startledwombat says...

Thanks PR and ThinkingGame. The regrettable thing about reffing errors is that the result (in this case, no try, and so a win to the English) stays in the record books.

Posted 00:05 11th February 2012

ThinkingGame says...

@justice_4_all

Yes, as in a successful attempt (regardless of the amount of pressure applied) results in a try, an unsuccessful attempt does not. To distinguish it from the idea that if you roll your hand over the top of the ball, you have not applied downwards pressure, and therefore have not scored a try.

Posted 14:59 09th February 2012

NHsaints says...

PR-you have become completely intolerable with your analysis of English Rugby...the first team (all virtually new) has only had 12 days to gel and had no possession in the second half at murrayfield and so the fact that they ground out a win at a ground which they had not won at since the end of the golden age of English rugby is in no way the disgrace that you make it out to be, secondly the Saxons game is clearly an anomaly as you said yourselves that they usually win (mayhaps the team didn't work, or maybe that thought didn't cross your one dimensional minds). Also as many have pointed out here: You have missed the obvious in the laidlaw 'try' he tackled/prevented the player (youngs) from reaching the ball so in all truth it should have been a penalty to England. AND lastly look at Englands other teams and suddenly what all of our extra cash, time, effort and exceptionally large player pool are doing becomes apparent! The U20's and Womens sides both thrashed scotland as they have done regularly in recent years and will continue to do so, ever heard of grassroots rugby? Well that's where the English system is strongest and so I conclude PR that if you want to take another shot at England through your faceless editors then you should consider facts before your own opinion! Rant over.

Posted 16:35 08th February 2012

celticspirit says...

Fair play, Ybgurrrrr, firstly for being impartial yourself apparently and for bringing up consistency as the main issue.

But one thing: Do you really think anyone is scared of either England or Scotland now? I think even the Italians are licking their lips now at the prospect of having both of them in Rome soon - that is unless they both (or either) discover some punch and class...

Posted 15:45 08th February 2012

celticspirit says...

When I first looked (in the stadium), I thought it was never going to be a try. But looking at the pictures now, quite frankly, I can't see how you should not award the try! No matter how much some English body hovers over the ball, the first hand on it was Laidlaw's. How much downward pressure is being applied is not stated anywhere as relevant. How would you measure whether it was 1 bar or 10 bar anyway.

Points system: 2 points for kicks seems fair enough, but to devalue penalties... Maybe rather keep the kicks as they are and give an extra point just for the conversion, i.e. 3 points for all kicks and 5 for the try...

Posted 13:23 08th February 2012

ThinkingGame says...

Firstly, the benefit of the doubt with those decisions used to go to the attacking team.

Secondly, stop talking about downward pressure. That is an invention of an interpretation that hasn't been used in 15 years. The Laws say all a player needs to do is press down, which is to say attempt to make contact with the ball at the same time it is in contact with the grass in in-goal. TMOs cannot rule tries out for anything other than incorrect grounding. If the ref was happy that Laidlaw didn't impede Ben Youngs, then the try should have been awarded. There was enough doubt there not to give the try, but the benefit of that should go to the attacking team.

Lastly, if that kick had been a drop at goal, the ref would surely have gone back for the advantage. So he should have after a chip ahead as well?

Posted 09:28 08th February 2012

bad_robot says...

Regarding the try - the most likely reason that the TMO didn't judge on the molestation of Youngs was that I don't think that they can. The TMO can only judge on things that happen in goal can't they? Anything in the field of play is not part of the TMO's remit (despite what happened in last years 3N). Unless they changed the rule? In furtherance to this - personally I believe that the TMO takes too long to look at this sort of stuff - if you have to replay something 10 times to determine the outcome, and people are still complaining, then they try is obviously inconclusive so don't award it. They do it when there is a pushover scrum. If a player doesn't obviously put the ball down then they don't deserve a try.

Posted 08:59 08th February 2012

vince12 says...

Imo no try for scotland but the ref should have gone back for the penalty advantage,

if England dont improve they are in for a shocker in Rome

Posted 07:28 08th February 2012

mjdebues92 says...

I agree with surreynick. The touch judge made the recommendation, you can't blame Barnes too much for that. The kick inexcusable though.

The first replay I saw for the laidlaw 'try', I thought for sure he scored, after several looks though t became much less conclusive. he touched it as it hit the ground. The ball had been spinning in the air, so when it touches the ground it will obviously cease to do so. Whether he touched it and made it stop as it hit the ground or not is easy to tell. For close calls like that I think you have to just trust the official, who took a long time to decide on a decision which obviously would have a high impact on the game.

Posted 22:50 07th February 2012

jamesliveinhope says...

Anderson, that's a Scottish name isn't it. Bit of a one-eyed view of the English.

Don't forget that the Saxons have lost their head coach, AND a significant proportion of their most recent squad to the first team, there will always be a transition as the newbies find their feet.

Laidlaw did not score a try, firstly because the TMO said so and secondly because he didn't make contact with the ball. The ball stopped ecause, well because its a rugby ball and rugby balls do unpredictable things when they are rolling. The moment it stopped, Laidlaw's momentum was always taking him past the ball and, even if there was contact, it was going to be impossible to see. There is also the argument that Youngs would have easily beaten him to the ball if he hadn't had him climbing all over his back.

Also agree about Barnes, he clearly said he didn't see what happened and allowed Pearson to make the judgement call (Pearson is also an IRB panel referee I believe).

Posted 20:46 07th February 2012