Sunday Feb 26, 2012

Wales claim the Triple Crown with nail biting win over England

Wales claim the Triple Crown with nail biting win over England
103
Comments

Wales can now aim for the Grand Slam after picking up the Triple Crown when beating England 19-12 in an intense Six Nations game at Twickenham yesterday. The match went down to the final play, when David Strettle was held up over the line. 

Leigh Halfpenny made a courageous tackle on Strettle as England looked to get into a position from which they would kick to draw the game. Halfpenny put his body on the line, seemingly knocking himself out in the process, before Jon Davies and George North held up the Saracens winger.

Strettle has since insisted that he felt the ball touch the ground, despite television match official Iain Ramage having numerous looks at the incident and finding the footage inconclusive.

“I felt the ball touch the floor,” said Strettle. “If it is inconclusive you have to go with the attacking team. When they showed it on the big screen it looked like it went down as well,” he added, before saying that he felt the touch judge was in the best position to adjudicate on the decision.

“The strange thing for me was that I was hoping the touch judge might have seen it because our physio was standing right next to him and he says it was grounded. I can’t understand why we have not gone back for that penalty,” he added, referring to the advantage played by ref Steve Walsh.

A few minutes earlier Welsh replacement center Scott Williams ripped the ball from England lock Courtney Lawes and sped away for what turned out to be the decisive try.

“We knew it would be the toughest game, and it was tough. We are over the moon to get the Triple Crown here,” said captain Sam Warburton, who led from the front as always.

Wales face Italy next, then a meeting with France which could be their Grand Slam decider.

In your opinion, was the decision at the end correct?

103 Comments

  •  quins1
    quins1

    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

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  brecor
    brecor

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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. :)

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    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 :)

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    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 :)

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

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

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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 :)

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  brawnybalboa
    brawnybalboa

    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.

    Reply
  •  alwaysanexile
    alwaysanexile

    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.

    Reply
  •  ystuk85
    ystuk85

    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...

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  keenbeen13
    keenbeen13

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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"

    Reply
  •  coolcalmandcollected
    coolcalmandcollected

    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.

    Reply
  •  ystuk85
    ystuk85

    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?

    Reply
  •  ystuk85
    ystuk85

    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!

    Reply
  •  philo1403
    philo1403

    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!

    Reply
  •  philo1403
    philo1403

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  keenbeen13
    keenbeen13

    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

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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.

    Reply
  •  keenbeen13
    keenbeen13

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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?

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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

    Reply
  •  llyrd
    llyrd

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

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    Quality post that. Nice one!

    Reply
  •  ando
    ando

    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?

    Reply
  •  orford17
    orford17

    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.

    Reply
  •  orford17
    orford17

    Things* Given* woops

    Reply
  •  orford17
    orford17

    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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    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.

    Reply
  •  nathan
    nathan

    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

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    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...

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  colombes
    colombes

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

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

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    "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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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..

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  guy
    guy

    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.

    Reply
  •  t0t0
    t0t0

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

    Reply
  •  brecor
    brecor

    "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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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?

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • (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!! :)

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • (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...

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  jonesey
    jonesey

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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...

    Reply
  •  moddeur
    moddeur

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

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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

    Reply
  •  stroudos
    stroudos

    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.

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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"

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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!

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  jog1986
    jog1986

    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.

    Reply
  •  jimothy
    jimothy

    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?

    Reply
  •  pretzel
    pretzel

    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....

    Reply
  •  ruggernut
    ruggernut

    Scottish.

    Reply
  •  ruggernut
    ruggernut

    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.

    Reply
  •  ruggernut
    ruggernut

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

    Reply

  • Notice: Trying to get property 'data' of non-object in /var/www/html/php/vo/Comment.php on line 19
  • 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.

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality

    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?

    Reply
  •  jonesey
    jonesey

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

    Reply
  •  jonesey
    jonesey

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

    Reply
  •  fettsack
    fettsack

    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.

    Reply
  •  welshosprey
    welshosprey

    Strettle saved fodens life with that tap tackle on north.

    Reply
  •  jonesey
    jonesey

    sorry Ruggernut, was writing my post while you posted.

    Reply
  •  jonesey
    jonesey

    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.

    Reply
  •  ruggernut
    ruggernut

    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!!!

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Wales claim the Triple Crown with nail biting win over England | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos