RugbyRebels

Law 21.1
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:

b) 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.

That's it. Simple.

No definition of how much "pressing down" is required and no mention of CONTROL

The way the rules have been applied in the last few years that's as clear a try as you can get.

The requirement to have control and downward pressure went out years ago.

I would have given it live.
I'd have been wrong.

Which Tyler wrote: I would have given it live.
I'd have been wrong.

Watching it live I'd have ruled a knock on, watching the video replay yesterday I then thought it was fine with the ball coming off his leg. To see it's now a minor knock on, well had it been given with that small an actual knock on it wouldn't bother me had it been missed

Photoshopped.

#Fakenews

"Control" applies when the player started from a position of control, i.e. he took the ball over the line. In that case, he needs to perform a "controlled" touchdown. When touching down a loose ball, all that is required is just that - a touch, down. Anscombe's hand touches the ball while moving down. You could also argue that there is some FORWARD pressure, but that's not enough to deny the try unless there was no DOWNWARD vector.

Basically, to attempt to justify that decision is every bit as desperate as to attempt to blame it for Wales losing. If it had happened in the last minute with the score 12-6, I'd be marching with pitchforks. But it didn't. So I'm not. But neither am I suffering any arguments about it not being a try.

Sandydragon wrote:The requirement to have control and downward pressure went out years ago.

And many commentators continue to say it has downward pressure maybe we should send them a copy of the Laws

It should have been awarded. But as Sour says, it didn't decide the game. Had it been awarded, both teams would have played differently - and who knows what would have happened.

Sandydragon wrote:The requirement to have control and downward pressure went out years ago.

And many commentators continue to say it has downward pressure... maybe we should send them a copy of the Laws

Buggaluggs wrote:It should have been awarded. But as Sour says, it didn't decide the game. Had it been awarded, both teams would have played differently - and who knows what would have happened.

Exactly. We lost that game due to our basic errors, we should have scored one of those opportunities but didn’t. We also failed to cope with the forward pressure England exerted in the first half and struggled to slow down their ball.

Sandydragon wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:It should have been awarded. But as Sour says, it didn't decide the game. Had it been awarded, both teams would have played differently - and who knows what would have happened.

Exactly. We lost that game due to our basic errors, we should have scored one of those opportunities but didn’t. We also failed to cope with the forward pressure England exerted in the first half and struggled to slow down their ball.

This. We had a legitimate try ruled out imo but England we re the better team and deserved their win. Anscombe went well didn't he?

Saison wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Buggaluggs wrote:It should have been awarded. But as Sour says, it didn't decide the game. Had it been awarded, both teams would have played differently - and who knows what would have happened.

Exactly. We lost that game due to our basic errors, we should have scored one of those opportunities but didn’t. We also failed to cope with the forward pressure England exerted in the first half and struggled to slow down their ball.

This. We had a legitimate try ruled out imo but England we re the better team and deserved their win. Anscombe went well didn't he?

Anscombe is a better fly half in my opinion than Patchell. He gets the back line moving better and other players seem to play off him better. Patchell is a talented player, but I’m not convinced that 10 is his position.

I’d start Anscombe at 10 for Ireland. He is well worth a proper look against good opposition. All that talk of him running at a tired defence seems to miss the fact that Anscombe played 80 minutes himself.

I thought there were some pluses from this game, Shingler continues to nail down the 6 shirt, Moriarty was a step up from where he was against Scotland, Anscombe was remarkably good in the second half, we looked fitter than England, our replacements made a better impact with the front row going especially well.

If we could have coped better with their kicking game we would have been in a position to win, either Halfpenny or Liam Williams would have been much better in this respect.

Before kick off I thought that we should have had North to the wing and Adams to fullback as he's played for Worcester there a fair amount, after seeing Adams's positioning for the first try I think perhaps I was wrong. I feel a little sorry for him as I think he will be dropped from the squad for the next game what with Liam Williams coming back into contention and Amos getting MOM for the Dragons on Friday.

One interesting stat is the England starting pack made a total of 9 passes between them throughout the game, our starting 8 made 35.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:That's tough to take. We played very well, matched England in most areas. I think the only serious failing was our hopeless effort (if you can call it that) to compete for high ball. We seriously missed Liam Williams - world class under high ball.

Dan Biggar, too. He is brilliant under the high ball.

Absolutely true, I only didn't mention him because he wasn't available.

cashead wrote:

Ross. S wrote:So TMO screwed us out of that one then

If we're going by the strictest interpretation of law 21.1, then no, the TMO got it right. The amount of downward pressure applied on the ball is negligible, and it was pretty clear the Welsh player had little to no control of the ball.

The ball distinctly moves downwards the instant Anscombe touches it and then his fingers are in contact with it when it touches the ground. That's ample evidence that the ball was "pressed down", which is all that is required by the laws. As has been said, no "control" is needed.

The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

Sandydragon wrote:The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

It's probably the best objection to the try, but I think it's very debatable, ie not clear enough to be sure any contact was made by his hand.

Sandydragon wrote:The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

It certainly makes contact with his fingertips, whether the ball goes forward onto his shin from there is debatable, to me it looked like it glanced through and not forwards.

I keep thinking where Halfpenny would have been positioned for the first England try. His positional nous is second to none and I just wonder if he might have got across to compete with May and hinder or stop the try.

A great shame he didn’t make the game because on the evidence of how we shut down England for long periods we could have won the game. Patchell missed one long range penalty and opted to go to touch for the second. Halfpenny would probably nailed both to keep up the pressure.

Let’s hope he’s back for Ireland.

normanski wrote:I keep thinking where Halfpenny would have been positioned for the first England try. His positional nous is second to none and I just wonder if he might have got across to compete with May and hinder or stop the try.

A great shame he didn’t make the game because on the evidence of how we shut down England for long periods we could have won the game. Patchell missed one long range penalty and opted to go to touch for the second. Halfpenny would probably nailed both to keep up the pressure.

Let’s hope he’s back for Ireland.

its interesting following the lengthy debate over Halfpenny vs Williams just how much we miss Halfpenny in certain games. I think Liam would have done better than Asncombe in that situation - he is a full back after all rather than a fly half. In close games like that, Halfpenny's liking is invaluable and he seems to be back on form again.

Has he added enough attacking prowess to his game to make him more selectable that Williams? Whilst not setting the pitch alight with blistering speed against Scotland, his positioning to make best advantage of several opportunities was spot on. Going forward, Halfpenny to the wing and Williams at FB or do we take a horses for courses approach and swap them around where necessary? Our back 3 needs balance and when you have 2 full backs in Liam Williams and Halfpenny, then consider options like North, Amos and Stef Evans, all of whom offer something a bit different, when they are all fit and on form its an interesting conundrum to get them into 3 positions plus probably a bench spot.

Sandydragon wrote:The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

Have you seen the video clip a few posts above?

It's pretty clear.

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

Have you seen the video clip a few posts above?

It's pretty clear.

it really isn't. Could have hit his fingers or his knee. Another angle would be needed to be definitive.

Looking at it frame by frame, you can see the contact from the other angle as well.

Sandydragon wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The claim now is that Stef Evans knocked it on anyway.Having watched the original I'm not so sure.

Have you seen the video clip a few posts above?

It's pretty clear.

it really isn't. Could have hit his fingers or his knee. Another angle would be needed to be definitive.

Dunno about you, but my fingers don't tend to reflexively maximally extend when a rugby ball hits my knee.
The video is absolutely clear on this I'm afraid - just as clear as the still images are that the grounding was good.