Who thinks the TMO for that try just gave the decision to sth africa coz hes australian and couldnt decide?

Question

ie to close to call and so went with his gut which was in favour of st africa coz england beat australia and also the fact australians hate the english and if a australian had to choose between england or south africa my thought is that nine times out of ten they would go for south africa

Answer 1

I don't that at all. I am an England supporter and I think Cueto's foot touched the line before he grounded it.

With regard to Vango. It's not about 'doing the math' if England had scored at that time the 2 teams would have played differently as SA would have needed to score rather than the other way round.

It's sport not a sum.

Answer 2

I think the Wayne Barnes debacle showed the IRB refs that supporters are looking for fairness. The TMO option gives the ref an extra opportunity to make a fair call.  TMO calls usually come down to inches and everyone is able to see what the TMO sees so "gut" calls usually come off second best and generally fairness and the right call are the order of things. Imagine you were a SA supporter I bet you would have wanted the TMO to check if the players foot was in touch or not. However saying all this I think the IRB has to get consistency in the manner in which the laws are applied. Fans are confused and frustrated with some of the calls and this leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories such as the one you have just put forward. By the way I am a Bok supporter and I can tell you there is absolutely no partiality on the part of Aus refs towards SA, we have been on the recieving end of their "fair" calls for years. If there was any doubt whatsoever Dickinson would have made the call against SA.

Answer 3

He who whinges last whinges loudest. Clearly the case for the English

Answer 4

Try or no try, England would still have lost. Do your math...

OK....IF the try was allowed...

IF Wilkinson kicked over the conversion from the touchline...

IF SA didn't get the penalties they got

That's a lot of IFs, mate.

How about...IF the ref yellow-carded Toby Flood for shoving Montgomery into the TV cameras...

You lost. C'mon man, be a good sport!

Answer 5

That decision was made after 3 minutes of watching it over and over and over again.  It was NOT a try.  Even if it was though, England would still have lost as they would have at the most, 4 extra points if it had been converted, which is doubtful given the extreme angle the conversion would have been taken from.  Also England would not have got the 3 points from the penalty, so at the most, with a very difficult conversion, they would have had 4 more points, which would have made the final score, 15 to 10 in South Africa's favour.

To say that the game would have changed if the try had been given, is mere speculation.  The boks would have had a big scare while waiting for the decision and that would have been equal to the feeling if the try had been given, resulting in what happened the rest of the match probably being the same.

It was not a try. get over it .  This ridiculous debate takes away from the England team, who contrary to popular expectations played very well at least defensively.

The better team won on the day, the only unbeaten team in the tournament won on the day.  It was the right decision and the right result.  Move on.

Answer 6

You could see from the replay that his foot just clipped the line before he lifted it. Unfortunately in rugby, unlike football, if you just clip the line then you are out. It was a shame but it was not a try. I am English and quite frankly we didn't play well enough to win. Our lineouts were a joke and we gave away far to much turnover ball.