When you look at the replays of that try ,the ball is grounded simultaneously as his foot hits the tryline ,and on the laws of the game the try should of been awarded ,for benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.
It probably would not have made any difference to the result.Maybe England should of tap kicked the ball instead of opting for the penalty.
The boring kicking game of both teams is bad for the game.
Time we ended some of these penalties ,so teams have to go for a try instead of the very boring penalty kicks.
Well done South Africa.
The try/not try as far as I am concerned it was so close to call that any doubt has to go to the defensive side - I have always believed this and think that under such reasoning the correct decision was made.
I am slightly interested in why it was brought back for a penalty but not a penalty try - I did not hear what the penalty was for.
Trying to be objective I thought the ref had a bit of a shocker but he too was on a WC final.
However a cracking tournament bring on 2011!
Originally posted by Mat KelleyI as a player believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the defensive team ,the law states that it goes with the attacking team.
Well done South Africa.
The try/not try as far as I am concerned it was so close to call that any doubt has to go to the defensive side - I have always believed this and think that under such reasoning the correct decision was made.
I am slightly interested in why it was brought back for a penalty but not a penalty try - I did not hear what the pena ...[text shortened]... bit of a shocker but he too was on a WC final.
However a cracking tournament bring on 2011!
Thats why the try should of been awarded.
The try was very, very close to call, and no matter what the decision, there will always be a lot of people who disagree. And I must say, it could easily be deemed correct either way. The contact with the sideline lasted mere split seconds, if it did connect.
The ref did well, he picked up on most things throughout the match, and didn't let either forward pack play too dirty. Every ref misses a few things, that will always happen when you're one man trying to evaluate 30 people at a time, but he didn't miss much.
Originally posted by PalynkaI thought it was good that there seemed to be a very mature attitude about the try that never was, if it had been football (soccer to our american friends) not rugby, I imagine that the players would have been whinging on and on about it.
As a neutral, I think it was a try, too.
Nevertheless, even with the slow-motion it isn't clear, so the refs certainly get the benefit of the doubt. SA were deserved winners, anyway.
I think it would have provided us with a better game if the try had been given (obvioulay that is no reason to give it, just an observation) and as a non nuetral obvioulsy I would have appreciated that it would have given us a chance of winning the game.
But if world cups were easy to come by they would not be regarded as highly as they are, so well done SA, and also to England who made it to the final which in itself was an achievement.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt was a very tough call for the referee and touch judge and they rightly "went upstairs". However, there's no doubting from one of the angles that it was not a try. Cueto's toes of the left foot are seen to skim (albeit lightly) the whitewash before he touches down. A close call, but correct.
As a neutral, I think it was a try, too.
Nevertheless, even with the slow-motion it isn't clear, so the refs certainly get the benefit of the doubt. SA were deserved winners, anyway.
http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard01bb7.jpg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_ctqnGT5HQ0
Unless of course you work for The Daily Mail, in which case you can publish a photo from another angle (milli-seconds afterwards) showing the grounding with feet in the air and claim "we wuz robbed"!
England played fairly well, RSA looked nervy (they barely ever threw the ball wide) but overall the result and scoreline were an accurate reflection of the game.
The real difference between the teams, in my opinion, was the lineout. South Africa completely dominated it.
In terms of the try (and that photo is interesting, but not entirely convincing), I'm just glad it didn't end up with a four point gap. So I don't have to be bothered by it!
Originally posted by mtthwThe forwards really dominated the game, even made a scrum turnover. In the loose phases, the English couldn't really slow the ball down in good ol' English rugby fashion, because the forwards got to the breakdowns pretty quick and in numbers.
The real difference between the teams, in my opinion, was the lineout. South Africa completely dominated it.
What I like about this current bok side is, they seem so confident and well balanced. They see and plan beforehand what they need to do to win and then go out and do it.
This final, case in point: The boks knew they had to put Wilkinson under pressure; nullify the English scrum; disrupt their lineout; get to the breakdowns in numbers and go in hard; blunt the pick and drive;
The English stuck to the script and the boks won pretty comfortably, never having to really engage top gear.
The whole tournament has been like that. The boks weren't always in total control, but the only team who gave us any real worry was Tonga 😕
This must have been the easiest road ever to the Webb Ellis trophy ever.
The boks weren't always in total control, but the only team who gave us any real worry was Tonga 😕Though SA deserved to win the cup you won't be allowed to forget how easy the road was.. England were tired and still held out SA. There is no doubt that it was one of the most boring scrappy games of the tournament.
This must have been the easiest road ever to the Webb Ellis trophy ever.[/b]
The Argentina v France third place game was much more fun.
The refs did well through both the games this weekend, that's a first in this cup (tip of a toe was tip of a toe.. hard luck and I so wanted it to be a try).
It's a shame but the 2007 cup will go down in history as the one dominated by poor rule changes and poor refereeing.
Best game of the weekend: Auckland beating Wellington in the National Provincial Championship in NZ great emotion and spirit.. see you here in 2011.
Originally posted by Tirau DanSure, it was an 'easy road', but why would you keep on reminding us about it?
Though SA deserved to win the cup you won't be allowed to forget how easy the road was.. England were tired and still held out SA. There is no doubt that it was one of the most boring scrappy games of the tournament.
The Argentina v France third place game was much more fun.
The refs did well through both the games this weekend, that's a first in this n the National Provincial Championship in NZ great emotion and spirit.. see you here in 2011.
One of the best current international teams got to the final and won the cup. Hell, I wasn't even really surprised when the final whistle blew. In '95 I cried and jumped around, falling over drunk a few hours later. This year I just nodded my head and popped the champagne...
New Zealand should probably have been there, on pre-WC form. Before the WC started everybody I know believed it would be a SA NZ final, but in the World Cup you have to win all your games to get the cup in your hands. The all blacks couldn't do it, neither could the other favourites.
England held the boks? Not a chance. The boks dominated and looked like scoring a few times - the English only once.
The France v Argentina game had more tries and I was happy that Argentina did well in this competition, but there were far too many off the ball incidents and niggle to the game to be a good advertisement for the world cup...
I'm totally with you on the poor refereeing - the boks got their fair share in this tournament...
Originally posted by CrowleyI'm not sure the rest of the game was as clear cut as you say. My point about the lineout - SA won 7+ against the head and didn't lose any. Swap round those figures without changing anything else and see what happens. SA kicked far more than England did (and did it much better as well). Reverse the lineout and they wouldn't have been able to play the way they did.
The forwards really dominated the game, even made a scrum turnover. In the loose phases, the English couldn't really slow the ball down in good ol' English rugby fashion, because the forwards got to the breakdowns pretty quick and in numbers.
Deserved winners, though, I'm not disputing that. SA responded when put under pressure (e.g. v Fiji). Australia and NZ didn't.