The Rugby Union Society

The end of the England vs Wales match annoyed me so much. Wales concede penalty after penalty to waste time knowing England need a converted try, the last of which England were playing advantage from when the try wasn't given, yet rather than going back for the penalty the ref blows for the match over. That all without giving the try, which while inconclusive from most angles seemed pretty clear from the back - it was down before Warburton got in to hold it up, which was the bit looked at from other angles. Would have been interesting seeing Flood kick a conversion from out wide for a draw.

Yeah, I was impressed by the ref at the start as he seemed to be really quick on calling errors and stuff, but his scrums were terrible and he seemed to slack off in the second half.

I really didn't think it was that clear from the back. There was no evidence of downward pressure, and the ball seemed more to brush the try zone than really be pushed into it.

I think it depends if advantage is called over and whether or not the original offence was committed in normal time although I'm not certain. Either way, advantage would have been over, ball would have been dead and full time was correctly blown.

There were mistakes by the referee in this game, but that wasn't one of them.

The same thing about the penalty happened with the Laidlaw try in the Scotland vs England, you said nothing then...

Also it's because advantage is over when a scoring chance occurs.

I really didn't think it was that clear from the back. There was no evidence of downward pressure, and the ball seemed more to brush the try zone than really be pushed into it.

It was a try, there was one angle shown where the ball clearly touched the floor. the more interesting thing about the match was how the 'enormous and invincible' welsh backline were nowhere near as evident as they were against ireland and scotland. No matter how big and fast you are, an ankle tap will still bring you down!

(Englishman living in Wales, so it's not been an easy day!!)

But it didn't clearly show which side of the line that happened on

I don't understand why people can't add 2 and 2 together. You see one frame where the ball clearly hits the floor, and another one that shows he is clearly over the line at that point in the sequence.

So putting those two pieces of evidence together...

No, you don't. The video was inconclusive otherwise the try would've been awarded.

No, you don't. The video was inconclusive otherwise the try would've been awarded.

But it didn't clearly show which side of the line that happened on

The video was inconclusive from the point of view of the TMO, that doesn't make it inconclusive. I'm pretty sure if you gave it to a team of forensic photography experts, or even just spent quite a bit of time looking at it closely, they'd be able to show definitively that it was a try. I'm not surprised the TMO didn't in the minute or so he had to look at it during the match. The TMO isn't perfect, they don't catch everything possible, as they have constraints on their time.

I think it was an entirely understandable mistake to make and can see why they gave it as inconclusive, but I think with hindsight, time and close attention, it's possible to conclusively see it's a try.

I really didn't think it was that clear from the back. There was no evidence of downward pressure, and the ball seemed more to brush the try zone than really be pushed into it.

surely you're trolling now? that, or you simply don't know the rules.

I'd like to think I do, given I'm a trained referee; granted only a level 1 ref, but still.

Without the evidence of sufficient downward pressure from the back angle, and there was barely, if any, downward pressure as the ball was above the hand, it wasn't a try. It was too inconclusive, quite simply.