Was it a try?

Question

http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard01bb7.jpg

The TMO got this right...foot clearly in touch...

Answer 1

The reverse angle showed his foot was up and not touching the line and the ball was down in the try zone.  Simple decision at the end of the day try!!!!

But it was the refs descision so the game must hav gone on.

Answer 2

Mark urtoes foot was not in touch, however I draw your attention to the laws of the game.

Law 6 (3)

The referee is the sole arbitrator of the rules of the game therefore any decision the referee gives is final and absolute.

I believe Cutueo scored but the rules say he did not (even if an Aussie was final judge) therefore the result is accurate

Answer 3

I'll admit when I was watching the game I thought it was good, but after seeing the photo you attached the TMO was right no try, either way I was cheering for South Africa :-)

Answer 4

Cannot confirm.

Where was his foot when the ball was grounded.

That shot doesn't show the ball.

Answer 5

Ah...the 1966 question furnished for the new age. Remember the 'effin' k***t' nonsense from all when one of Englands 4 goals against West Germany was deemed to be suspect. Of course since then, they have been in five World Cup finals, and (if I remember) won three of them...sehr Gut.

  The current moan will also run for years and years, but remember - we've been here before. We won the decision 41 years ago - today...it allegedly has gone the other way. Grin and bear it, folks!

Answer 6

it was not a try, im sad to say...the guys left foot was touching the line before the ball was set on the try zone.

Answer 7

While his whole body was on the field when he actually touched down, his foot went into touch before he grounded the ball, so no try. Extremely unlucky, but that's rugby sometimes.

Even Martin Johnson says it wasn't a try, and he would have had more reason than anyone to complain against a bad than anyone else.

England did amazingly well in that final, and should be proud of themselves, but it saddens me that the fans are blighting their effort by screaming foul play from the refs when there clearly wasn't any...

Answer 8

No try

Answer 9

You fools. How dare you talk about us English whingeing, you take us for Aussies or something. It was certainly unlikely to be a try and I believe the TMO was correct. The ref had a good game bar ignoring a few cases of crossing and some rucking issues. generally the game was fine and the win well deserved.

Answer 10

NO -TRY,good picture.

now everyone start acting like rugby players and get over it,we were beat plain and simple, we wasnt cheated out of it.

Answer 11

I agree, the TMO got it right. If you watch the replay carefully you will see that Cueto's boot touches the line a couple of frames before the touchdown, after that he drags his foot in field and off the ground and then touches the ball down. The problem is that if you look only at the moment of touchdown the evidence is misleading and would lead one to believe that the touchdown was good. However the infringement actually had already occurred and so when Cueto touched down the ball was already dead.

I know Aussie refs are often blind at the best of times but with the aid of slo mo replay even Dickenson could have but one decision and he got it right. (Never thought I would say that!)

Answer 12

definitely NOT. The TMO said NO so it wasn't. That wont stop the English from whingeing tho.

Answer 13

No, you gave it your best shot but it wasnt good enough on the night.  The cup went to a far better team.

Answer 14

Not really, byebye

Answer 15

No try. See the pics in the Sunday Times.

Answer 16

Derkey: Umm  close enough is not good enough.  If he was not in touch would close enough to be in touch be no try?

Answer 17

Yep that was definitely not a try his foot was clearly in touch before the try was planted.  That was indeed a great try saving tackle by Danie Rossouw.

Answer 18

NO

Answer 19

Sadly for England it was no try, his foot was on the line and thus over before he grounded the ball.... these are the laws of rugby, I said it wasn't a try before the TMO, you can see from the angle of his left leg as he slides over..... harsh for him so near but so far.....PS I am SAfrican but do not want to be associated with the gloaters here..... the English RUGBY fans are not whingeing at all and neither are the team....

Answer 20

His foot doesn't touch the ground till the SECOND time the ball is grounded !!!! It was a TRY !!! When the ball is grounded the first time his foot is off the ground!! the TMO doesn't give it GET OVER IT !!!!!!!  still only makes the score 13-15 you still lose?!?!?!?!

Answer 21

i think it was a try because it was close enough. It was a good run and dive. so what if his foot touched the line. You cant be that picky. It was close enough and should have been given

Bad decission that cost England the match, but guess what the real winners of the world cup was not the South Africans but the English Spirit.

Answer 22

During the game I thought it was a try, but the TMO got it spot on.

The English fans arent whinging, we arent Australian you know. The press might be moaning a bit but the fan in the street accepts we were beaten by a better team.

I

Answer 23

Great picture!!!!! I would have and have been saying yes it was a try however having seen the picture I would have to say you are right the TMO was spot on (oh the pressure) and the rest of England is unfortunately wrong.....

edit: oh 'dereky' close enough doesnt mean 'try' can you imagine if that were the case with every close enough try..... the refs are already a laughing stock of the tournament get a grip...... no try!!

Answer 24

No try. His foot clearly hit the chalk. Stop whinginng you poms and grow up. South Africa deserved their win. Congratulations South Africa, from a New Zealander.

Answer 25

If a foot hits the white line before the ball is grounded then it isn't a try.So no this isn't a try!