Wales claim the Triple Crown with nail biting win over England

Personally I don't think it was a try. However, even if Strettle and the rest of England do, it couldn't have been awarded based on what the question was. Walsh asked 'try or no try' which means that the TMO has to find a clear shot of the try being scored. Despite what many people will say, there was no clear shot of the ball being grounded. There were a few which looked like it could have been but none that gave a clear shot for a try therefore, as the TMO says, it was inconclusive.

However, I would also like to add that England played much much better than they have this championship and a draw would have been a fair result. England supporters should not be too upset by that loss as it is a learning curve for the team and also, given a few more months, England could do some real damage.

That being said, Cymru am Byth, very happy with the triple crown!!!

English and pretty much agree with Ruggernut's comment. Great game, right down to the wire, few (any?) handling errors. Both teams have great potential just at a time when we need some excitement from our teams in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm also comfortable Strettle and all England players are annoyed. Why the hell wouldn't you be after such a close game?

NOT a try at end, no downward pressure on the ball, and Walsh asked Try/No try, and the TMO couldn't find conclusive evidence that he could award the try. England really played well yesterday. Farell definitely one for the future. Priestland had a pretty bad game. But Wales did show what great teams need, the ability to win tough games when not playing at their best.

Law 22 In-Goal
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

NO DOWNWARD PRESSURE IS REQUIRED

In other words, if the ball touched the ground while it was still in his hand then it was a try.

yes but the ball didnt touch the ground over the line?

Well, that's another question; I was replying to jonesey.

sorry Ruggernut, was writing my post while you posted.

Don't worry about it. We are making the same points.

Strettle saved fodens life with that tap tackle on north.

Haha, yeh, hoping against italy the game will become more open, which is where north excels in the loose

Not a try to me in the end either.
I predicted a Welsh close victory but expected the game to go much more for Wales.
England played much much better than in the previous games, France and Ireland should both expect very tough games against them later.
I think France will have to be very well organised to beat Wales and stop them from winning the grand slam.

I think France are more organised than Wales, particularly at the ruck. Wales ruck against Eng seemed suspect - too many players committed to win the ball. France, so far, have a very disciplined ruck, winning turnover ball then flooding the through to gap.

In my view, France are more likely to lose the game than Wales win it. And I doubt they'll start as tentatively as England.

Allez Les Bleus (though I'm Belgian).

TanTun

Alll round enjoyable game to watch. England played far better yesterday than they did in their previous two matches. Wales did well to claw it back and it's just unfortunate that no downward pressure was made on England's final attempt and an equalizer. It's just one of those things really, but both teams performed well.

Why was Priestland yellow carded?

Offisde at the ruck, and a couple of wales players had been warned and threatened with the bin

both was tackled, placed the ball at the back of the ruck (there was english player jackling and competing against scott williams) and then pulled the ball back into the ruck. he then popped the ball up to corbisierio who was tackled by rhys priestland who was offside. however as botha was playing the ball from the floor (he didn't simply pop the ball from the tackle, he placed then regathered the ball) he should have been penalised for having hands in the ruck. to be fair though this happened so fast and I didn't really notice at the time, it's only when you watch it again that you will notice. great game though! and no try at the end!

the card was for offside (can't think of any other reason and he was offside). If the ref considered it deliberate then I guess it is justified (try scoring opportunity, intentional infringement).

the angle from behind the posts clearly shows strettle grounding the ball, while the other angles also show that his hand and the ball were over the line in the same movement. where does the uncertainty come from then? How is that not conclusive?

Please watch the footage again if you really think that the TMO was right with this in mind. Also, 'downward pressure' is not needed for the try to be awarded.

I think the reason is that the angle from behind the post does not quite show it well enough. By that I mean that you cannot quite see if it is down and whether or not it's before the line. You have to also look at it from the TMO's point of view. If he is not 100% certain then he can't give it.

But you can see that it is down! Look at 6:54, the ball is down and north's hands are never in a position to get in the way.

You can see better on this video >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cql3t/Scrum_V_2011_2012_Six_Nations_Special/

around 18:40

the crucial image is at around 6:54 in the highlights video. The ball is down on the ground without any doubt, but the angle does not let the viewer judge depth accurately enough. Using the other angles, it is 100% certain that the ball was over the line in that movement.

I have to say that I thought it was a try, but even if it wasn't, what happened to England's advantage? They were given advantage for Wales collapsing a maul 3m from the line about 15 seconds earlier. Surely the referee didn't count not scoring after 15 seconds and gaining 3m of ground as sufficient advantage?

Welsh did drop his arm before the final play, which would indicate he saw it as advantage over. So it would seem as though he did.

ben kay wrote in an interesting piece (i think it's in the guardian), the advantage was over as strettle had crossed the line. I think you should have had a penalty from north slapping the ball into touch, but you would have more than likely kicked for a lineout so no real issue there?

I've seen the 'slap out' given as a penalty try. I think it should have been when considering the attacking player was also contesting for the ball and it was on the try line. How could 2 international standard referees in close proximity miss that?

no try but why was the TMO welsh? Or has he acquired a very thick welsh accent? hardly going to be impartial IMO

Scottish.

I thought it was a try at first but the more times I saw it the less convinced I was.

I was really disappointed with the way Wales played for most of yesterday but the more I think about it the more positive I feel. Much of the match was a slap in the face for Wales due to it being their worst performance by far this season and the kids in the team really showed their inexperience.

Now when I think about it a good slap in the face was probably the best thing that could happen to Wales at the moment.

I think Gatland made the right decision in leaving Priestland on as although his lack of experience really showed yesterday he'll really benefit from being under that sort of pressure.

I'm not sure him being removed would have done his confidence any good either.

Although all the talk is about the lack of experience in the English it seems that some are forgetting that the age and lack of experience that quite a few of the Welsh kids almost have.

I was really impressed with how we handled being a man down for 10 minutes, complete control and professionalism from start to finish. Unlikely the same control would have been shown 12 months ago.

Great try from Scott Williams, I was furious when he kicked it as I thought it was a mistake. Having said that, Gatland should be absolutely furious with him for wasting the earlier attempt.

The same with North's early run, he had open cover on his right although as a player it's difficult to judge a slap tackle as the first thing you know about it is usually when you hit the ground.

Again, that's something both will learn as they play more.

We still managed to crawl to a win with two missed tries but we just can't afford to do the same against good teams.

Still, I am quite happy with the match now as I think this is the match we can learn most from even though both Ireland and Scotland played much better rugby that England did Yesterday.

Firstly, as is customary, I better introduce myself as someone who is NOT an England fan... In fact I was rooting for Wales.. although truth be told I was after a good game of rugby... (now thats out the way!)

(now thats out the way!) It was a try in my opinion... why?

Well look at 6:54 we can't see WHERE in terms of over the line the ball was placed, HOWEVER it WAS placed on the ground, and you can also see the ball was down before the welsh number 11 slid in.... right... so continue the video and then pause once again at 7:06 what we see from this angle is strettle has YET to ground the ball however the ball is heading down towards the in goal area and the 11 had NOT yet made contact...

My only doubt is whether the ball was well and truly grounded at 6:54... or was it millimetres from the ground?!?...

I also am unsure if TMOs can use a bit of thought like I did and say well the ball was down there, now lets find it from a different angle?

Again though, its down to how the referee asked the question....

Pretzel, once again showing yourself up, except this time it's not through your lack of knowledge but in contradicting yourself. You say that it was a try in your opinion, but go on to say that you actually doubt whether the ball was well and truly grounded. That doubt is exactly why the TMO couldn't give the try.

Why is that showing myself up... lots of people are saying "it isn't a try" because they cannot see if the ball is well and truly grounded.... its the same thing just on the flipside...

I made that point whilst watching the video, and hence I could not be well and truly sure. But can you honestly say that on the angle in question the ball looks as if it is NOT on the ground? regardless of the position on the field...

Maybe you should read comments with a little less personal anguish and a little more subjectivity... where is your great opinion on the matter:

"TMO said ball inconclusive... *reads rule book* must obey TMO... cannot provide neutral doubt on the matter"

"My only doubt is whether the ball was well and truly grounded at 6:54... or was it millimetres from the ground?!?... " - I think this is why the try was not given.

"lots of people are saying "it isn't a try" because they cannot see if the ball is well and truly grounded.... its the same thing just on the flipside..." - so the flipside would be 'it is a try because the ball is seeing grounded'. But didn't you just say it could've been millimetres from the ground!?

TMO said 'inconclusive' and you just proved him right.

But do you not understand I am not trying to say whether the TMO made the wrong called with the evidence he was presented with...

The fact is, he did not say the try was NOT scored, he said it was inconclusive and therefore did not AWARD the try, that theoretically means he is saying:

"the try could very well have been scored, however with the evidence in front of me, I cannot see exactly where it was scored (or IF it was scored) therefore I am ruling it INCONCLUSIVE so you cannot award the try."

If the TMO could see clearly that Strettle had been held up he would say "held up" if he had lost the ball forward TMO would have said "lost forward."

This is starting to get on my nerves, is it so hard for people to grasp what I am getting at?!?!?! It doesn't exactly do much for the "brains of a neolithic man" image that rugby often possess if you people cannot get this!

The game is done and dusted, now lets sit back and give our opinions on whether we think it was really scored or not!!!

I am saying I believe it was scored... and others are saying they believe it was HELD UP!!! Whatever the opinion, the outcome is the same and referee and TMO made the right call...

"It was a try in my opinion... why?"

"My only doubt is whether the ball was well and truly grounded at 6:54... or was it millimetres from the ground?!?..."
Above I have quote two things that you stated in a single post. Brecor has pointed this out too. You have contradicted yourself by saying that it was a try, thus it was grounded, but then also doubting whether it was grounded at all. You can't have it both ways.

"Whatever the opinion, the outcome is the same and referee and TMO made the right call..." Your finally statement, if you actually believe that they made the right decision then you wouldn't be claiming it was a true. As we always ask of referees, a bit of consistency please Pretzel.

Also, it is the actions of a weak man who has no conviction in their thoughts of opinons to start attacking and insulting other people. Once more, just showing yourself up.

As for tip tackles, I shall answer you further down on a topic where you seem to much more reasonable...

I suppose I am frustrated because I cannot see what is so difficult to grasp....

Do you not all think for yourself?

I made a statement which could be misconstrued as contradicting, but the fact is that is not how it was meant to be read...

On a side note, when a big pile of bodies goes over the line and the ball is completely covered, after the referee blows the whistle for time off people are still working their hands under the ball... now the there is no way of truly knowing whether it was scored or not, therefore it is given as "no try"... my point is simply to say "I wonder if that try was ACTUALLY scored" regardless of the outcome...

That is what I am trying to say, I truly do feel that try was scored, however I do 100% back the referee and the TMO because the evidence was inconclusive. I feel the try was scored because of the reasons I gave HOWEVER my doubt is whether at that particular angle the ball was grounded.... it is a personal opinion, it is not as if I wish the people to lose jobs, the game to be rescheduled, or anything, I am just saying that if in the future through some great historical program and fantastic technology they managed to look over that try, I would place my bets that it was scored...

You take quotes out of context, I believe they made the right call due to the uncertainty...

You think I am resorting to insults?!?!? I feel like I am feeding a troll here, I actually am not sure whether you are clearly taking the piss because the concept is so simple I can't believe anyone could not understand...

I suppose I am frustrated because I cannot see what is so difficult to grasp....

Do you not all think for yourself?

I made a statement which could be misconstrued as contradicting, but the fact is that is not how it was meant to be read...

On a side note, when a big pile of bodies goes over the line and the ball is completely covered, after the referee blows the whistle for time off people are still working their hands under the ball... now the there is no way of truly knowing whether it was scored or not, therefore it is given as "no try"... my point is simply to say "I wonder if that try was ACTUALLY scored" regardless of the outcome...

That is what I am trying to say, I truly do feel that try was scored, however I do 100% back the referee and the TMO because the evidence was inconclusive. I feel the try was scored because of the reasons I gave HOWEVER my doubt is whether at that particular angle the ball was grounded.... it is a personal opinion, it is not as if I wish the people to lose jobs, the game to be rescheduled, or anything, I am just saying that if in the future through some great historical program and fantastic technology they managed to look over that try, I would place my bets that it was scored...

You take quotes out of context, I believe they made the right call due to the uncertainty...

You think I am resorting to insults?!?!? I feel like I am feeding a troll here, I actually am not sure whether you are clearly taking the piss because the concept is so simple I can't believe anyone could not understand...

Pretzel, it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you, as you have just proven with your post further down on 'tip tackling' by answering in an inflammatory manner to a simple query and continuing to use insults rather than respond in a normal adult manner.

You claim that the concept you are getting at is simple yet two people (myself and Brecor) have independently pointed out your contradictions yet you are unwilling to accept them, claiming instead that quotes from things that you yourself said have been taken out of context.

Try going back and reading your posts with a little objectivity.

You are impossible actually,...

You appear to feel that I am out to say the TMO was incorrect for his decision which in turn leads to a lack of depth in my eyes... You cannot seem to grasp that there are many different angles to a situation which you clearly feel is black and white.

Perhaps if I restart:

My opinion is that the referee and TMO made the correct decision based upon the evidence that was presented... Game over, Wales win, done and dusted.

The other part of my opinion is that using some subjective rationale it is my impression that Strettle DID ground the ball over the try line. My reasoning for this is the 6:54 camera angle, combined with the 7:06 camera angle. I am well aware that this is a combination of angles and therefore requires a portion of assumption which itself is not enough for a TMO to accept that the try was scored, however I am not referring to correct or incorrect ruling as I have said time and time again.

So, using those angles it is my opinion that Strettle successfully grounded the ball.

The only question that remains is that whether I myself, if playing the part of TMO would have awarded this try, I would follow this up by the answer NO, because there is no ONE single camera shot which shows the ball being grounded OVER the line, therefore I would rule USING the evidence given to me, and no doubt the guidelines set out for TMO's (which perhaps do not allow assumptions!) it as inconclusive. Hence I do not feel like the referee or TMO made a bad decision.

If you are struggling to accept that it is my opinion he scored through a process of using camera angles and some assumption, yet feel that because the TMO's ruling cannot be down to assumption he made the right choice, then do no bother replying to me because honestly any hostility shown towards you is extremely just as you yourself do not possess the ability to rationalise and have a conversation with someone whose native tongue is not English!

Brero gets it

Now, Pretzel, why didn't you word it like that in the first place? If you had then there wouldn't have been such a misunderstanding. Now you mention that English isn't your mother tongue I can see why you have been unable to correctly express your opinion so far and have needed to go around the houses to encounter the proper manner to clearly say what you meant. Keep studying (both English, and rugby laws and procedures) and you might get to grips with one of them fully in the future.

Why don't you work on becoming less of a patronising person, that way you may gain more respect and become a more successful referee and be able to put your inability to understand others to better use within the IRB.

Now now Pretzel, no need to get touchy over the matter. I was merely suggesting that you continue to work hard to further improve yourself, as everyone should I feel. If you want to take what I said in a negative fashion then that's your problem, not mine.

I have at no point been patronising towards you, nor have I at any point resorted to anything other than my knowledge of rugby and the laws, coupled with my experience of having played rugby throughout school and university.

I have no need to gain respect from someone who feels the need to use insults in their arguments as you have. I have never in my life had an argument over rugby incidents in which people have become so weak in their convictions that insulting is a reasonable course of action in their opinion.

Respect is something that I look for from my peers, other people of sound knowledge and who can hold a good argument, can express their ideas clearly and also can admit when they are wrong or apologise for not having clearly stated what they meant. You, dear sir, fall into none of these categories.

However, I hold none of this against you and wish you good luck for the future. Perhaps, in time, we will be able to hold a reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, due to the reasons I have already stated, at the moment I feel that is not possible.

I suggest you try and read through numerous other discussions I have had because I assure you that this is one of the only times I have come across someone who is entirely under the impression that he is correct and not willing to see things from another persons point of view.

I have said the same thing over and over and over again, yet you have still not acknowledged what I said with either a for or against answer after you admitted you did not understand. So perhaps it is you who should be apologising for assuming you are right about a matter which you clearly did not understand.

I can say sorry for not making it more clear however I believe you are one at fault for simply jumping to conclusions rather than asking for an explanation.

You accuse me of being insulting? Saying the word "fuck" (I am not sure whether I did) is no more insulting than saying "you sir have a distinct inability to communicate with another human being due to having your head so deeply buried under the ground!"... So in all honesty, I find your attitude an insult. I mentioned "feeding a troll" again, in all honesty the impression you give across is no different from baiting a bear, you irritate and provoke leading a person to assume that you are replying only to annoy.

As for being patronising, how many other languages do you speak? Do you feel "you might get to grips with one of them fully in the future" ?

I do not wish to have any conversations with a person such as yourself, I have found many more friendly rugby fans who wish to converse with myself on this forum in a friendly manner. I find their manner one which suits both the game of rugby and the comment section of RD, I find your manner the complete opposite.

Please go out of your way to avoid any discussions with me in the future as you clearly can only understand "pure English"

I am not entirely under the impression that I am correct, I don't think that a try was scored, but cannot be 100% certain of this due to no camera angle conclusively showing either a Welsh player's arm under the ball, or Strettle failing to ground the ball. One thing that I can be certain of is that with the resources available it was impossible for the TMO to award a try given the question that Steve Walsh asked.

I accept your now clear opinion that you thought a try was probably scored. I also accept that you have been able to come to the same conclusion as myself when saying that the ref and the TMO got the decison correct by applying the same logic as I did.

This whole debate has arisen from the fact that you were unclear in your original assertions. Whether you agree with this or not is your prerogative, however, I will point to the fact that I am not the only person who has brought this point up. I did not jump to conclusions, I took on face value what you said. You expressed your opinion. If you do not like people disagreeing with what you think then perhaps you shouldn't be on here.

As for your insults...insults are not restricted to swear words such as ´fuck', but a number of things such as your insuation that I am a troll. This shows what I have suggested in saying you don't have a complete grasp of English.

Finally, don't presume to know anything about me or question how many languages I can speak or not. I have nothing to prove, you are the one that brought this up in an attempt to somehow make yourself superior to me. What is your mother tongue by the way?

I apologise for absolutely nothing other than attempting to have a reasoned debate with you, something you have been unable to keep up, instead just trying to turn it into a slinging match. I am not going to be drawn into insulting you and lowering myself to that level.

As I said, good luck for the future.

Asking you about whether you speak any other languages was not for me to gauge where you stand on the intellectual ladder compared to me, for all I care you could be a brain surgeon and I could be a street sweeper, it was merely due to the fact I have been told my level of English is far greater than many especially considering that it is not my native tongue, so for you "the man who does not insult people" to say say that I may perhaps one day fully grasp the English language, is highly insulting.

You apologising for nothing once again shows your inability to view from another persons perspective.

Do you understand the present day meaning of "troll" when it comes to the internet? A troll is someone who looks for a rise out of people by continuing to provoke them, I believe if you read through the above debate you will find me stating the same things over and over, and perhaps summed it all up in my final post which you managed to get to grips with... therefore I'm sure many could agree you appeared to be trying to push buttons...

You conveniently missed out brero, someone who appeared to use the same process of comparing angles to come up with the same outcome as me.

You feel I could not contend with the debate? How was it possible that I managed to explain what I meant after a while, was it that I explained things more clearly?

I get the impression that you are someone that feels if it is not black or white then it is not worth considering.

You say that me saying you may fully grasp the English language is insulting. It shouldn't be considering you have demonstrated throughtout these posts that you do not. Your reasoning for apologising is only the latest indication as to this fact. There's a saying in Spanish which fits perfectly, 'Quien se pica, ajos come'. As you have a natural flair for languages then you should have no problems with that. And yes, I know what a troll is, your point being? You yourself claimed that I am in the wrong for jumping to conclusions but state also that many could agree that I appear to be trying to push buttons, appear being the operative word. I realise that all languages have their nuances and that it is extremely difficult for people to understand these things completely, but do keep trying as if there's one thing that I can compliment you on it's your range of language, although not always clear.

As for your question on how it was possible that you managed to explain what you meant after a while...well, if you reread your post then I think that you will find you have answered your own question.

Some things in this world are black and white, such as the fact that there wasn't conclusive evidence of a try being scored. Nobody has successfully posted a picture or a video showing the ball being grounded over the line. Again, if you reread my last post then you will see that I have agreed with you to certain point on these facts, so before you continue in your interesting attempt to debate this then I urge you to consider things rationally.

I grow extremely worn out with your constant replies, especially when they completely miss the point. I will accept the first two paragraphs, the first one is fair, the second one shows a complete lack of understanding towards the type of question I asked, however I again grow tired and do not wish to pursue that matter.

The final paragraph shows a complete inability to accept what I have been saying the entire time. "such as the fact that there wasn't conclusive evidence of a try being scored." is there a need to put a quote like this in? Have I said anything to the contrary? Have I not spent the entire debate stating that the referee and the TMO performed perfectly given the evidence that is available?

Therefore correct me if I am wrong (as no doubt you will) am I not entitled to my own opinion when the ruling is inconclusive?

If the TMO ruled it was held up, I would not be interested in commenting... However inconclusive (we go again) means he cannot see completely whether it was or was not a try. That therefore means that we can either ignore it, or perhaps for the fun of it try and put in a guess, which is EXACTLY what I did in the first post, I followed up my guess with the only part that would give me any doubt, but again it was a guess, an assumption, an estimate. It was in no way legally binding, in no way contrary to the referees of the day as I already stated it was still NOT clear.

Really you could be arguing with anyone on this page who thinks it was held up, but you choose not to, you choose to continue to argue with someone who is expressing his opinion, and this entire experience has shown your complete lack of respect towards others views. Again you will comment about how "i do not know you" however the impression you give off in the entire experience has been that of a man who shows no tolerance and therefore someone who I would not regard as someone I would like to have further dealings with.

Goodbye

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion and I have I no point said to the contrary. However, having just reread your very first post on the subject to see if I have missed the point here and am making a fool of myself and can only come to the conclusion that I haven't. Tell me where in your very first post you mentioned anything to do with the TMO and ref coming to the correct interpretation of the laws? No? Didn't think that you could. This is where your whole argument falters on that you were clear in what you were getting at.

You constantly say that I miss the point, however, it is you that does so due to lack of understanding of certain nuances in the English language (yes, in your eyes I've insulted you again, as I said before, 'Quien se pica, ajos come'). My point of 'Some things in this world are black and white, such as the fact that there wasn't conclusive evidence of a try being scored.' was pointing out that certain things are black and white in this instance, but initially you washed over this point.

I have complete respect for other people's views if they present them in a reasoned argument. Unfortunately, and I will go back to cite your initial post, your views were contradictory and therefore not well reasoned on the face of it. This is something that not only I have pointed out. You could have easily avoided this whole 'debate' by being clear in initial assertions. It took me to take you to task on what you were saying to clear up your murky statements.

If you would like to have no further dealings with me then you are quite capable of not responding to my posts seeing as my constant responses tire you. You seemingly enjoy responding though considering how consistently you do so.

I understand where you got confused on the first post, however:

My 4th post clears that up and so does my 6th post...

You continued to argue.

It wasn't your 4th and 6th posts, but I'm not going to pedantic about that as yes, you did indeed clear it all up. My continual debating, as that's what it was, never arguing, was mainly due to the fact that you have until this point failed to recognise that there was any way for confusion to arise from your initial statements.

I commend you on finally admitting that you were unclear about what you wanted to say though, which made your statement erroneous and contradictory, so thank you for that.

Well done for admitting your confusion, yes, correct it was my 3rd and 5th, if I counted correctly this time...

So you continued arguing or debating as you called it, for the sheer sake of it? How very noble of you to continue to argue when you had the answers at hand just to make me realise... I hope you feel remarkably accomplished.

I would however recommend that in future when someone does omit some details in their initial post you perhaps question as to why they missed the details and perhaps point out earlier on in a "debate" that their initial post did not cover all aspects of their argument, rather than taking time out your busy life to prove a rather irrelevant point. Especially considering you have done nothing to alter my point of view or my opinion of the matter at hand...

Now, I'm going to say something thay may cause you some distress, and may offend you as you don't seem to like being told the truth, so if you don't wish either of those things to happen to you then don't carry on reading...

You clearly don't have a 100 per cent handle of the English language and need to spend more time immersed in it to get to this level, or go back to English lessons to learn more about the subtleties of the language. If you are currently having classes then it may be a good idea to consider changing teacher.

I say all of this as you clearly don't understand any of what I said in my last post, it was absolutely lost on you.

You do amuse me somewhat though, as if I were to be arguing/debating/talking with someone that tired me, that I felt had no respect for me or went so far as to say that I no longer wished to have dealings with that person then I would stop posting replies to them. You obviously feel you have something to prove, continue proving it if you like as I am yet to see what it is.

Nope I just find it amusing how someone like you has an ego so large they feel they can teach others lessons on an RD comment section :)

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about both the English language and your knowledge of rugby, hence your inability to drop this discussion despite claiming you wanted nothing more to do with me.

Last time I proved you wrong with regards to laws you just went silent, unable to make any kind of response. You would have been far better off taking the same course of action this time as well.

...and he adds to his ego, attempting to feel better about himself :)

I have no need to make myself feel better about myself. I am happy with my life and my knowledge. You, on the other hand, have shown how inadequate you feel you are through how annoyed you have become by comments that we're just that, comments and not insults.

Correct me if I'm wrong but our last debate finished with you feeling to the hills, never to be seen again, as you had absolutely no counterargument to what I had stated as you knew that I was right. It's not a question of making myself feel better but a matter of fact.

I find it highly irregular that while you find the time to respond to my responses you are unable to respond to all my points or question. Could this be that you fail to understand them or just that you have no way of responding in a rational manner?

Which last debate was that?

And which points in question?

I am no longer annoyed :) I have a smile every time I realise how much you care about this. It means so much to you to "get the last word in". So for me to continually keep replying obviously irritates you.

You were the one who kept claiming that they no longer wanted anything to do with me. I have at no point said that I was going to stop responding. So, logically, it is you that obviously feels the need to get the last word in otherwise you would have stopped when you claimed you were going to. It doesn't irritate me in the slightest, I have all the time in the world.

As for the last debate, it involved tackle laws and what constitutes a tackle according to the laws, something which you didn't have the foggiest about and ended up disappearing having been proven wrong. I'm sure that you will claim that you didn't disappear and that you were taking the higher road or some cock and bull story. You are just making yourself look silly here Pretzel.

I actually tend not to venture back onto the second or third pages etc in order to continue talking with someone...

As stated, you are out to prove a point. There is something in your life which requires you to "get 1 up" or at least attempt to. Hence why you have to bring up a last debate and mention that I left with a cock and bull story etc... Instead of saying something like "you just didn't reply." I see through you and the type of person you are. You try to word things so that whatever the answer, you still win. I take it you haven't checked that last "debate" in a while...

We differ greatly in the sense that you have "all the time in the world" whereas I do not often have the time to come on here every day and reply... Perhaps if you used your time a little more wisely and constructively you might be more secure.

I beg to see how I make myself look silly when I am simply replying to you?

Anyway, I have no doubt you will reply to this once more with a hidden insult.

Keep chipping away, maybe one day you will grasp that last bit of "stuff" to back up that false ego :)

I actually tend not to venture back onto the second or third pages etc in order to continue talking with someone...

As stated, you are out to prove a point. There is something in your life which requires you to "get 1 up" or at least attempt to. Hence why you have to bring up a last debate and mention that I left with a cock and bull story etc... Instead of saying something like "you just didn't reply." I see through you and the type of person you are. You try to word things so that whatever the answer, you still win. I take it you haven't checked that last "debate" in a while...

We differ greatly in the sense that you have "all the time in the world" whereas I do not often have the time to come on here every day and reply... Perhaps if you used your time a little more wisely and constructively you might be more secure.

I beg to see how I make myself look silly when I am simply replying to you?

Anyway, I have no doubt you will reply to this once more with a hidden insult.

Keep chipping away, maybe one day you will grasp that last bit of "stuff" to back up that false ego :)

Once more you insist on replying despite, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, claiming that you didn't want to. Anyone with a small amount of intelligence would tell you what that means.

You see through me and the type of person that I am? That's mightily impressive by a few words on a computer screen I must admit.

I have no need to get one up on people, and my reference to our last coming together was not an attempt to do so. It was instead to show you, although you evidently don't want to see it, how off the mark you are when it comes to rugby matter considering you have no idea how the laws work. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but did you not need to look up the laws on tackling in terms of when a tackle became dangerous?

Carry on replying, I am at this point highly amused by the way you try in vain to show that you know what type of person I am. I will refer you back to something, remind me who it was that felt the need to try and start some form of slanging match? Would you not agree that an intelligent debate has no room for this type of behaviour?

I like your last sentence "Would you not agree that an intelligent debate has no room for this type of behaviour?"

"this" being the word... You are clearly attempting to get one up..

As for my interpretations of a "dangerous tackle" with reference to the law, they definitions change so much it is hard to know if it will be the same this time next year, so forgive me if I am not 100% up to scratch. I can't say I have a habit of sitting down and reading through the laws each time a new one is created, or an existing one is amended. I suppose with your "ample time" and the fact you attend referee meetings this is probably something you do often.

Perhaps I should rephrase, "the persona you adopt when sitting in front of your computer screen whilst entering the world wide web and looking up rugby dump, then proceeding to continue to answer me, is that of someone who is trying to score points to assist his ego"

I notice you post very little when it comes to your own feelings on the RD videos, you only appear to try to correct what you perceive as incorrect on RD comments, this again adds to the suspicions you are after some sort of "I win" achievement.

Anyway, I do not wish to venture back to this page, if you wish to continue to attempt to prove me wrong, then I am sure you will find something to boost your ego about in the recent videos. In fact I left a comment regarding the purpose of Citing commissioners in the "A look at the first ever White Card in Super Rugby" video, so I look forward to you attempting to pick faults with that as I am sure you will.

So really I would appreciate it if you would continue your gripes on there because I do not really have the need to venture back here, it will therefore leave your latest comment unread.

:)

You honestly need to go back to English lessons or spend more time studying the English language if you think that the this you have highlighted from my previous post is an attempt at getting one up. And me saying that is not insulting nor an attempt to get one up but a fact as you clearly don't understand what I said.

With reference to your dangerous tackle claim that the laws change all the time, they don't. What does change relatively often is the wording of the laws in order to clarify certain things. You have never been allowed to pick someone up and drop them on their head, that has always been considered dangerous play.

I do not need to win all the time as you continually claim, however, it does amuse me when someone such as yourself tries to show how much knowledge they have only to be so way off the mark. I therefore felt you needed to be educated.

Once more you want to continue our debate, not that it can be as only one side of the discussion is informed, despite previously claiming you didn't. This suggests to me and anyone that were to read this that it is you who needs to get the 'win' to boost their ego, not me. Again, not an attempt at getting one up, but a fact as you haven't got a clue what you are talking about half the time.

Oh and p.s I am not trying to condemn or ask for the TMO to be hanged, referees word is final and I have no arguments with that (generally), however post game analysis is always interesting and therefore I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to comment on whether or not they felt it was a try...

There is doubt as to whether the ball was grounded over the line, therefore a try cannot be awarded. Just because it looks in one angle that it has been grounded, yet because of a lack of perspective it is unsure as to whether this is before or over the line, but then in other we can see the Strettle is over, you cannot award the try. This is mere speculation. Due to the way Walsh (who I thought had an awful game, both ways) asked the question the TMO just could not award the try.

I'm guessing your "read rule book" quote is a dig at our last tete a tete. It would be very impressive if I were to read a rule book on rugby, or if anyone were for that matter. I'll leave you to ponder on that.

I mentioned you showing yourself up as you said that a try should be awarded, yet then went on to state that there was enough doubt in your mind as to whether the ball had actually been grounded. You can't say both, either you think the ball was grounded over the line, therefore it was a try, or you doubt that it was and therefore it wasn't a try. Make your mind up.

Oh I apologise, read the "laws"...

You seem to truly misunderstand the game.

Can we postpone this for a short while whilst I ask you what your feelings are on tip tackles and their rulings?

Sorry I can't leave this alone actually... You seem incapable of understanding that I am not here to say "england should have won" or "this should have happened" etc... the game is over, as far as I am concerned it was a pretty good game and Wales won... end of story...

I am however looking at the video evidence presented and commenting on whether or not I (i.e. my personal individual opinion) feel that Strettle had actually grounded the ball, and thus giving my reasons for my outcome... I am not saying "TMO WAS WRONG AND THIS IS WHY!" I am merely stating that IF guess work was involved i.e SPECULATING! then I would speculate BASED on the videos shown that Strettle grounded the ball in the behind the posts clip, and it would appear that he grounds the ball over the line based on the side angle....

Now please attempt to compute that in your brain, as I am sure it is not the most difficult concept to grasp...

Heck I remember a Johnny Wilkinson try against Scotland years ago where his toe grazed the touchline as he scored and the TMO gave it as a try... Now whatever the reasons for him giving it were ("did he ground the ball" perhaps the referee asked, or words to that effect) I am not disputing, but I was amongst others who pointed out that the try was in fact NOT a try because his toe was in touch....

Geez

I can't see any coherent argument in this post. It is clearly grounded from the angle behind the posts. And we also know that Strettle's arm and the ball were over the line in that same movement using both other angles available to the TMO. So where does the uncertainty over the decision come from? Where on the pitch do you think Strettle might have grounded the ball in that movement?

Alex Corbisiero is a very lucky man. When Priestland tackled him to get yellow carded he was dropping the ball and for me it did not look like it was a penelty in the first place.

Two issues if you watch the replay you will see that the referee gave England an advantage in the last play of the game so when England failed to score they should have returned for the penalty not ended the game. Also George North should have been yellow carded for intentionally knocking ball out of play from the cross field as it was a potential try scoring opportunity, and not even a penalty was given....

I agree with you Nic - first reaction was yellow card and possible penalty try - though that would have been a huge call.

Firstly, well done Wales. Your champagne style rugby does not work against well organised defenses and if played properly Roberts, Davis and North can easily be played out of the game. That said you did what England sides have been doing for years. You won ugly! I'm a little confused as to who Calon lan is refering to when he talks about kids and experience. Wales front row 150ish caps, Englands whole team around 180. Didn't 12 out of the starting 15 play in a WC Semi-final?

George North, Alex Cuthbert, Scott Williams, Toby Faletau, Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathon Davies and Sam Warburton are all 23 or under. Perhaps that's who he's talking about when mentioning kids. Not the tiny sample of Jenkins and Adam Jones who you have picked out.

Strettle needs to get a grip in my opinion. Show a little humility in defeat, learn from Lancaster and the way he behaved post match. As for the benefit of the doubt having to go with the attacking side, what a load of rubbish.

Agree. 100% agree with you. I was really disappointed to read Strettle mouthing off like that. Which is a real shame, because he had a really good game and I was so pleased to see him back in an England shirt.

Agree.

As an England fan I would rather they just accepted it wasn't given and move on. The whole 'debate' clouds what really happened and that is that Mike Brown gave the ball a fraction to early, giving the Welsh defence one target in stead of two possibles.

I made no comparison between the English and Welsh players when it comes to experience. If I'd have felt a there was a reason to compare them in that then I would have done that but the only person out of the two of us who has made the comparison is you.

I only posted about the level of experience of some players in the Welsh team and how that may have affected the way they played the game yesterday as I believe that hopefully they would have played some parts differently due to having a more complete understanding of the situation through experience.

A rugby player doesn't become more experienced or older just because their opposition is younger and less experienced.

I mentioned 3 Welsh players, I could of course be wrong and please correct me if I am as I don't really feel the need to check their profiles but from memory this is the experience of the players that I named:
George North - 19 caps / age 19
Rhys Priestland - 13(?) caps / age 25
Scott Williams - 9(?) caps / age 20(?)

Not the youngest players in the world and not the least experienced and in relation to some of the English team some are of course older and do have more experience and I've said nothing claims otherwise.

I would hope that they aren't the same players they will or could be if they're still playing international rugby at the time of the next World Cup as exciting as young players who are willing to take more risks, a team is far better if those risks are taken at the right times.

Even with the more players there was some impressive maturity shown and much of that has been earned due to being allowed to play during the world and this 6 Nations.

There's a long way to go for some of these players and this Welsh team if they're truly wanting to be seen as a world class team and nothing is guaranteed in sport at this level. It's been a slow, progressive learning process for them and I'm sure they understand better than anybody else just how far away from that goal they are.

But you are talking about a sport that involves two teams so I feel the need to compare as a point for one must surely be relevant to the other.

I feel the Welsh are slipping into the old English thought process (for which I believe we are called arrogant) that whenever they are outplayed it is not because they are outplayed but because they themselves played poorly. Don't get me wrong I never believed we had a chance against this well balanced Welsh side but I do honestly believe that England were the better side. If you don't believe my humility please read other posts I have made.

But age is irrelevant when you have the experience of a WC under your belt. Also these lads eat, sleep and breath rugby (lucky bast*rds) so to say that age is a factor when you are doing something 6 days a week and have the benefit of the best coaches in the world is pointless. Because I'm over thirty and played rugby since I was 5 would not make me better in their place (as I'm fat :)

Here are quick links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_national_rugby_union_team#Current_squad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_rugby_union_team#Current_squad

The english thought process???

I thought the english thought process was "shit we won in 2003?!?!? wow, well done guys... ah balls JW is injured...yep, we lost, we don't have JW...yep, we lost, we don't have JW...yep, we lost, we don't have JW...yep, we lost, we don't have JW"

I wasn't aware they held much against the opposition...lets face it, once they lost JW they sort of had a mix mash team going around, so of course their team played badly, but it doesn't mean the opposition didn't play well..

I thought it was an SA way of thinking:

"it's not our best team, 3rd string this, 2nd string that, it wasn't an important match so we didn't care about it....."

Then again that was on the old RD when anyone could post as any name they wished...

(1/2)
I so get the feeling that you believe you have a point to make but I'm confused as to why you have chosen to crowbar it into a post I made and then add to your own bits which I've never said or suggested.

My feeling is that for some reason you're assuming far too much of what I've said which unfortunately appears to be a common issue online for people and that's why I generally don't bother.

Firstly, you're correct in that this match did involve two teams, I did choose not to mention that as I perhaps incorrectly assumed that people who visit here have a general idea of how the sport works even if they don't play it themselves.

Secondly, I felt that the title of the thread covered that information for people who accidentally visited here & read the thread.

In reference to your assumption that the "Welsh are slipping into the old English thought process...etc,etc" Apart from that being a terrible & largely inaccurate generalisation of two admirable rugby nation's supporters you use it in reply to my posts where I've made no indication of that being how I feel.

I actually feel that England played far better rugby for large portions of the match but clearly from the result they didn't do it either for long enough or where it needed to be done.

That doesn't make it a simple black (red?) & white situation of one team being god and the other bad.

Of course the way England played made it difficult for the Welsh team, I would never suggest otherwise. The point I made in my post was that I do believe that somebody more experienced that say Priestland could/would/should have handled things differently as when he was put under pressure he made some fairly hefty tactical mistakes in how he dealt with the ball.

To be honest, you do surprise me when you say that you didn't think England really had a chance before the match. I never go into a match believing that about either of the sides.

I think it's important to go into ALL matches...

(2/2) Can't believe this is a double post...

...truly believing that ANYTHING can happen in those 80 minutes. All teams have their good and bad days irrelevant of which teams they are.

I know people like to but you just can't pre-judge what's going to happen.

I went into this truly believing that I wouldn't be surprised which ever team won it. Of course, odds have tightened for some now as most are 3 matches in.

I don't post on places like this often but I do feel that that you're misjudging me and my posts to be honest. I don't really post here often and it may well be partly my fault but please try and NOT read them as if they're from a Welsh bloke, just see the words without adding extra bits on to them.

Don't assume I'm saying something just because I've not said the exact opposite in my post.

I am sickeningly passionate Welsh supporter but on top of this I'm a equally passionate "rugby" supporter. I love good rugby irrelevant of which team is playing it and I think that sometimes gets lost in people's passion for their own nation team.

Please don't get me wrong, I REALLY HATE WHEN WE LOSE but that doesn't mean that I don't respect our opposition irrelevant of the colour of their shirt.

Anyway...
Im going to shut up now as I'm probably boring the hell out of everyone.

Both the England and Welsh teams, as well as the others in this championship, will hopefully grow as their experience grows as I'd much rather see all in the 6 Nations playing skilful, attractive, passionate and beautiful rugby.

I would say that at the moment there is perhaps a little more of that to see in the Welsh squad because as a unit they've together for about six and they've had a very valuable World Cup to learn from.

But, again, anything can happen and I don't even want to presume who will play and what will happen in our next match let alone the next World Cup.

...I've definitely shut up this time!! :)

OK, last one and I'll keep it short...

From memory those Wikipedia details are quite a bit wide of the mark, just saying. I could be wrong.

In (very short) reference to a player's age, from experience age does make a difference. It's not a simple thing of a certain age being better than another age but with age "should" come maturity (Damn you Andy Powell) which is invaluable in a professional sports.

Of course, there's nothing to say that a 30 year old player is going to more mature and more professional than a 19 year old player. Some will possibly never change even if they've played professional rugby for a decade whereas others appear to grow into a role.

They should still be learning about the game and improving their management of it as they move mature. Some are better than others and some just appear to not to want to learn from their mistakes.

There we go, no more!! I've shut up now.

I’m sorry if I gave the wrong impression in my comments. I thought we were allowed to discuss the topic and that peoples comments were open for debate.

Can I ask how I have crowbared comments about the England vs Wales players into a comments section about the England vs Wales game?

(1/2) Could you also point out where I have made assumptions about what you said? I make my own points whilst relating them to what you, and others on this thread, have already said. (Sorry did you think this was just about you as there are other people on this thread :-) I don’t think at any point I suggested you said anything that you didn’t!

Of course my assumption is a generalisation regarding English and Welsh fans! Would you like me to write down the names of all the players, past and present, pundits, press and friends who have made comments regarding this current Welsh team and its (unproven) ability to be world domineering? They are going to be a serious force in the future but I think they have got to prove themselves before we start comparing them to the Welsh/Lions teams of the past. I can however, speak for several English fans who always say they play badly rather than accepting the fact that we were beaten by the better team.

I presume, like me, you are referring to the colour of the shirts when you make this comment?

“That doesn't make it a simple black (red?) & white situation of one team being god and the other bad.”


“To be honest, you do surprise me when you say that you didn't think England really had a chance before the match. I never go into a match believing that about either of the sides.”


Really, so you don’t make a judgement based on previous performances, current players, statistics and other information used in order to pass an opinion? On paper that well established Welsh side should have made mincemeat of this England side. The experience of Phillips, Roberts and Halfpenny should have made a massive difference. I was ver

(2/2) I was very, very pleased to be proved wrong and the quality and character of the England boys was above and beyond. It was one mistake by Lawes and one by Walsh that cost England the potential victory. It was one covering tackle by North on Farrell that saved the game (what a hit by the way, fantastic tackle!) He showed his experience and read the game well, saw the chip ahead and got himself into position to make the tackle.

Please do not feel that I am judging you as I hope you are not judging me. I simply react to what other type and enjoy the rich field of visitors that come to this site. I am a lover of the banter and would never get personal with attacks on others based on sensible comments like your own I’m just disagreeing with them. I, like you, enjoy watching quality rugby regardless of who it is being played by and am a supporter of the home nations when playing against SH teams.

As for the Andy Powell comment I agree, just look at Tindall in the WC :)

I too will shut up now :)

Age has nothing over experience and caps are far more important is my point. Apart from Cuthbert and Williams were all those players mentioned not part of a WC Semi final side? The whole point of my post is to show that an inexperience side held an established Welsh side to a close game. Sorry that you didn't understand that!

Feel the need to intervene - the laws say you need control, not downward pressure, this downward pressure statement has frankly come out of nowhere and is totally erroneous. But IMO the ball was at no point grounded

True, you only need downward pressure if you're not in control of the ball when you ground it.

Why do you think it wasn't a try? At 6:54 in the video strettle has grounded the ball. Where do you think the ball was at that point? You can clearly see from the other angles that the ball was over the line in that same last movement from strettle! So why no try?

correct decision. wonderful and thrilling match:

Don't think he's mouthing off or showing any lack of humility. Simply giving an opinion.

England fan here.

Great match played at great intensity. I thought I sensed a little over-confidence in the Wesh build up and England's game plan seemed spot on. They fronted up in defence and frustrated Wales in the first half.

The turning point for me was when Priestland was binned. The way Wales bossed the game during that period is indicative of the great side they are becoming - England couldn't get hold of the ball. This was compounded when Dickson and others were taken off and England seemed to lose momentum (Ben Youngs seems to have lost all confidence).

As for the "try or no try" debate, all I'll say is that I'd have been miffed if the shoe was on the other foot and Wales had been awarded a try like that! For Strettle to say that "inconclusive" means the attacking team get the nod is, quite frankly, rubbish!

Positives for England: good performance from a young team in development stage.

Negatives: Youngs looks shaky, Ashton was anonymous.

Wales Positives: can now close a game out and are becoming an awesome team. Backs have genuine flair, as well as players who can knock down a defence.

Negatives: Sam Warburton - you sound arrogant when you say "we didn't play very well". the reason you didn't play well is because England, for the most part, worked out how to stop you. Aside from Williams moment of inspiration (and a lucky bounce) you were matched all over the park.

Good discussion points here, I'm liking it.

Can anyone shed light on whether they think it should have been an England penalty after the try was disallowed? I thought so. It really looked like the referee and TMO had just completely forgotten they were playing an advantage.

Anybody got a copy of their rules book to hand?

George North also should have been in the bin for playing volleyball by the touch line. What a mug.

I thought the exact same thing as I watched the video, but figured I'd missed something as no-one seems to be talking about it. The ref was playing penalty advantage on that final English attack, and I didn't see any evidence that he called advantage over before the "try" was scored. So if it was deemed held up, I think it should have gone back to the penalty regardless whether time was up by then or not. Unless going over the goal line for a potential score is considered a sufficient advantage?

Try was scored after full time, so end of play.

Hmm not sure if it is in the highlights, I haven't yet watched them, however I saw it in the game..

But there was a big tackle at one point where an english player ran straight into a well planted welshman who proceeded to whip his legs out from under him...

I mention it because Eddie Butler cynically mentioned it was reaching the horizontal position... where by Brian Moore said there was nothing wrong with that... did anyone notice that tackle? I didn't see a replay of it, but it would be interesting if the english player went beyond the horizontal because as they both stated there was nothing wrong with the tackle in our opinions but by letter of the law beyond the horizontal is dangerous no?

I am pretty sure you are referring to a tackle by George North(no.11?) it was near the horizontal, but i don't think it was past, and the english player landed squarely in the middle of his back, and got straight back up. Though one thing i am quite confused about is that if a player is dropped from just above the waist it is supposed to be like a straight red, but when sam warburton was dropped from a height at the line-out, it was just a penalty?

As for the George North tackle on Owen Farrell, fair play to Farrell for taking such a big hit. If you pick someone up it is your responsibility to put them back down again safely. At any rate, North didn't pick Farrell up beyond the horizontal, so no problems there.

As for the Warburton line-out incident. That area should be looked at as someone could get seriously injured, but at the moment only penalties are awarded for it. Brian Moore even commented on this in the game.

Interesting point, however does the tackler have to physically pick someone up and tip them passed the horizontal for it to be deemed a "dangerous tackle"? Lets for arguments sake say that Farrell fell on his shoulders/neck... would that be deemed dangerous or just an unfortunate outcome...?

Just a question, how would you tip someone pased the horizontal without physically picking them up?

Well what did we see in that tackle on farrell? His legs went from under him and he landed flat on his back...

Would it be easier if I said he tipped himself?!?!

If so then again, I pose the same question.

I think the tackle was by Jamie Roberts and he kept hold of the England player as he went down. Good hit - no penalty.

I would never ever like to imply I felt that tackle was penalty worthy, to me is was a brilliant tackle. But I have always been interested in things that are deemed penalty worthy by the IRB when the rest of us sit back and wonder how they could view it as dangerous.

It was only when the commentators mentioned it being close to the horizontal which left me thinking if he had gone past the horizontal would that really be grounds for a penalty? You and I, and most people would agree that it was a perfect hard tackle that deserves nothing more than congratulations. But those who write the laws or enforce them?

What do they think?

Fuck I had to miss the game, I had to do some cpr course, I thought he just touched the ball down so they could have given the try, either way it didn't happen and that is the way it goes, good win for wales, they have a 99.9% chance of beating Italy but I could still see them losing to france despite scotland scaring france, keep on keeping on england, we'll be back to the top of northern hemisphere rugby next six nations, I'm calling it right here

England played really well it was a shame the try wasn't awarded. But thats rugby. Out of the battle in the centres Tuilagi and Barritt were incredible only a great tackle by Warburton could stop them. Tuilagi is what England have been missing a player who can get England over the game line to createtry scoring chances.

Finally I don't think Matt Stevens should play for England again, he keeps giving away silly penaltys and that is why Wales drew level with England at one point. Bring someone younger who won't act like a dickhead.

1st sorry by my bad english haha.
well, about if it is try or not try, i think that was not try, when strettle pressure the ball on the ground , wasnt into the line.


offtopic, this yellow card in pristland was stupid, it was only for advertence and penalty..

newly , SORRY BY MY BAD ENGLISH !!!

Don't you think that Streetle will have been able to aim at the post of corner completely?
(a french)

I thought it was a try!

But then again: my opinion is only worth something for statistics since the ref's decision is final.

However......................in case of 'inconclusive' I would have like to see the benefit of the doubt go to the attacking team. After all there was no reason to disallow the try either (except the 'inconclusiveness')

Nevertheless: great, great game. It has been one of the better 6N-weekends of the last few years, INHO.

I would assume that if the question had been asked differently then the benefit of the doubt would have gone to the attacking team...

I think "Try or no try" says that the TMO has to find evidence that the try was scored..

I think "is there any reason why I cannot award the try" sort of says the same thing however I think it means the TMO has to find evidence that the defensive team stopped the try...

Although that is only how I have perceived it.. no doubt I'll be proved wrong..

I was pleased to see England fall by a one try margin. Not because I have anything against England, but because they failed to follow an edict that is dear to my own heart: when you are awarded a penalty within 5 metres of the touchline, TAKE OFF THE DAMN SKIRT AND CARRY THE BALL IN! (No offense to the countless women's sides who would doubtless muck in and make the hard yards for the full 5+2.)

Hell, use a set piece if you have to. If your scrum isn't strong enough, try a lineout. I reckon a scrum to tie up Warburton, Jenkins and (to some extent) Philips, try to force Roberts to commit to an early tackle on one of the new lads, and then make whoever is next defender stop a rampaging Tuilagi on the offload. Just whatever you do, don't retract your bollocks into your abdomen and mince back 25m for the pussy points.

Quality post that. Nice one!

no clear TRY, but against Italy it would have been awarded without the TMO eye

1. Stevens should be dropped for Doran Jones or Marler in my opinion. He seems to give away a lot of penalties at the breakdown (criminal when your team is leading a tight match and you come on to help see the game out) and isn't as dynamic in the loose as he has been in the past. Doran Jones is a solid scrummager who can take advantage of tiring opposition in the set piece, whilst Marler can be a real asset in the loose and is improving in the scrums all the time.

2. Youngs coming on was a mistake - he just isn't making decisions with a clear head at the moment. I don't know if Simpson would be an improvement off the bench, but at least it would take some pressure off Youngs and give him some breathing space back at Leicester. He was trying to do too much when he came on and we should have been keeping things simple as the game wound up.

3. Farrell - Barritt - Tuilagi has to be the first choice midfield partnership going forward, with Flood on the bench. They defended heroically, made good ground in the physical battle and showed good hands and passing when the opportunity presented itself. They can grow as a partnership.

4. Ashton was a disappointment with ball in hand. I know he's a finisher, but he isn't a stepper or a line breaker and I always feel that he looks a bit lost when expected to take players on from deep. I'd like to see Sharples given a chance ahead of him as he isn't making the most of his opportunity at the moment.

I am English so can easily be classed as being biased. But when I look at the replays I can see the ball touching the ground. So I think it was a try.

Anyway was a cracking game and definitely not what I expected. Little Owen Farrel smashing Jamie Roberts must have filled his old man with pride. Wales have got a sickeningly good team. I would put them at number two in the world behind NZ.

Wales the number 2s of the world?

Regrettably, I need a lot more convincing. Lost to Oz and Fra in RWC11. Close against a declining Ireland and developing (i.e. not good) England in this year's 6 nats. True, both away wins though.

Beating France this year would show progress in NH. If then can beat Oz and Saffers in a series perhaps I might start to agree.

C'mon NZ.

WG.

1) Agree. Stevens was rushed back after his ban. He is a decent tighthead but struggles at loose head and now looks badly out of shape - hence the desperate/stupid penalties

2) Simpson off form for Wasps and usually benched and with Wiggy injured and Care seemingly not bothered about his international career, we do not have much depth.

3) Agreed - also JTH can step in for Barritt should form or fitness fade.

4) We're not playing to Ashton's strengths but then he'd better get used to that when he goes to Sarries. Problem is that Sharples has the same strengths so I'm not sure that swap would be the best. If we are to continue in this vein we need a Lewsey/Cueto type winger who will do what is asked of them or a Jason Robinson who revels in broken play. Problem is we are not flush with either at the moment.

Simpon is not off form!. Admitadly it is hard to judge his form when he plays for a club team which is struggling this season, but as an attacking scrum half there are no better! Just take a look at his performance against sale on friday, in which he came of he bench to score TWO tries!!! (he has scored 22 tries from 78 club appearances - which for a scrum half is exceptional)

He would perfectly suit this current england team who are trying to play a more expansive and attacking game. He is the PERFECT impact substition for england.

Hopefully he will be on the bench againt france!

Note. he is one of the fastest passers of the ball, recently seeting the guinness book of records for the fastest throw of a rugby ball.

Just to add, he is only benched currentley as due to him being in the England squad, he does not train with wasps all week, therefore is not up to date with the set pieces and moves. I would now this as i am a very proud wasps supporter, and watch most of te games and check their site regularly.

I am a big fan if Simpson and think that Johnno's big mistake was not giving him a chance at the WC when it was obvious that Young was off form and Wiggy wasn't going to bring in the backs in the way they were used to.

If he was truly on top form then a struggling club like Wasps would not bench him even if his training had been up and down due to the England call up.

Totaly agree that he should have been given a chance for england at the rwc. He is one of the very few srum halfs in the world who can win you a game, without the ball leaving his hand, such is his tempo and pace.

Unfortunaltley for him Dickson's form has hit at the only real oppurtunity where he could have been given a shot (with youngs struggling for form and with wigglesworth out injured). However few would rob dickson of that starting shirt, such was his peformance on saturday.

In saying this I still belive, that Simpson should be given a shot of the bench vs france, as what other options do we have? Despite the affect his absence may have upon wasps.

What I find strangest of all is Strettle's comments after the game. "Benefit of doubt to the attacking team"??? If the grounding is inconclusive it is no try. He is a highly paid professional and yet he clearly hasn't read/doesn't understand the laws of the game. Who looks after checking if the England players have read the law book before they take to the field?

Clearly Strettle is very certain he did score a try. Unfortunately he is the only one, since the evidence is inconclusive. He is entitled to be disappointed by the decision despite being 'a highly paid professional'. On the other hand: no use dwelling on it too much because it will not change a decision that has already been made.

However: if the TMO had given the try, I don't think a lot of people would have complained either. Well, maybe Jonathan Davies. But not Gatland, as he has allready stated himself...

My issue is not with Strettle's assertion that he grounded the ball but with his assertion that the benefit of doubt should have gone with him - a position which is completely contrary to the law in this area. He is entitled to be disappointed with the TMO for not ruling it a try but he is not entitled to be disappointed with the TMO for not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm Welsh not that really matters, but I believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team. Unless there's 100% evidence to show the ball is either short or held up.

In this case I do not think it was inconclusive the ball just didn't touch down, therefore for no try.

But when Ryan Jones went quite far over the line against Ireland but the grounding was not visible I believe that should be given in favour of the attacking team.

Nearly 70 comments for a try which wasn't one. strettle arm was held by north and didn't significally put a pressure on the ball

England did pretty much than vs scotland and italy
Wales played with experience

think we're on the way for a wales-france final @ the millenium

Colombes, I do not completely agree with you.

The TMO said: inconlusive. So your view that his arm was held up by North, is just as much an opinion, one that is not shared by the TMO, otherwise he would have said: Ball held up, no try.

Apart from the fact that 'significally putting pressure on the ball is not being required here.

I guess this discussion will rage on for some time. Shame it takes away from the fact that it was a splendid match from a neutral point of view.

Was a good game to watch. The games over, decisions been made so doesn't really matter but: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1360&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=2A-bXpVZzA8bBM:&imgrefurl=http://wooller.com/&docid=YSBCFpNsRxj2QM&imgurl=http://wooller.com/sites/wooller/gallery/11716/DW_eng_wal_2886.jpg&w=876&h=584&ei=CsdMT9rTMqrC0QWFko2eBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=907&vpy=147&dur=583&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=105&ty=117&sig=105075312970636129970&page=2&tbnh=130&tbnw=173&start=18&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:18

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1360&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbnid=GXL6yJz-jInyzM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17169125&docid=GvRDpjkNy_aqqM&imgurl=http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58719000/jpg/_58719464_engvwalnotrystill.jpg&w=640&h=360&ei=CsdMT9rTMqrC0QWFko2eBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=154&vpy=163&dur=920&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=222&ty=100&sig=105075312970636129970&page=1&tbnh=94&tbnw=167&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0

It was due to the way the question was asked. Would have been a tricky kick for the draw anyway!

Un-questionably the best game of the 6 nation thus far!

For people who think that great games are those for which there are many tries, this is an example which throws this suggestion out the window. The reason for the lack of tries was due to the impeccable defence on both sides. Reading the newspaper this morning, I noticed the tackle success, which was 91% and 90% the latter being England’s. The lack of tries was not due to the lack of flair far from it but due to the almost perfect all round performance from both teams.
(N.B. the newspaper rated the eng vs wal game at 8/10, and ire vs ita at 5/10, the latter of which had 6 tries.)
And as I was at the game, I can account for mentioning that the atmosphere at the game was electric. In my opinion the passion for 6nations matches cannot be matched, by any other global rugby tournament. Annoyingly though, there is not a single game where you would be willing to condemn the opposition fans to a win, even if they are the better team – however that is why I love it.
Conclusion: these are two young, yet experienced teams, which given time will have potential to vie for the winning spot at the rwc in 2015!

No try - the big question of the game for me is why was Chris Robshaw not yellow-carded for dragging Sam Warburton down at the top of a lineout in the the last ten minutes of the game? Surely pulling a player down on his back whilst already 5/6 feet in the air is more dangerous than any spear tackle!? IRB needs to look at this!

Terrible game for Rhys Priestland.

Try or not; really does not matter to me. Today I think about the English performance and objectively conclude that it will not be long (two seasons max) before it surpasses all other teams and goes on to win the next world cup.

You lost, stop moaning! Thinks like this happen in rugby all the time its not like you were gonna win the best you could do was draw.

Besides that I believe the benefit of the doubt should always favour the attacking team at the end of the day they worked hard to get over that line so they should be rewarded, unless its 100% clear the ball was held up. Therefore tries like Ryan Jones is one against Ireland which was inconclusive should be giving.

Things* Given* woops

Anyone else notice that Strettle held up his own try? his hand was beneath the ball the whole time and therefore couldnt get downward pressure

Lions team:

1. Gethin Jenkins
2. Ross Ford
3. Adam Jones
4. Richie Gray
5. Courtney Lawes (huge potential when fit)
6. Sean O'brien
7. Sam Warbuton (captain)
8. David Denton
9. Karl Dickson (if he continues to play as well as he did on saturday vs wales)
10. Owen Farell
11. George North
12. Manu Tuilangi
13. Jonathan Davies
14. Leigh Halfpenny
15. Rob Kearney

Bench:
1. Cian Healey
2. Dylan Hartley
3. Paul O'connell
4. Jamie Heaslip
5. Rhys Preistland
6. Jamie Roberts
7. Tommy Bowe

When playing Australia it is important that we match fire with fire (youth and attack vs youth and attack

Agree with most of the pack but have to say Toby Faletau is the inform 8 and must start with Denton given the opportunity to impress midweek. Also both of those can play 6 which would mean you could bring on Morgan as a massive impact player.

I would also have Corbisiero on the bench.

Do you mean Lee Dickinson at Scrumhalf? Karl I believe is his uncapped brother. As English as I am I think Phillips (whom I hate on the pitch) is probably one of the best Scrum Half's in the world.

What about Scotland's new find in Hogg? He looks pretty handy also?

I found Hogg to be very impressive...

He is producing the kind of lines and vision that experienced players have and not being baffled by the pace of international rugby..

Hope for Scotlands sake he stays fit and progresses because I feel he will be a key player for many a year.

You'd have Heaslip on the bench ahead of Ferris!!!! Ferris is easily top 3 blind sides in the world right now. With your back row, you effectively have 3 8s, O'Brien, Denton and Heaslip and one 7. No balance really, and Heaslip is living off former glories at the minute.

You also only have 1 SH, with 2 outside backs on the bench.

O Connell in for Lawes
Ferris in for O Brien
Phillips in for Dickson
Farell isn't a 10.
O Driscoll in for Davies
Bowe in for Halfpenny

Other than those, I like your team.

yer, sorry I did mean Lee. The problem I have with Philips is that he takes to many steps of he back of the ruck before passing, therefore slowing down play, and against Australia we cannot simply afford this. Yes Faletau is great at the moment, but on the past six natins game Denton, in my opinion, has had a greater impact, especially with ball in hand.

If Hogg continues to play well, than woul put him at wing and move halfpeny to full back, therfore putting Kearney on the bench.


The centre partnership of Davies and Tuilangi looks mouth watering, and would surely strike fear into any other opposing centres.

I believe that it has to be out with the old and in with he new, reason for o'connell and reoberts on the bench. Therefore bringhing on experence when the game gets tighter twards the end

roberts is only 25! you said phillips is slow but how slow is dickson at getting the ball out from the back of the ruck. i think over the next 12 months another scrum half will come to the fore (from one of the home nations), for wales i'd like to see lloyd williams given a run. im not saying he will be the lions scrum half i am saying i want him to have a few games for wales. as for picking denton ahead of faletau that's a bit bizarre, faletau was arguably the player of the world cup (86 tackles 0 missed). i would have ferris before o'brien at 6, who offers more, o'brien is primarly a carrier but hasn't carried so well this season, ferris is a lot more dynamic. i would have halfpenny at 15 too who has been faultless in the rwc and 6n, not sure who would be on the other wing...

The ref made the wrong call earlier in the game with the Priestland yellow card. Geoff Parling didn't play the ball immediately when he went to the floor. The ruck formed over him and then he popped the ball up to Corbisiero. It should have been a penalty against Parling. Ironically Wales played there best rugby when down to 14, and kept up the good work when restored to their full compliment.

In this case even if that was an offence by England, Priestland was loitering offside the whole time, so the original offence was Priestland being offside in an attempt to illegally slow down quick ball. So even if Walsh had pulled Botha up on his pass from the ruck, he would have gone back to the original offence, which was Preistland loitering offside. And since that was obviously a professional foul, it deserved a yellow card.

If he hadn't illegally popped the ball off the floor, then Priestland would have had more time to get behind the back foot. The first offence was botha, so you're wrong

It was a try, any contact over the line while the ball is in hand is a try, there are a few pics that show this, http://wooller.com/?page=11716&id=46830&offset= . But the TMO could not verify it with the angles he was given, hence him saying 'inconclusive'. All went down to the way the Ref asked the question, 'try or no try?', if he had said 'is there any reason I can not award the try?', then it would have been a try. But then it'd have been a tricky kick anyway, money would've been on flood to get it though! And after all that, what happened to the penalty!? Pretty messed up all round but was good to watch and happy to see England playing better.

Philo, not sure you can conclusively say that the ball was grounded from the linked picture that you have provided as there is still no view of the ball being in contact with the ground. I do agree with you that part of the 'No Try' decision was down to the way Steve Walsh asked the question, but even still...having asked the alternative question the could still be the possibility of the same outcome as the TMO could have come back with there being no evidence of the ball being grounded, although I admit it's more likely he would have said there was no evidence to say that a Welsh player had held up the ball. Do you really believe that Flood would have nailed as difficult kick as he would have been left, despite being cold in terms of just coming on?
Penalty should have been called back for on the other hand under the usual advantage allowance. I do feel that it is a bit excessive at times though, and personally feel that such an opportunity to score a try is sufficient advantage.

120 comments when england lose... I wonder how many comments there were regarding Greg Laidlaw's dubious try when England won. Stinks of sour grapes

Actually, the majority of comments have been between me and another RD supporter. I could not explain to him my feelings about the try and it spiralled on from there.

There are very little sour grapes. I think the majority of people agree that the evidence that the referee and the TMO had in front of them and the guidelines which they had to follow meant the decision of "inconclusive" was the best and most appropriate decision. However the word "inconclusive" means the TMO cannot tell whether the try was scored, or wasn't scored... not clear cut angle... therefore some people (myself included) have agreed with the outcome yet said that if they had to guess whether it was or wasn't scored, they suspect it was!... others do not agree. But to reiterate the general consensus was that the call by the TMO and the referee was the correct decision.

It was not adjudged a try by the official(s) responsible and people should move on. This is rugby not bloody football. D Strettle is a puerile whinger and should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. One does NOT argue with the referee, once accepts the judgement. Young England (and ringers) played better than expected, young Wales didn't. England might have won over some people but Strettle and his whinging turn me rigth off. Any time he plays, I want to see him lose!
I cannot see that it was a try, however, there were more important, more positive things to take from this game.

When watching in real time it looks like Strettle scored. However when viewed in slow motion there is no conclusive evidence of this. By the letter of the law this means that there is no try. The role of the officials is to enforce the rugby laws. In this case the TMO could not find any concrete proof that Strettle grounded the ball, therefore he could not award the try.

In all sports sometimes the decisions go your way, sometimes they don't. On another day the Botha charge down on Priestland would've bounced nicely into his arms and resulted in a straight try. On another day Scott Williams' hack through would not have bounced into his hands, but into that of one of the pursuing English defenders.

Fair do's to England they performed much better than against Scotland or Italy and gave the Welsh a hell of a fright! It was a positive performance even if it wasn't a positive result. The only thing I would say from the game is that England are in dire need of a scrum half. The lad who started spent so long at some rucks that he made the speed of Mike Phillips' service look sublime!

Although England spoiled the Welsh gameplan, I am sure all Welsh fans will take a win at HQ regardless of the Welsh teams performance! We often hear the phrase "Great teams win despite playing badly". So a Welsh win over England despite playing at HQ, despite playing for 10 minutes a man short, despite the fact the Triple Crown was on the line, despite the fact it wasn't the best performance does bode well for the current Welsh team.

right i read all the coments,im off to the chippy best of luck.......

no try was the correct. personally i don think it was a try and the TMO couldn't find any evidence to say it was a try