales team management as part of the usual review process with teams that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match at Twickenham," they said. "In accordance with law 21.1 b Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball."

oldbackrow wrote:

WaspInWales wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the tmo with 'two wrongs make a right'. They guy got things dreadfully wrong and shouldn't be used again. At the very least, he needs to be demoted or sent back for referee training...or whatever World Rugby can do.

As for the punt suggestion, doesn't a punt have to be an intentional act? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but not 100% sure.

Under the laws "Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground."
On the other point

Doesn't matter what constitutes a kick. I think the knock on law only refers to hands and or arms.

bruce wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

WaspInWales wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the tmo with 'two wrongs make a right'. They guy got things dreadfully wrong and shouldn't be used again. At the very least, he needs to be demoted or sent back for referee training...or whatever World Rugby can do.

As for the punt suggestion, doesn't a punt have to be an intentional act? I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but not 100% sure.

Under the laws "Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground."
On the other point

Doesn't matter what constitutes a kick. I think the knock on law only refers to hands and or arms.

The definition of a kick is relevant if a player loses control of the ball from his hands and then kicks it forward before it hits the floor. That's a knock on. Same applies if a player is unable to gather a pass or collect the ball cleanly, it hits their hand and is then kicked forward before it hits the ground, that's also a knock on.

The belief/claim then seems to be it's not a knock on as the ball came off his hand backwards (which many would dispute) and that if one allows it went backwards off the hand it then went forward off his knee, and as you can't kick the ball with the knee it's not lost forward via an uncontrolled kick either?

Digby wrote:The belief/claim then seems to be it's not a knock on as the ball came off his hand backwards (which many would dispute) and that if one allows it went backwards off the hand it then went forward off his knee, and as you can't kick the ball with the knee it's not lost forward via an uncontrolled kick either?

It would be interesting to hear World Rugby's take on it. I agree that based on the grounding, it's a try every time, but there's no clarification of the contact with Evans' hands.

Had the try been given, I'm sure Eddie would be chasing the knock-on up with World Rugby, but if the only debate was the grounding, then yeah it's without a doubt legal.

However, Eddie isn't the complaining type and accepted the tmo decision without fuss

What about the deliberate knock-ons from 'attempted' interceptions? Players may make a genuine attempt to catch the ball, or they may just stick a hand out, they then fumble the ball but manage to get their foot to it before it hits the floor. That's a knock-on every single time, because of the lack of intention to kick the ball originally.

Where’s the clip of that saffa dropping the ball and claiming it as a drop goal attempt?

WaspInWales wrote: However, Eddie isn't the complaining type and accepted the tmo decision without fuss

Gatland was happy enough when Sparky scored with the wrong ball Vs Ireland. Back then a mistake from the officials bothered him not at all.

And still the purple paint looks a bigger issue

WaspInWales wrote:What about the deliberate knock-ons from 'attempted' interceptions? Players may make a genuine attempt to catch the ball, or they may just stick a hand out, they then fumble the ball but manage to get their foot to it before it hits the floor. That's a knock-on every single time, because of the lack of intention to kick the ball originally.

That's because the ball has gone forwards from the hand originally and was not regathered or controlled again before kicking it.

I don't know why this is being persisted with, when none of us have even given the opinion that it changed the match significantly, I would be more concerned by Mike Brown's professional foul towards the end of the game, for which he should have been yellow-carded.

The try or not debate shouldn't spoil what was a great test match.
The turning point for me wasn't the Anscombe incident but the Underhill tackle which was absolutely world class.
The "non try" has also overshadowed the penalty Brown gave away with 10 mins to go which was a blatant professional foul & yellow card. He knew exactly what he was doing & was probably expecting to spend the last 10 watching from the sidelines.
England started the game at 100mph which took us seemingly by surprise. We were lethargic in defence, kicked aimlessly with a poor kick chase.
Quite why Brown got MOTM was beyond me, he had an armchair ride at 15 given the poor kicking display by us. Only 2 kicks were contested one of which he fumbled, the rest he had acres of space to run into before even reaching the defensive line.
Farrell was head & shoulders above everyone IMHO, never seemed to put a foot wrong. Class act along with Ford, they have such a great understanding.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Numbers wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:What about the deliberate knock-ons from 'attempted' interceptions? Players may make a genuine attempt to catch the ball, or they may just stick a hand out, they then fumble the ball but manage to get their foot to it before it hits the floor. That's a knock-on every single time, because of the lack of intention to kick the ball originally.

That's because the ball has gone forwards from the hand originally and was not regathered or controlled again before kicking it.

I don't know why this is being persisted with, when none of us have even given the opinion that it changed the match significantly, I would be more concerned by Mike Brown's professional foul towards the end of the game, for which he should have been yellow-carded.

So, if the ball goes backwards from an attempted deliberate, or otherwise knock-on/interception, without getting the ball under control and then kicked forwards? It's still a knock-on right?

Case in point; England Vs Wales in the pre-summer tour warm up in 2016. Biggar throws a pass to Moriarty, but Cole sticks a hand out, the ball clearly bounces backwards, Clifford picks it up and then runs in from the halfway creaming Scott Williams along the way. Try is good. Much to the protestations from the WesternMail after the match.

Had Cole tried to kick it forward, it would've been a knock-on as he didn't have control at the time. However, he left the ball, a player onside picked up the ball and did the rest.

My point is, Evans lost control the moment the ball hit his fingers and he failed to catch or be in the position to intentionally kick the ball forward.

It would be interesting to hear world rugby's interpretation of that, rather than the grounding which was obviously clear.

But hey, like you say, it doesn't matter

WaspInWales wrote:

Numbers wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:What about the deliberate knock-ons from 'attempted' interceptions? Players may make a genuine attempt to catch the ball, or they may just stick a hand out, they then fumble the ball but manage to get their foot to it before it hits the floor. That's a knock-on every single time, because of the lack of intention to kick the ball originally.

That's because the ball has gone forwards from the hand originally and was not regathered or controlled again before kicking it.

I don't know why this is being persisted with, when none of us have even given the opinion that it changed the match significantly, I would be more concerned by Mike Brown's professional foul towards the end of the game, for which he should have been yellow-carded.

So, if the ball goes backwards from an attempted deliberate, or otherwise knock-on/interception, without getting the ball under control and then kicked forwards? It's still a knock-on right?

Case in point; England Vs Wales in the pre-summer tour warm up in 2016. Biggar throws a pass to Moriarty, but Cole sticks a hand out, the ball clearly bounces backwards, Clifford picks it up and then runs in from the halfway creaming Scott Williams along the way. Try is good. Much to the protestations from the WesternMail after the match.

Had Cole tried to kick it forward, it would've been a knock-on as he didn't have control at the time. However, he left the ball, a player onside picked up the ball and did the rest.

My point is, Evans lost control the moment the ball hit his fingers and he failed to catch or be in the position to intentionally kick the ball forward.

It would be interesting to hear world rugby's interpretation of that, rather than the grounding which was obviously clear.

But hey, like you say, it doesn't matter

No that is wrong, the ball never went forwards, did it, so the ball is in open play, therefore kicking it would be fine.

I see Eddie the hypocrite has attacked World Rugby for announcing that the TMO did make a mistake in not awarding the try. The game is done and dusted and there should be no need to comment further he said.

It’s rather rich that only Eddie the hippo is allowed to comment after the game like when he complained officially to World Rugby about AWJ in a match that his team were not even involved in.

It's nice to see that World Rugby have given their final, considered opinion on the matter. They could so easily have said nothing, so good for them.

Let's hope they improve training for TMOs. They need to block out everything else and take their time to make the right decision.