Try or No Try...

I know this has been debated to death on the game thread, and I also know that, whether to WUM, or real believe or just nationalistic pride, there has been some real "aggressive" (shall I say) debating over the TMOs decision.

But, as every pundit I've heard as stated it was, in their opinion a try, except for Guscott who agreed it was grounded by Anscombe, but points to the knock on by Evans, I would like to know what you guys actually thought, without the need to argue and take a nationalistic stance.

If you want to leave comments to back your theory, do so, but please PLEASE, lets stay civil.

So, I'll put my thoughts in a response, rather than the opening comment ...

So, the poll is was it a Try or Not..

No try for me, I genuinly think the downward pressure and control law needs to come back to remove this ambiguity.

Touching it first with a finger while it was on the ground for me doesn't cut it, as the TMO I would have said either knocked on or touched down by Watson.

Can I have an option of no Evans is offside from the kick please?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No try for me, I genuinly think the downward pressure and control law needs to come back to remove this ambiguity.

Touching it first with a finger while it was on the ground for me doesn't cut it, as the TMO I would have said either knocked on or touched down by Watson.

The question decides most of this. Once the Ref asks for try yes or no, it has to be clear and obvious (for both knock on and grounding). The level of debate to be had for either shows that that neither was clear and obvious, therefore the TMO is not in a position to say it's a try. Pretty simple. It's fair to say the TMO's logic was a bit flawed though. Right result.

With football now introducing their version of the TMO, I really think we should be getting this right, and the TMO didn't examine the footage very well at all.

The footage clearly shows Anscome's hand on the ball and air between the ball and both of Watson's hands. So to say Watson grounded it first is so wrong.

Steff Evans didn't touch that ball so there was no knock on, hence try.

BUT on Scrum V last night, the footage put forward by Guscott showing a minute twitch in Steffs finger he claimed was caused by the ball hitting it has some mileage to the knock on argument. But. again, without another angle on that, its not conclusive, as his finger could have simple rubbed/knocked against another one.

But what it does say to me, is the TMO didn't look at that footage well enough and made a very fast rash decision. And by doing that, he "made the wrong call", whether it was a Try or Not.. his rational for the decision was wrong.

To me it was a try.

It may have grazed Evans' finger but it took a super slowed down version of the footage to see that and if you are analysing every try at that level you would be bound to find more faults. Also there is no evidence really that the contact with Evans' finger made the ball go forward but its clear that the contact with the knee did. Based on the television footage presented it should have been awarded.

The second part of the try it is so obvious that the Welsh player grounded the ball before Watson did I think the TMO should be asked to justify how he concluded Watson grounded it first. Terrible decision.

You're saying he rushed it, but it had to be clear and obvious. If it takes 5 mins of slow motion zoomed in replays, it's not clear and obvious.

The problem with phrarses like clear and obvious is that its not clear and obvious where the line is on whats clear and obvious unless its so clear and obviosu that you didnt need a TMO in the first place.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can I have an option of no Evans is offside from the kick please?

No because he was not offside.

The image (if it works) shows Patchel being about 2 feet ahead of the line when kicking the ball and Evans on the line.





If the image doesn't work, watch it again pausing it frame by frame... Evans wasn't offside.

The ball was moving forwards when his fingers touched it so unless it then got pushed backwards (which it didn't) it's still a knock-on surely?

RR - I think the law still defines grounding as pressing down on the ball ...

Collapse2005 wrote:To me it was a try.

It may have grazed Evans' finger but it took a super slowed down version of the footage to see that and if you are analysing every try at that level you would be bound to find more faults. Also there is no evidence really that the contact with Evans' finger made the ball go forward but its clear that the contact with the knee did. Based on the television footage presented it should have been awarded.

The second part of the try it is so obvious that the Welsh player grounded the ball before Watson did I think the TMO should be asked to justify how he concluded Watson grounded it first. Terrible decision.

This is a misunderstanding. The question wasn't "any reason I can't award the try". If so, the ref is saying, I think thats a try, give me evidence to the contrary. Therefore it then needs to be clear and obvious that evans knocked it on (which we all agree it wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe DIDN'T ground it (which we all agree it wasn't). If that's the question, then the TMO, unable to give any clear and obvious evidence to the contrary of the ref's decision, gives the try.

But it wasn't the question. It was try yes or no, so the ref is saying, I don't know if that's a try so give me evidence to show it is. Then it needs to be clear and obvious that evans DIDN'T knock it on (which it clearly wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe correctly grounded it (which it clearly wasn't). If just one of those things ISN'T clear and obvious, then the TMO can't give the try as he cannot provide the ref clear and obvious evidence on the two issues at hand. Neither were clear for me, so it's the correct decision.

Cheers no 9. Was replaying it on sky plus and looked off. From that looks on. So I'll go with no for the knock on.

TMO said no...try not awarded...

Get over it...MOVE ON!!!

cascough wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:To me it was a try.

It may have grazed Evans' finger but it took a super slowed down version of the footage to see that and if you are analysing every try at that level you would be bound to find more faults. Also there is no evidence really that the contact with Evans' finger made the ball go forward but its clear that the contact with the knee did. Based on the television footage presented it should have been awarded.

The second part of the try it is so obvious that the Welsh player grounded the ball before Watson did I think the TMO should be asked to justify how he concluded Watson grounded it first. Terrible decision.

This is a misunderstanding. The question wasn't "any reason I can't award the try". If so, the ref is saying, I think thats a try, give me evidence to the contrary. Therefore it then needs to be clear and obvious that evans knocked it on (which we all agree it wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe DIDN'T ground it (which we all agree it wasn't). If that's the question, then the TMO, unable to give any clear and obvious evidence to the contrary of the ref's decision, gives the try.

But it wasn't the question. It was try yes or no, so the ref is saying, I don't know if that's a try so give me evidence to show it is. Then it needs to be clear and obvious that evans DIDN'T knock it on (which it clearly wasn't) and it needs to be clear and obvious that Anscombe correctly grounded it (which it clearly wasn't). If just one of those things ISN'T clear and obvious, then the TMO can't give the try as he cannot provide the ref clear and obvious evidence on the two issues at hand. Neither were clear for me, so it's the correct decision.

That doesn't change anything really because the TMO stated that Watson grounded in justifying that it wasn't a try. He was still wrong. The correct answer to try yes or no is obviously yes as it was pretty clear to me from the footage that Anscome grounded it first. I struggle to understand how that isn't clear.

His logic was wrong, I agree. But it doesn't mean he could have awarded the try since it is not clear that Evans didn't knock it on. Likewise, it's not clear Anscombe had pressure on the ball.

If I'm the TMO I think Anscombe probably got the grounding (even then I wouldn't have been allowed to give the try because of the question) but it's certainly not clear as to whether or not Evans knocks it on. Because that's not clear, there's no way that try could have been awarded. It's all about the question.

Maybe the TMO didn't consider it grounded as he didn't believe he pressed down on the ball?

That's never how knock-ons work, even if the question is yes or no. He doesn't need to prove that Evans didn't knock it on. If he can't prove that he did, it's play on. But grounding inconclusive, no try.

I wasn't sure so I checked with the TMO, and he says no try. Job's a good un.

As a neutral to me it was as clear a try as I've ever seen. In real time it looked a try and slowed down it was conclusive.

If the TMO can't get that right then should just do away with them.

There was a similar incident in the Autumn when Australia had a clear cut try disallowed at Twickenham by the TMO and its time the IRB investigated what is going on there with the match officials.

I think it is time we used SH refs and TMOs for all home internationals.

The TMO was a kiwi ...

rodders wrote:As a neutral to me it was as clear a try as I've ever seen. In real time it looked a try and slowed down it was conclusive.

If the TMO can't get that right then should just do away with them.

There was a similar incident in the Autumn when Australia had a clear cut try disallowed at Twickenham by the TMO and its time the IRB investigated what is going on there with the match officials.

I think it is time we used SH refs and TMOs for all home internationals.  

TMO was Southern Hemisphere.

Wish you English would get over it and move on! Bored of this schidt now.

Anyone else worried about Gatland's health? He's been struggling to breathe in press conferences.

I thought it was a try. I'll admit I haven't seen the footage that Evans knocked on, but at the time I thought he kneed it forward, certainly wasn't a clear knock-on, and the TMO seemed satisfied it wasn't. I honestly thought the TMO judging that Watson had grounded the ball was very strange.

Well that's two weeks on the bounce now where TMO's have shafted Wales over a deffo try. We must be due a decision soon.

The Oracle wrote:Wish you English would get over it and move on!  Bored of this schidt now.

Not sure who you're aiming this at, but assume me as I started the thread..

So for info..

1. I'm not English.. I'm Welsh
2. I started this, to try and gain a reasonable insight on the TMO decision from reasonable posters, without the churlish insults thrown on the game thread
3. If you are bored of it, why read the thread and why the hell post on it.

You and other already ruined the game thread. Knew you'd do the same here but had hoped we'd get some reasonable thoughts first.

Different camera angles seem to suggest different things, but my interpretation:
1 - Evans was just onside at the time of the kick (at least if the mower marks on the pitch are parallel to the goal line). Should have been looked at as the first step in reaching the judgement

2 - I'm not convinced by the pictures suggesting a knock on, as the camera viewing parallel to the touch line from in goal suggests the ball hit the inside of his knee while the hand was outside the line of his leg. Viewed from further infield, the ball does look very close to the hand.

3 - The footage of the grounding is inconclusive, in part because the camera behind the dead ball line tracked Care sliding off the field rather than where the ball went. In the pictures that are available Anscombe definitely gets his hand on the ball before Watson's left hand, but Watson's right hand is obscured by Anscombe's arm, and may very well get downward pressure on the ball (or at least is touching the ball when the ball touches the ground) simultaneously with Anscombe (noting that ball is in the air when Anscombe first touches it). In fact there is a still frame that suggests Watson's right hand is on the ball before it touches the ground.

'Try, yes or no?' Can't give it
'Any reason I cannot award a try?' Given

No9 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Wish you English would get over it and move on!  Bored of this schidt now.

Not sure who you're aiming this at, but assume me as I started the thread..

So for info..

1. I'm not English.. I'm Welsh
2. I started this, to try and gain a reasonable insight on the TMO decision from reasonable posters, without the churlish insults thrown on the game thread
3. If you are bored of it, why read the thread and why the hell post on it.

You and other already ruined the game thread. Knew you'd do the same here but had hoped we'd get some reasonable thoughts first.

I know you are.  It was the big list of English posters responding and telling people to get over it!  Who needs to get over it?!

p.s. how did I ruin the game thread? Genuinely - i'm a bit offended by that.

Collapse2005 wrote:To me it was a try.

It may have grazed Evans' finger but it took a super slowed down version of the footage to see that and if you are analysing every try at that level you would be bound to find more faults. Also there is no evidence really that the contact with Evans' finger made the ball go forward but its clear that the contact with the knee did...  

I've said no try for knock-on.  I had to look some of this up as it's actually not really very well covered by the laws, and I feel somewhat justified in saying that as it seems to be something debated on referee forums.  

In short - it seems  that it is only definitively a knock on if the ball touches the hand or arm, and only definitely a kick if it hits the foot/leg up to but not including the knee (much to my surprise, I thought that anything that wasn't a kick or charge down was a knock on).  Everything in between is seemingly up for debate and left to the ref on the ground to decide.  But, if the ball touches the finger (which I thought it had), then it has touched the hand and it has gone forward before touching another player/the ground without being kicked - which is a knock on, irrespective of whether or not the forward momentum came from the hand itself.  

I also think it's reasonable for the TMO to check that, as I'm pretty sure it was one of the things the ref asked him to check - though I agree with the premise that if you go back far enough and check in enough detail then every try would be disallowed.

Bit of a tough one all round though, and I am sympathetic to Gooseberry's view on the not clear and obvious (I'd say that should apply if both players had a hand on the ball as it hit the deck) - in which case I think it should have been a 5m scrum to Wales.

I think that the TMO usage needs to be reviewed. Personally I thought it was a try but that's just me.

The thing that I get very upset about is foul play not being punished if a try has been awarded. I think this should be an option as well. Last week when England scored in the corner against Italy (Watson) there was a clear no arms tackle on him which is a yellow card anywhere else in the field that went un punished due to England being awarded the try. Foul play is foul play and the Italian defender should have received a yellow card regardless of the England score. Had the try not have been awarded then he may have received a yellow card.

Sorry for my rant

Guess I'm not surprised by the voting, as I expected it to be 50:50..

What does surprise me a little though is the decisions that all who voted for No try have taken. You have all said No for the Knock on, yet the vast majority of you agree the Knock on Wasn't clear from the footage..

Hence, would have expected No Try Inconclusive, by definition of your arguments.

As I said, I felt it was a try, but would it have made a difference to the end result. No one can say. England better side in the first half, Wales had the better of the second. If the try had been allowed, England would have probably stepped up a gear, but then again maybe Wales would have.

Who, knows.. no one.

All I do know, was it was a cracking game.

Cheers for the sensible discussion..

No9 wrote:Guess I'm not surprised by the voting, as I expected it to be 50:50..

What does surprise me a little though is the decisions that all who voted for No try have taken. You have all said No for the Knock on, yet the vast majority of you agree the Knock on Wasn't clear from the footage..

Hence, would have expected No Try Inconclusive, by definition of your arguments.

As I said, I felt it was a try, but would it have made a difference to the end result. No one can say. England better side in the first half, Wales had the better of the second. If the try had been allowed, England would have probably stepped up a gear, but then again maybe Wales would have.

Who, knows.. no one.

All I do know, was it was a cracking game.

Cheers for the sensible discussion..

Yeah just me voting for the correct answer.

I'm a scots fan

for me Anscombe did make contact with the ball first but while the ball was in the air. His hand rolls off the side of the ball as Watson touches it and the ball hits the ground. Was Anscombe in contact with the ball while the ball was on the ground? ( thats what is needed to award the try) Possible even probable but when the ref asks " try no try" that is not enough. The TMO has to be sure the try is scored. From the video evidence he cannot be sure so no try can be awarded. Correct decision.

Its a bit like those you get when a maul goes over the line. Yes a try is probably scored but if no one can see it / tmo cannot be certain then no try.

~Thats the way the laws and guidence stand right now. You might argue " balance of probabilities / advantage to the attacking side but thats not what the lawbook says. So what yo are actually arguing is not about the TMOs decision which clearly was correct but the rules book

dummy_half wrote:Different camera angles seem to suggest different things, but my interpretation:
1 - Evans was just onside at the time of the kick (at least if the mower marks on the pitch are parallel to the goal line). Should have been looked at as the first step in reaching the judgement

2 - I'm not convinced by the pictures suggesting a knock on, as the camera viewing parallel to the touch line from in goal suggests the ball hit the inside of his knee while the hand was outside the line of his leg. Viewed from further infield, the ball does look very close to the hand.

3 - The footage of the grounding is inconclusive, in part because the camera behind the dead ball line tracked Care sliding off the field rather than where the ball went. In the pictures that are available Anscombe definitely gets his hand on the ball before Watson's left hand, but Watson's right hand is obscured by Anscombe's arm, and may very well get downward pressure on the ball (or at least is touching the ball when the ball touches the ground) simultaneously with Anscombe (noting that ball is in the air when Anscombe first touches it). In fact there is a still frame that suggests Watson's right hand is on the ball before it touches the ground.

'Try, yes or no?' Can't give it
'Any reason I cannot award a try?' Given

I agree with this, to paraphrase the TMO gave an answer that was correct, it was the question that was wrong.

I just had a look in the record books and the Welsh senior men's rugby team didn't score a try on the 10th Feb 2018.

That's the end of it in my book.

I can see a double bounce of the ball hitting the grass. Firstly as Anscombe touches it and then it bounces again when Watson touches it. So for me Anscombe got to it first. How much downward pressure? Does it matter these days (in the laws)??? Not sure but if it doesn't, and just touching it is enough, then for me it's a try. I seem to remember that the player doesn't need to be in control???

So that brings it back to the offside and knock on. For me the still above shows Steff was not offside when kicked. The knock on - I can see his fingers deflect slightly but can also see the ripple of flesh as it strikes his leg. I can't say for certain whether the fingers deflect because the ball hit them or if he catches his leg or shorts with his fingers. The ball obscures the view a bit. Both are plausible. Tough call.

Not that tough as the TMO made his mind up quickly.

Clarifications regarding the relevant Laws:

Law 8.2A (Scoring): A try is scored when an attacking player is first to ground the ball in an opponents in goal...(further relates to grounding against posts)

Law 21.1B (grounding in goal): The ball can be grounded in in-goal by pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms...(body).

So my take on the first law would be that simultaneous grounding (i.e. attacker and defender) would not count as a try. Arguable in this case, as it doesn't matter who got the the ball first if it was in the air (Anscombe), but who was in contact when the ball was grounded.

Second Law is more ambiguous, as exactly what does 'pressing down' mean? Anscombe's hand is more to the side than the top of the ball (sort of 2 o'clock position), so does he actually manage to 'press down' and ground the ball as it was moving forwards? Matter of opinion rather than fact.

Also worth noting that cameras are not actually very good at determining the exact moment when the ball touches the ground - anyone who has watched cricket coverage will have seen a number of instances where what are probably fair catches have been ruled out because the cameras (looking slightly downwards) have suggested the ball touched the ground first prior to going into the fielder's hands.

What do the laws say about a knock on just before a grounding?

If it was a knock on earlier, then it wasn't a try later. It was a knock on earlier - therefore it wasn't a try later.

cascough wrote:His logic was wrong, I agree. But it doesn't mean he could have awarded the try since it is not clear that Evans didn't knock it on. Likewise, it's not clear Anscombe had pressure on the ball.

If I'm the TMO I think Anscombe probably got the grounding (even then I wouldn't have been allowed to give the try because of the question) but it's certainly not clear as to whether or not Evans knocks it on. Because that's not clear, there's no way that try could have been awarded. It's all about the question.

That's where we disagree as I reckon it was pretty clear from the footage that Anscome got downward pressure on the ball before Watson did and likewise it really didn't look like it was a knock on from the footage shown during the game.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I thought it was a try. I'll admit I haven't seen the footage that Evans knocked on, but at the time I thought he kneed it forward, certainly wasn't a clear knock-on, and the TMO seemed satisfied it wasn't. I honestly thought the TMO judging that Watson had grounded the ball was very strange.

100% agree, cant understand how he came to the conclusion he did.

Two ways the TMO can come to the decision that Watson grounded the ball first

1 - Simultaneous grounding would count as being the defender grounding the ball
2 - He did not consider Anscombe's contact with the ball as being sufficiently 'pressing down' to constitute grounding the ball. By comparison, there is no doubt that Watson 'pressed down' on the ball in goal.

Not saying he was definitely correct in either of the above, but I don't think the footage is as clear cut as some are making out. At the time I thought we were rather lucky with the decision...

SecretFly wrote:If it was a knock on earlier, then it wasn't a try later.  It was a knock on earlier - therefore it wasn't a try later.

Glad we cleared that up.

TightHEAD wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If it was a knock on earlier, then it wasn't a try later.  It was a knock on earlier - therefore it wasn't a try later.

Glad we cleared that up.

Yes, Gats will be delighted. He'll be able to sleep more easily now.

TightHEAD wrote:What do the laws say about a knock on just before a grounding?

Laws and Definitions:
Knock on can happen anywhere in the playing area (i.e. includes in-goal)
Knock on (definition, as it is no longer described in the Laws): 'When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.'

I don't think this applies, as I don't think Anscombe's hand ever comes away from the ball, so cannot be said either to hit the ball forward or for the ball to hit the hand and go forward before touching the ground

I have some issues with using super slo-mo to assess some things - you'll often see the ball break contact with the hand momentarily in the act of grounding (player in possession, reaching to put the ball down with 1 hand), but to any meaningful interpretation of the Law, the grounding is good.

At the time I thought the TMO might have just looked at Evans, noted he didn't ground the ball and made his decision on that?

He did make up his mind very quickly which made me think he hadn't looked at the whole thing.

Scottrf wrote:

rodders wrote:As a neutral to me it was as clear a try as I've ever seen. In real time it looked a try and slowed down it was conclusive.

If the TMO can't get that right then should just do away with them.

There was a similar incident in the Autumn when Australia had a clear cut try disallowed at Twickenham by the TMO and its time the IRB investigated what is going on there with the match officials.

I think it is time we used SH refs and TMOs for all home internationals.  

TMO was Southern Hemisphere.

I bet they paid him in pounds.

This has really split the opinion.

Dollars down there I think.