Mark Cueto 2007 World Cup Final disallowed try

World Rugby has posted a short video looking back at this moment. Perhaps everyone here has seen it already but that TV angle down the touchline, showing Cueto's foot in touch before the ball goes down, is new to me. I'd always assumed the footage was inconclusive.

Bringing back bad memories, eh mate? I remember watching on tv but don't recall seeing that angle. Still not completely sure Cueto's toe was in or out. But c'est la vie. I'm sure I will be over this in another 20 or 30 years...

Sure I've seen the footage before. Thought it was pretty clearly out at the time and nothing has changed. Not like that great try Wilkinson scored vs Scotland, still don't know why the Scots were complaining....

There was never any doubt that Cueto's foot was in touch. It was clear at the time unless viewed through English tinted specs. I remember the arguing on this forum at the time.

It's still not completely clear for me, and I doubt being an England supporter has anything to do with it. Besides, if people can't let go of a sport result 16 years ago....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sure I've seen the footage before. Thought it was pretty clearly out at the time and nothing has changed. Not like that great try Wilkinson scored vs Scotland, still don't know why the Scots were complaining....

You mean the one where Jonny went sort of airborne to score in the corner?  The one where he was, ahem, clearly, ahem, in??????

Yeah that's the one. Where his whole leg was clearly in the air and not in touch for about 2 seconds before dotting the ball down.

We entered a draw for the right to buy tickets for the final and used up a lifetime's luck in winning. And then finding that we were about 15 rows from the touchline near the 5m line... and right in line with Cueto's knee.

We were pretty certain in real time that his foot had bounced down on the wrong side of the line, and were a bit baffled when the replays in the stadium focused on his knee (which was much less certain to be in touch) rather than the foot. We'd resigned ourselves to it (correctly) not being given long before the official call.

I sent a message to World Rugby asking for tickets to the next RWC final where England will be playing. They sent me an IOU for tixx in the 2043 RWC,,,

IIRC, part of the controversy was that the TMO called it that Cueto's leg / knee was clearly in touch, viewing from a high angle where it wasn't obvious that his leg was off the ground.

Matfield and Rossouw were right, in that it's a game of inches, and in this case arguably less - Cueto's toe appears (with the view looking down the line) to lift from the ground when it is about half way across the touchline, so ultimately the right decision made from the wrong evidence. Actually, given the question asked (any reason I cannot award a try?) I would have sympathy for the TMO either way if he had reviewed the footage correctly - Cueto's foot digs into the pitch slightly an inch or two in from the touchline (causing the divot) and starts to lift, but is almost certainly still in contact at least with the top of the grass* when it's on the line.

Addendum - I had seen that angle down the line before, but IIRC, it was not shown during the TMO deliberation.

* To change sports, TMS 'Ask the Umpire' a couple of years ago asked the question of what constitutes the ground surface for taking a catch - the answer was the top surface of anything growing from the ground, so if you were on a pitch with some fast-growing weeds, contact with them at say a foot above the top of most of the grass would still count as the ball hitting the ground. My assumption is that the rule in rugby would be the same - that if there is any contact with the top of the grasss, that would count as being the ground.

Let it go, Let it goooo.

mikey_dragon wrote:Let it go, Let it goooo.

Of course, we lost the match by more than the 5 points that were not scored in this incident, so it wasn't THAT critical a decision anyway. Still the best bit of play Matthew Tait ever managed in an England shirt...

I didn't see any new angles on that footage. Here it was as live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVuDMYSJ7M

It was a very critical decision because it would have given Wilkinson a chance to kick England in front. From there the game may have changed, although it was likely South Africa would have still gone on to win. England's whole 2007 run was completely bizarre anyway - scraping past the USA and getting beaten to nil by South Africa, before somehow overcoming Australia and hosts France and getting within 9 points of South Africa in the final.

Was Cueto in touch? Probably, but it wasn't conclusive, and Rolland sent it up as a try (as we would say nowadays).

By the end of the match, England had used all of their subs for injury rather than tactical reasons and had Peter Richards playing 7 after both Moody and Worsley were injured. Mike Catt going off was probably the final straw - he'd been playing out of his skin for much of the match.

South Africa were always likely to emerge as winners, but I was less bothered by Cueto's try being disallowed than I was by how very similar incidents were being referreed differently, seemingly dependent on who was in possession and where they were on the field.

All of which said, given the result in the pool stages it was to England's enormous credit that they managed to keep it so close. In the stadium, it felt like it should have been a narrower margin - more like a 3 point game rather than the actual scoreline.

You saw those type decisions given as tries but it was a very tight call and England cant really complain. I was in Paris that night although not in the ground and most thought at the time, including SA fans, that it was a try.
What got me was Schalk Burger sliding off his feet, dived over Tait and the ball at the ruck, slowing the delivery by a vital second. That was the difference in getting that vital space for Cueto. Fine margins and non ref calls and England haven't got on the right side many of those calls over the years.

Two years later:



Tend to agree with Recwatcher that England don't seem to get too many consequential calls going our way. It's almost as if that absurd Johnny Wilkinson try against Scotland in 2007 used up our good luck for years afterwards.

Still, there are a couple of incidents where we came out on the right side. The 2016 Six Nations match against Wales, where we won the Grand Slam, ended in a flurry of Welsh scores. In the last ten seconds (at the 3:20 mark in the video below). George North was tackled into touch as he tried to throw the ball back infield. The replay shows it was touch-and-go. If play had been waved on, a Welsh player might have collected that ball and gone over.



Australia felt hard done-by in 2013 when Farrell scored the winning try. They claimed obstruction against Hartley (from the 3:18 mark below). Another referee might have disallowed the try.



Farrell also got away with that tackle against the Springboks in 2018 which, if penalized, could have lost the match.

Cueto "try" felt hard done by at time but probably right decision but anyway. Ancient history.

Far more crucial decisions made most games regarding tackle height these days.

Saw the footage at the time and felt the correct decision was made

England do have a problem with getting on the wrong side of the ref more often than other teams, though. I don't think they actually commit more fouls, but I think (at least since Richie McCaw nicked Lawrence Dallaglio's magical cloak of invisibility to the ref) they are more prone to be spotted than some of the teams they play against.

Some of that is reputational. For instance, knowing what props are like I don't actually think that Joe Marler is materially worse with the verbals than the players he comes up against, but either he's got appalling timing or having been picked up on it a few times he's an easier target. Likewise the Hartley / Ferris incident: all the focus was on Hartley biting Ferris's fingers and none of it on why Ferris's fingers were in Hartley's mouth and pulling. But Hartley's got the rep and served the time.

How England fix that, I don't know. But some teams at both club and international level seem able to get away with a lot more than others.

Problem is that things are more likely to stick in your mind if people think ah if not for that the result would have changed, or you feel particularly hard done to. I like the incident of the Farrell no arms tackle (if you think it that) above, over the years it's developed where you now regularly get people talking about it as if it should have been a red. Rarely do people mention the shoulder charge to a prone Kruis in the same match. And there would have been countless other mistakes in the same match, some things stick in memory some don't.

Poorfour wrote:England do have a problem with getting on the wrong side of the ref more often than other teams, though. I don't think they actually commit more fouls, but I think (at least since Richie McCaw nicked Lawrence Dallaglio's magical cloak of invisibility to the ref) they are more prone to be spotted than some of the teams they play against.

Some of that is reputational. For instance, knowing what props are like I don't actually think that Joe Marler is materially worse with the verbals than the players he comes up against, but either he's got appalling timing or having been picked up on it a few times he's an easier target. Likewise the Hartley / Ferris incident: all the focus was on Hartley biting Ferris's fingers and none of it on why Ferris's fingers were in Hartley's mouth and pulling. But Hartley's got the rep and served the time.

How England fix that, I don't know. But some teams at both club and international level seem able to get away with a lot more than others.

Thought it was the Dean Richards cloak. Indeed, I thought Deano only got penalised it he was on the right side of a breakdown...

I think George Smith actually made that cloak and sold a few copies...

I thought it was a try then and still do now.....

In my head we have have won 2 World Cups......2 more than any other NH side, which I'm happy with.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought it was a try then and still do now.....

In my head we have have won 2 World Cups......2 more than any other NH side, which I'm happy with.

In my head I'm still 19 years old. Unfortunately mirror says otherwise.

mountain man wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I thought it was a try then and still do now.....

In my head we have have won 2 World Cups......2 more than any other NH side, which I'm happy with.

In my head I'm still 19 years old. Unfortunately mirror says otherwise.

Well, read the Mail, then.

Sorry old bean, it's The Times here.

I'll leave gossip rags to others.

I'm a bit more at peace with that Cueto decision now. This means I need a new candidate for Worst Decision against an England side.

Not sure how other supporters see things. Are bad World Cup calls more heinous than other matches? For a New Zealand supporter, is the missed French forward pass in 2007 worse than the decision not to penalize the Lions for offside at the end of the 2017 Third Test? Do Welsh supporters feel worse about Warburton's red card, or Andy Haden's dive in the 1978 All Black's test?

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm a bit more at peace with that Cueto decision now. This means I need a new candidate for Worst Decision against an England side.

Not sure how other supporters see things. Are bad World Cup calls more heinous than other matches? For a New Zealand supporter, is the missed French forward pass in 2007 worse than the decision not to penalize the Lions for offside at the end of the 2017 Third Test? Do Welsh supporters feel worse about Warburton's red card, or Andy Haden's dive in the 1978 All Black's test?

We talk of the TMO getting a bit too involved but had it been available in the French test it would have been ruled out. Not sure how any ref or official could realistically have called that pass in the actual game, so where you can say it was wrong I don't think it's a bad decision.

The Lions offside was a bizarre decision, but Read was offside from the initial kick anyway (do 2 wrongs makes a right)?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm a bit more at peace with that Cueto decision now. This means I need a new candidate for Worst Decision against an England side.

Not sure how other supporters see things. Are bad World Cup calls more heinous than other matches? For a New Zealand supporter, is the missed French forward pass in 2007 worse than the decision not to penalize the Lions for offside at the end of the 2017 Third Test? Do Welsh supporters feel worse about Warburton's red card, or Andy Haden's dive in the 1978 All Black's test?

We talk of the TMO getting a bit too involved but had it been available in the French test it would have been ruled out. Not sure how any ref or official could realistically have called that pass in the actual game, so where you can say it was wrong I don't think it's a bad decision.

The Lions offside was a bizarre decision, but Read was offside from the initial kick anyway (do 2 wrongs makes a right)?

I'm not really litigating individual decisions, because that way lies madness. What makes perceived bad decisions (with the emphasis on perceived) heinous are the missed opportnities. If I was Welsh, I might be more upset Andrew Hore didn't get sent off for punching Bradley Davies. Not because it was an act of thuggery; more that it would have given Wales most of the match against 14 men. In 2012, teams hadn't trained as much to play with a man down. Wales could have won that game if Hore had seen red. However, that probably counts as a non-decision, since it was never looked at.

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm a bit more at peace with that Cueto decision now. This means I need a new candidate for Worst Decision against an England side.

Not sure how other supporters see things. Are bad World Cup calls more heinous than other matches? For a New Zealand supporter, is the missed French forward pass in 2007 worse than the decision not to penalize the Lions for offside at the end of the 2017 Third Test? Do Welsh supporters feel worse about Warburton's red card, or Andy Haden's dive in the 1978 All Black's test?

The Warburton red card wasn’t an incorrect call though. It was just that they had only recently tightened up on spear/dump tackles and returning the player to the ground safely and not lifting above the horizontal. In fact, I think it was a World Cup directive to be strict on that and Warburton was one of the first to fall foul of it. Until not long before that World Cup those sort of tackles were seen as dominant and kind of accepted. But rules needed to be tightened up for player safety. So a lot of the outcry from Wales supporters was more to do with it being a fairly new ruling (i.e. straight red) and fans being unfamiliar with it or remembering all the times those tackles only warranted a penalty in the past, if anything at all. If Warburton did that in 2023 I’m sure we’d all, even the most one eyed Welsh fans, call it a definite red! I suppose in some ways the ruling and the sanctions on that have worked as I can’t recall seeing many dump tackles and tip tackles in the game lately. Maybe the red card ruling has worked as a deterrent. And perhaps the shoulder smash to the head has taken over as the new illegal ‘dominant tackle of choice’, for now……!

Not even sure why this is being debated, it's history and in rugby terms ancient history.

Same as Warburton red, etc etc etc.

No decision made on field by ref ever gets over turned to satisfaction of team/fans etc. Prime example is Freddie Steward "red".

Utterly wrong to get a red card and it was correctly rescinded but by then match longover, England lost match, Ireland won.

Not sure how this situation can ever be resolved. Teams never going to replay a match because it turns out a ref or TMO made the wrong decision.