was it a try?

[holdenator6]

it wasnt a try and there were many other times when england could have scored.

 

[ak47]

<div class='quotemain'>

[/b]

thats got to be conclusive enough to end the debate?
[/b][/quote]



CONCLUSIVE - NO!!!



I cannot with 100% confidence determine if his foot is touching the line or above it...the focus is horrible



I cannot even read 'World Cup', in the Rugby World Cup 2007 logo, top left...........i only know what it says because of the logo........that being said, the decision was made under these conditions, and there was no other alternative.



And if you asked an American if he can disect the writing on the corner post and the logo - he wont recognise it, and cant read it.......we as rugby fans can recognise it, certainly cannot read it



But on the issue of being conclusive - ie black n white.........its not, and is evident by the lack of focus.



Perhaps in due time some photo freaks will make it clearer, but to say its conclusive when u cant read half the text on the screen, when we are looking for a blade of grass touching boot - we're talking millimetres like previous posts.....put a ruler mark on the corner post with millimetes (like a flood guage)....if ur gonna TALK MILLIMETRES I WANNA SEE IT!!!

 

[jawmalawm24]

Come on are you serious? how clear do you want the picture I guess it has to be in HD. Who cares if you can't read the logos and crap on the screen its the foot everyones looking at.

I can't read what it says on the corner flag but who gives a f*** oh well conclusive or not it wasn't awarded so you lose. :bleh!:

 

[nam97]

It's pretty obvious Cueto's foot is in touch judging by the picture above. What makes it more convincing is that the ball still hasn't been grounded. It's a dead discussion, no doubt it wasn't a try

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

[/b]

thats got to be conclusive enough to end the debate?
[/b][/quote]



CONCLUSIVE - NO!!!



I cannot with 100% confidence determine if his foot is touching the line or above it...the focus is horrible



I cannot even read 'World Cup', in the Rugby World Cup 2007 logo, top left...........i only know what it says because of the logo........that being said, the decision was made under these conditions, and there was no other alternative.

But on the issue of being conclusive - ie black n white.........its not, and is evident by the lack of focus.

Perhaps in due time some photo freaks will make it clearer, but to say its conclusive when u cant read half the text on the screen, when we are looking for a blade of grass touching boot - we're talking millimetres like previous posts.....put a ruler mark on the corner post with millimetes (like a flood guage)....if ur gonna TALK MILLIMETRES I WANNA SEE IT!!!


[/b][/quote]



Not sure why you keep arguing this one AK... There's no benefit of the doubt rule in Union, so it never had a chance of being given. Also, even if this were a league game with the BOD rule, I'd wager they'd have ruled it no try as well because the rule really only applies when it's a 50-50 call with no clear evidence either way, whereas this is definately 90-10 against it being a try. It may not be a100% super HD perfect, but there's more than enough there to suggest that at the very least a blade of white grass touched his foot before grounding the ball, and that's all they need.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

I really don't think it's that conclusive....look at the level of his knee, which is down & taking his weight and the level of his foot.

 

[sanzar]

Well regardless of whether you truly believe that objectively, you have to admit that the balance is certainly in favour of it not being a try. If it had been given, the controversy would have been far far greater I believe, given that the camera angle definately is more in favour of him being out than in.

 

[Aeros]

I really don't think it's that conclusive....look at the level of his knee, which is down & taking his weight and the level of his foot.
[/b]

Hehe.. well, since Cueto doesn't have oddly-shaped feet, where the feet point backwards instead of forwards, his foot was still pointing down eventhough his weight was on his knee. Foot pointing downwards. Foot/toe touching the line. Those are the key phrases.

But I suppose I understand why it's such an issue. No worries though, I'm off to argue that the goalposts were technically modified to bump Wilko's stray penalty kick to the inside instead of back towards the field. Because there isn't any conclusive evidence that it wasn't modified See my point? These arguments can go on forever, but serve absolutely no purpose other than to frustrate both the English and South African supporter groups.

 

[Sussudio]

It was undoubtedly NOT a try, anyone still debating this is either blind or deluded. FACT!

 

[Aeros]

Agree 100%. And once again, I don't just say this as a Bok supporter, but as someone who is also exasperated at the amount of moaning about the no-try.

 

[C A Iversen]

It's really sad to see that some still want to call that a try? Stuey, I have just tried and it is 0%, ZERO % difficulty to keep my knee and foot on the ground at the same time! I've just got my boarder to try it too! We are incredulous at how sad the efforts to demean the no-try judgement are!

Anyhow, need I remind you about the Michalak forward pass? Going by the logic displayed, then NZ might've played England, and then you might not have been in the final to have this to bleat about!

 

[ak47]

the reason i state this issue is that the next frame his foot is a good few inches ABOVE the ground

thus his foot isnt sliding horizontal - its on the way up

i accept the ruling - i debate if there was B.O.D, it would be a try, and i also debate B.O.D will be introduced in the future, using this example as a prime tool for B.O.D existence.

Not i am not talking about O'Driscoll

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

[/b]

thats got to be conclusive enough to end the debate?
[/b][/quote]



CONCLUSIVE - NO!!!



I cannot with 100% confidence determine if his foot is touching the line or above it...the focus is horrible



I cannot even read 'World Cup', in the Rugby World Cup 2007 logo, top left...........i only know what it says because of the logo........that being said, the decision was made under these conditions, and there was no other alternative.

But on the issue of being conclusive - ie black n white.........its not, and is evident by the lack of focus.

Perhaps in due time some photo freaks will make it clearer, but to say its conclusive when u cant read half the text on the screen, when we are looking for a blade of grass touching boot - we're talking millimetres like previous posts.....put a ruler mark on the corner post with millimetes (like a flood guage)....if ur gonna TALK MILLIMETRES I WANNA SEE IT!!!


[/b][/quote]



Not sure why you keep arguing this one AK... There's no benefit of the doubt rule in Union, so it never had a chance of being given. Also, even if this were a league game with the BOD rule, I'd wager they'd have ruled it no try as well because the rule really only applies when it's a 50-50 call with no clear evidence either way, whereas this is definately 90-10 against it being a try. It may not be a100% super HD perfect, but there's more than enough there to suggest that at the very least a blade of white grass touched his foot before grounding the ball, and that's all they need.

[/b][/quote]



Sanzar my long time neighbour!!!



I dont agree your take on benefit of the doubt in 50-50 calls



even if its 90-10 - that 10% represents doubt, and thus given a try, under the benefit of the doubt league ruling



'50-50 calls' is just a cliche mate...........but i suppose the ratio given from anyone is an interpretation.

 

[ak47]

Yeah the actual replays on the telecast were alot cleared than this pic, i have HD at home.

The above pic is shocking......whatever anyone says i dont care, get the real HD feed, i will always downplay that joke of a focus above.

focus above is a joke is it not???

so i have reason in this thread to debate the conclusiveness of the evidence given....considering we are talking about the out of focus blurr - black grey area where the foot is deemed to hit the white grass, and then on the next frame (not given in this thread, how convenient), his foot is inches above...a considerable amount in the air...which COULD suggest his foot was on the way up before the above frame, where its his TOE that is not focusly touching the ground.

and 2 add to this

pieces of grass were flung up in the whole process from his boot..........making a divot, as evident in the still good quality HD pics in the page before.........this grass was GREEN, the divot is infield..........i ask the question if his foot is touching the sidline, why we dont see the same divot extended over the sidline.......FOOT ON WAY UP I TELL YAS

 

[C A Iversen]

You could argue that if feet played rugby, and the foot hitting the line was the foot scoring a try (just follow my crazy line of thought for a moment), wouldn't the foot have been given benefit of doubt and have been awarded a try?

As I understand it most people think the foot touched the line, even our poll above says so. So benefit of doubt (as in B.O.D), is against it being a try.

Thats how benefit of doubt works. Whatever is most doubted is denied.

 

[Brodizzle]

even if its 90-10 - that 10% represents doubt, and thus given a try, under the benefit of the doubt league ruling
[/b]

Yeah, and OJ Simpson was found guilty on civil charges of killing his wife yet found innocent using criminal laws benifit of doubt. If that is seriously the way that League runs it I think they are the one with the real problem....it's a really stupid way of doing things...

PS. I am thinking of getting a shirt made up with the foot on the line with 'No Try!' written underneath

 

[ak47]

<div class='quotemain'>
even if its 90-10 - that 10% represents doubt, and thus given a try, under the benefit of the doubt league ruling
[/b]

Yeah, and OJ Simpson was found guilty on civil charges of killing his wife yet found innocent using criminal laws benifit of doubt. If that is seriously the way that League runs it I think they are the one with the real problem....it's a really stupid way of doing things...

PS. I am thinking of getting a shirt made up with the foot on the line with 'No Try!' written underneath [/b][/quote]



comparing civil rights and sports ruling is not really civil in debating is it



and ur talking about US laws - a criminal system that is flawed more than anyother democracy.



Rugby Leagues benefit of the doubt - is the only good thing they do.....league has flaws, we all do, i aint saying if one does so should other - but a benefit of the doubt rule, also in cricket - is the way to go when technology is used for decision making where the evidence given is not sufficient



Unil we have a time machine for the ref to go back to the spot and watch it over and over again - B.O.D must be used, as technology will never get it black n white 100% of the time.



I will create a B.O.D watch - Rugby Union will ONE DAY USE B.O.D - thus proving the current system is flawed........heck referee scrutiny is at the peak of rugby unions entire life.........watch the measures used to compromise this.



My shirt will read



B.O.D 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nam97]

The main point of focus here is that the ball is noway near grounded in these pictures. So it's pretty bleeding obvious it's a dud argument. NO TRY!

 

[Brodizzle]

US law stems from the same English based principles as our (and many other) justice system is based on, the same verdict would have occured in Australia most likely...hell, when studying law many case studies are actually from the US, because of our basic similarities....the comparison is fitting as the benefit of doubt idea would almost certainly have come from the justice system...

Now you are arguing that the BOD would have given the try, yet once again I saw that the TMO said that he is 100% sure it wasn't a try, No try whichever way you look at it....the BOD system is plain stupid, its a try or its not, no wishy washy 'oh, it could be a try, we better give it so he doesn't get sad' type of bs. Not to mention this would increase the amount of errors and make the effort put into watching the footage and making the correct decision minimal.

If it wasn't a final the try could have been given, the reason? The TMO wouldn't be as brilliant in his decision, really difficult call, probably will be argued for a while but if you look at the footage it was truely a masterstroke call, brilliant....

 

[sanzar]

the reason i state this issue is that the next frame his foot is a good few inches ABOVE the ground

thus his foot isnt sliding horizontal - its on the way up

i accept the ruling - i debate if there was B.O.D, it would be a try, and i also debate B.O.D will be introduced in the future, using this example as a prime tool for B.O.D existence.

Not i am not talking about O'Driscoll

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

[/b]

thats got to be conclusive enough to end the debate?
[/b][/quote]

CONCLUSIVE - NO!!!

I cannot with 100% confidence determine if his foot is touching the line or above it...the focus is horrible

I cannot even read 'World Cup', in the Rugby World Cup 2007 logo, top left...........i only know what it says because of the logo........that being said, the decision was made under these conditions, and there was no other alternative.

But on the issue of being conclusive - ie black n white.........its not, and is evident by the lack of focus.

Perhaps in due time some photo freaks will make it clearer, but to say its conclusive when u cant read half the text on the screen, when we are looking for a blade of grass touching boot - we're talking millimetres like previous posts.....put a ruler mark on the corner post with millimetes (like a flood guage)....if ur gonna TALK MILLIMETRES I WANNA SEE IT!!!


[/b][/quote]

Not sure why you keep arguing this one AK... There's no benefit of the doubt rule in Union, so it never had a chance of being given. Also, even if this were a league game with the BOD rule, I'd wager they'd have ruled it no try as well because the rule really only applies when it's a 50-50 call with no clear evidence either way, whereas this is definately 90-10 against it being a try. It may not be a100% super HD perfect, but there's more than enough there to suggest that at the very least a blade of white grass touched his foot before grounding the ball, and that's all they need.

[/b][/quote]
Sanzar my long time neighbour!!!

I dont agree your take on benefit of the doubt in 50-50 calls

even if its 90-10 - that 10% represents doubt, and thus given a try, under the benefit of the doubt league ruling


'50-50 calls' is just a cliche mate...........but i suppose the ratio given from anyone is an interpretation.

[/b][/quote]



Well even if the League BOD rule isn't specifically 50/50 it wouldn't have mattered I don't think... Think about it, the rule is hardly ever used to award a try because if the video ref feels there is convincing enough evidence (even if fans don't think it's 100% perfect) they'll rule that way. Most of the time the rule is envoked is when the ball is virtually invisible from the camera angles and you really can't see what happened one way or another and even then they sometimes just send it back as a "refs call".

In any case the international concensus is that it wasn't a try and generally only trashy UK tabloids will say otherwise. A great call by Dickenson IMO. Given all this, can you imagine what would have happened if the try HAD been given though? THEN you'd have your controversy! It would have been an even worse call than the forward pass try in the NZ game! Even there that ref got death threats... Stu Dickenson would have had sniper teams from SA after him if he'd awarded that because he simply thought "there's 10% doubt here and that's enough for a try IMO".

 

[ikvat]

"This war is over"

G. W. Bush