nexus_ Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 No, it wasn't a try at all, but it was close. If your foot is on the line before grounding the ball, then you're in touch, and it's not a try. I have to be honest but none of the angles I saw indicated that his boot, foot, knee or any other part of him was in touch - I do know the laws - but from what I saw there was no reason not to give the try. The only excuse an SA fan came up with was that he didn't ground the ball properly - which was also not true, he said try. But at the end of the day, we didn't win and didn't really look like we deserved to as SA were the best team. SA didn't lose all tournament, so it would be fair to say they deserved it. I think the England lads did us proud though by playing so professionally to get much further than people thought they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Mod note: Several threads merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderPete Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Well I am not gonna harp on about "if it was a try or not", basically we didnt play well enough to win, the line-outs were not good, we didnt look like scoring a try, and they did. But a much closer score game than the last one, and I for one am proud we did so well. No one gave us a hope,after a drubbing by South Africa and not a impressive display against USA. Then we beat Australia and France, so cannot complain from a team at the start of the competition had no chance of winning. They gave their heart and soul to the games played, we dont seem to see that from the England footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftlad Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 This ism the one rule of rugby thats hard to justify. You can put a ball down on the try line and its a foul, whereas you only have to put part of your foot on the touchline and it is cclassed out of play. can somebody explained this bizaare thing. In football on the touchline the ball is out of play if the whole of the ball is over the line, not a players boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 It was a perfectly good decision under the Laws. The fact that £££££££££££££££ has decided that we have to have RugbyBot to take the place of touch judges, and indeed the referee, seems to be missed. Given the interminable wait for the decision I thought it was the best argument yet for not having video replays available to football referee's. Assistive technology to tell when the ball has crossed the goal - line maybe - but endless replays of "was it a penalty" from every angle no thanks (especially as you'd have to wait for the ball to be dead anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 This ism the one rule of rugby thats hard to justify. You can put a ball down on the try line and its a foul, whereas you only have to put part of your foot on the touchline and it is cclassed out of play. can somebody explained this bizaare thing. In football on the touchline the ball is out of play if the whole of the ball is over the line, not a players boot It isn't really - they are consistent within their own sport - ie the touchline is out of play. Same as in cricket if a fielder catches a ball that hasn't crossed the boundary but he has a foot on the boundary rope then it's a six. Just because football uses one set of rules to define the limits of it's playing area, why is it bizzare if other sports are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftlad Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 It isn't really - they are consistent within their own sport - ie the touchline is out of play. Same as in cricket if a fielder catches a ball that hasn't crossed the boundary but he has a foot on the boundary rope then it's a six. Just because football uses one set of rules to define the limits of it's playing area, why is it bizzare if other sports are different. Like I said, you can put the ball on the line and be given a try but if you foot is on the line on the touchline its out of play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Like I said, you can put the ball on the line and be given a try but if you foot is on the line on the touchline its out of play And like I said they're being consistent in their own sport. In both cases the boundary has been crossed. In a game where people carry the ball it is so much simpler as a rule to judge where their feet/bodies are in relation to the boundary than the ball. If the player is "in touch" so is the ball they are holding. Same in the case of the cricket catch I mentioned in the erlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I have to be honest but none of the angles I saw indicated that his boot, foot, knee or any other part of him was in touch - I do know the laws - but from what I saw there was no reason not to give the try. The only excuse an SA fan came up with was that he didn't ground the ball properly - which was also not true, he said try. But at the end of the day, we didn't win and didn't really look like we deserved to as SA were the best team. SA didn't lose all tournament, so it would be fair to say they deserved it. I think the England lads did us proud though by playing so professionally to get much further than people thought they could. Sorry if it sounded like I was having a go, it's just that I'd become sick of trying to explain it! The best angle to see it was from Cueto's back. It was the most marginal of marginal decisions, but it was right, and I do think it was the right result. England performed remarkably well to get as far as they did given the start they had. There was certainly no disgrace in that result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Given the interminable wait for the decision I thought it was the best argument yet for not having video replays available to football referee's. Assistive technology to tell when the ball has crossed the goal - line maybe - but endless replays of "was it a penalty" from every angle no thanks (especially as you'd have to wait for the ball to be dead anyway). Quite right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.