Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Midweek Madness - David Lemi's controversial try against Toulouse

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Midweek Madness - David Lemi's controversial try against Toulouse

Wasps came close to beating Toulouse in Pool Six of the Heineken Cup on the weekend, thanks in part to this try from David Lemi with 15 minutes left in the game. The try was a bit of a strange one as Lemi seemed to be ignored initially, so some of you wanted to see it again.

Lemi kicked the ball ahead and controlled it nicely after a neat chip from flyhalf Dave Walder, with the bounce not doing the Toulouse defence any favours. Lemi managed to ground the ball but referee George Clancy allowed play to continue on.

There was a few seconds there that were quite comical as Lemi celebrated then realised it wasn't awarded, so started appealing to Clancy frantically, who then shouted back that it would go to the TMO.

It’s an interesting one as it’s not too often that a side runs the ball out after an attempt for a try has been made. Even then, I’m sure some refs would have just blown the whistle and called for the tv replay instantly.

The French crowd and some of the players weren’t too impressed, but as the replays concluded, the try was actually scored and Lemi brought his side closer to a famous victory away from home. Unfortunately for them Walder missed a penalty late in the game that would have taken them in front.

"There's real disappointment in our changing room. We came here to win and didn't just come here to make up the numbers. It didn't matter what anyone else thought. There was enough belief within our side and we prepared well," said Wasps head coach Tony Hanks.

"There were some special moments such as David's try and the way we kept hold of the ball. And we were excellent in defence for the second week in a row but Toulouse are a quality side and they just kept coming at us.

"But I'm really proud of the players. What we need to make sure of that people aren't just talking about what we did in round one. We have to kick on next week because we still want to qualify from this pool," he added.

You can view a bunch of pics from the try, in sequence, here. What's your take on the try and the way it was handled? Opinions are clearly mixed.

Time: 02:24

I don't think that's a try, but I've never seen a TMO taking the wrong decision, and this one came very quickly.
However, it's a very strange way to referee : let the game go on for 15 sec, and then come back to watch the replays...

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 3:36 pm
"The French crowd weren't too impressed". What a surprise. They boo every single decision that goes against their team, even when the ref makes 100% the right decision. It makes them seem like they know nothing about the rules of the game.

I guess some just call that being a fan, though.

By jo, at October 13, 2010 3:38 pm
Just to clarify, it's not that French crowds are unbearable or anything (just really annoying). English fans are almost just as bad. It's from the soccer culture that pervades the two societies, I think. But that's just how it is. Nothing to get too worked up about.

Anyways, I thought the ref made the right decision here...but it would've been even more awkward had Toulouse scored and he had to call the game all the way back to review the Wasps try first.

By jo, at October 13, 2010 3:44 pm
I think some people still think you have to apply downward pressure, which isn't the case. You can see from the replay that his finger tips are in contact with the ball when it touches the ground, so it's a try.

By J, at October 13, 2010 4:11 pm
I think some people still think you have to apply downward pressure, which isn't the case. You can see from the replay that his finger tips are in contact with the ball when it touches the ground, so it's a try.

By J, at October 13, 2010 4:12 pm
Hey Jo how about you just fuck off all crowds in all sports don't like it when a dubious try is awarded, particularly if the ref said play on

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 4:14 pm
i was part of the "french crowd who boo every single decision" and i booed and i still boo because it is simply not a try!!!

the ball as not been grounded, if your are not sure look at the last replay.

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 4:16 pm
Good one, anonymous. You must be right, since you used curse words and all.

By Jo, at October 13, 2010 4:20 pm
@Anonymous, I think you have forum rage. Calm down.

By Phil, at October 13, 2010 4:23 pm
Ball grounded.

Try = Ball + in try / end zone + player touching ball or applying downward pressure.

A try can be scored with your arse - as long as its pushing the ball down in the try zone

By BigBucks, at October 13, 2010 4:41 pm
To jo and some brave anonymous,

very easy to point that the frenchs crowds always boo. it's a general "soccer" phenomena. u have the same reactions in thomond park, Madjeski stadium and others.
Let say that the french crowds are a bit more passionate.

Toulouse fans boo because they didn't understand (so did many people) why Clancy came back to the TMO after 20 seconds
But as it was a try no regrets.

a special palm to the so-biased Sky commentators who always criticize the french players and public. France 2 commentators are always exemplars, completly impartial, cheering the team tries whether there are english, french, welsh.

By Flooz, at October 13, 2010 4:43 pm
It's a try but you must admit it is difficult for whatever crowd to easily accept this decision the way it happen. Wasps played with a lot of heart but Toulouse was by far the strongest side and dominated at the scrum. They should have finished the game before.

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 4:50 pm
That's a try and correctly handled by the ref.

22.1 (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

Can't score with your arse....

By Andrew, at October 13, 2010 4:55 pm
What would have happened if Toulouse had scored a try on the counter attack??

In the end:
Probably a try
I don't like the commentator
Toulouse Won.

By Other Jo, at October 13, 2010 5:33 pm
i think this is great refereeing. allowing the game to play on until there was a suitable moment to go to the tmo.

its a great lesson to football to show them that it wouldnt have to interupt the flow of a game to go the video ref, just wait till the next stoppage and have a look then.

well done george clancy

By charlie, at October 13, 2010 5:45 pm
Wrong decision of referee, it's a technical foult. We call the TMO at the moment not 1 minute after

If Toulouse scored a Try after this what's the decision of the referee, go back 100 meters to award the wasps'try

Fortunately, Toulouse win at the end

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 5:47 pm
totally agree with flooz, watch football or rugby on french tv and the commentry is far superior because it is just that, unbiased commentry enjoying the spectacle. watched ireland beat france a couple of years ago in a great game and the commentators were loving it even though france lost. butler and moore with their equally biased viewpoints can be quite entertaining for internationals but in general, and barnes in particular, sky are rubbish.
don´t see the controversy in the try. it´s a try end of

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 5:59 pm
It's only controversial because the ref, for whatever reason, didn't go to the TMO straight away.

I'd be interested to hear from a rules nerd, I thought the TMO needed to be consulted straight away, and certainly not after the next break in play. I suppose the correct decision was reached here, but had Toulouse scored a break-away try for example, only one try would have stood and that would have led to the mother of all sh*tstorms.

By edbok, at October 13, 2010 6:36 pm
That's a try. Where's the controversy?

By Chris, at October 13, 2010 6:52 pm
To the various guys saying that french commentators in football and rugby are unbiased. That is completely false in football (Thierry Rolland...), and is far from true in rugby. In both the Toulouse's (against Wasps) and the Clermont's (against Saracens) matches, they kept saying that every penalty blown was harsh for the French team (I'm French, and support french team, thus I'm quite sure I'm not biased against french teams). In this example, French commentators successively said that the ref was not allowed to ask for the TMO after a delay, then, after being corrected, that even if he was allowed, he shouldn't have, and finally that it was the TMO himself that said to the ref to ask for the video (proving that they were unable to understand the "TMO!" shouted by the ref at Lemi), trying to compare this to the Zidane's expulsion in the 2006 football WC (where the 4th ref might have informed the main ref of the headbutt, which is still a sensitive subject for some French people).

By Lucas, at October 13, 2010 7:15 pm
Btw, does anyone know what happened to the trial about the extension in the power of the TMO, where he is not limited to the tryzone ?(like in this video http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-tmo-jurisdiction-allows-sharks-to.html). Has the trial be found unconclusive or are there still competitions where this rule is applied ?

By Lucas, at October 13, 2010 7:22 pm
I think the ref played this brilliantly, you have to look at it in terms of what would have happened had Wasps not scored the try.

Let's say instead of downward pressure the wasps player knocks on. Clancy doesnt see it but goes straight to the TMO: Outcome? 5 Meter scrum to Toulouse

Now lets say he doesnt go to the TMO just like what happened. Toulouse run the ball out and kick to touch, gaining around 40 meters. Clancy goes back to the TMO who finds that it was indeed a knock on and the lineout stands.

Now I dont know about you, but had that been the case i think every Toulouse player would prefere a 40m lineout to a 5m scrum on their line.

As it happened it was a try, nothing lost for Toulouse by going to the TMO right away it would have been the same outcome anyway. All Clancy did was give them the opportunity to play a possible advantage.

By Box, at October 13, 2010 8:09 pm
Ref made a great call there. He waited for the ball to be dead to allow an advantage to Toulouse. If he stopped the game when the guy went for the try, then he is being unfair to Toulouse who could have an advantage from a knock-forward. If a try is scored and he does not ask for the TMO, then he is unfair to the other team.

The way he did it obeyed the laws and was fair to both. Well done.

By Mike, at October 13, 2010 8:33 pm
Wonderful bit of opportunism by Lemi, but Poitrenaud again showing a bizarre penchant for messing up. To be fair it's good fun when the French crowds boo, they can't take it when things go against them, I say that having been to several French grounds. More pantomime than general nastiness.

And no, it's not the soccer culture, the southern rugby culture in France is fairly detached from soccer, it's just bad manners and an element of wanting to be entertained and having a good boo when the ref isn't giving everything in their favour.

As for the ref's decision. If he wasn't sure he had to play on, but had he been a bit closer he would have had reason to believe that a try had been scored so would've gone straight to the TMO.

By John F, at October 13, 2010 8:36 pm
I also think the ref should have stopped play ASAP. Like others have pointed out, what if they had scored a try?

That would have been an officiating nightmare.

By EARugbyFan, at October 13, 2010 8:43 pm
No try.

By Lucius, at October 13, 2010 8:51 pm
Best Refereeing I have seen in a long time. He let the other team use the advantage they had in case it was a knock on....

Great work by the ref.

By Anonymous, at October 13, 2010 9:48 pm
The more it goes and the more I feel like watching US footbal...sooner or later we'll see the rules infer that if you and the ball end up in the try zone, you have a try?

I'm french, I played in US and Northern Ireland, and I support Toulouse...and okay, crowd is a bit biased, but which is not??? Judging by what I experimented, English players and crowd have sometimes nice ways to make you feel at "home".
"Excuse my french" isn't just for us!!!!at times.

By gardaremlolarzac, at October 13, 2010 10:51 pm
EArugbyFan -

"I also think the ref should have stopped play ASAP. Like others have pointed out, what if they had scored a try?

That would have been an officiating nightmare."

That is exactly why he was correct to let play on - what if Toulouse scored a try and the Lemi 'try' was actually a knock-on? He would have prevented the potential Toulouse try if he stopped play. He did the perfect thing instead - sorted out the Lemi try/no try decision when the ball went dead.

By Mike, at October 13, 2010 11:07 pm
how you can say that isn't a try i don't understand.

By Chris Boy, at October 13, 2010 11:22 pm
I have a genuine question, don't go all aggro on me... Don't you have to be in control of the ball?

By Gman, at October 13, 2010 11:40 pm
Tremendous refereeing!

By Anonymous, at October 14, 2010 12:55 am
That's a try surely. Pressure on the ball and proper grounding.

Clancy is a top ref, but even he can make a mistake once in a while. Always remember players and referees are as human as you or me.

Cheers

Did I just made a rhyme?

By Juggernauter, at October 14, 2010 1:01 am
Here's another scenario for the people that say the ref should have stopped straight away:
What if Lemi had not scored the try, but had NOT KNOCKED ON. What would you call? If the ref waits for a break in play, there is always a call to be made.

By granite, at October 14, 2010 1:13 am
Granite said...

"Here's another scenario for the people that say the ref should have stopped straight away:
What if Lemi had not scored the try, but had NOT KNOCKED ON. What would you call?"

Interesting. Perhaps a 5 Yard put in to Toulouse? The only way I can think of (As per Try scoring rules) this happening would have been if the ball was kicked before he touched it.

That being said and done, I would have awarded a scrum to Toulouse, much like in situations when a
Ref interrupts play. See my reasoning below.

Mike said...

" That is exactly why he was correct to let play on - what if Toulouse scored a try and the Lemi 'try' was actually a knock-on? He would have prevented the potential Toulouse try if he stopped play. He did the perfect thing instead - sorted out the Lemi try/no try decision when the ball went dead. "

Good Post. I understand your point on encouraging a free flowing game, but this was very much a point changing situation (Try). In my opinion, stopping play for clarity of said point changing scenario would seem prudent, vs opening a Pandoras Box.

(Two tries scored by opposing teams without stoppage in between)

Lesser of two evils, I suppose.

By EARugbyFan, at October 14, 2010 2:54 am
Hey RD, how can I make my name "official", you know, have that cool blue and underlined stuff?

By Juggernauter, at October 14, 2010 3:22 am
wasps against toulose its a try he toched the ball with his finger tips. so lets all go for a beer and see what happens in the next game.

By Anonymous, at October 14, 2010 3:29 am
Clear try!

By Unknown, at October 14, 2010 6:49 am
I'm with Jo. What if a Toulouse player somehow ran it up the field and scored? I think the ref shit the bed and was lucky that mark was called.

By Chris J, at October 14, 2010 6:51 am
I think he (the ref) handled it well. But what does the rule book say?

By Neil, at October 14, 2010 7:22 am
@Gman:
I have a genuine question, don't go all aggro on me... Don't you have to be in control of the ball?
Not any more. Not sure when the rule changed (about four years ago I think?), but you no longer need downward pressure or indeed control of the ball: you just have to have some contact with the ball (hand, arm, neck, chest) while it's touching the ground.

Which is fine in professional rugby with the luxury of a TMO, but I can guarantee any try scored like this on a Saturday afternoon wtih a bunch of amateurs and half a dozen spectators would be nonchalantly waved away.

Personally I'm not sure why players are content to score tries like this - I'm not saying it's easy, but it looks like Lemi could have made that a lot more convincing and avoided any element of doubt, whereas he - like many others - seemed happy just to get fingertips on it and rely on the TMO to confirm.

By Von, at October 14, 2010 10:25 am
On the subject of crowd's appreciation of the game, I've been very impressed by the Argentina fans, from what I've seen of them.

They seem to cheer their own team at the right moments, including tactical plays which may not be that spectacular but which help put their team on the front foot. A slightly more subtle understanding than many crowds show, in other words.

Haven't heard much booing of oppositions and there's polite applause for opposition tries and points kicked.

Turning the "pervasive soccer culture" argument on its head, I reckon you can argue that, because football's so massive in Argentina, it takes care of all the dullards, thugs, scumbags and bad sports and keeps them away from Rugby stadia.

By Von, at October 14, 2010 10:41 am
Good try by lemi, he's a really top class player. Guys great on his feet and can put in the hits for a small guy. Really can't comprehend why he didn't start.

By Nick, at October 14, 2010 11:23 am
I think the people that think this isnt a try just arent upto date on the laws of the game ... there is no debate. A few years ago it might have been dodgy but today its a clear a day try.

By Dr, at October 14, 2010 2:44 pm
Very well handled by the referee.
But as many of you pointed out, what if Toulouse had scored?

Maybe the referee sould be able to show he's having a doubt on a specific action, and he wants to keep his judgement for later in the game (within 1 mn of course).

About the crowd, the first thing to know is that this match was played at the Stadium which is the big one in Toulouse, and usually used by the local football team.
I always prefer to attend a match in Ernest Wallon (Stade Toulousain own pitch) where the crowd is much more "rugbystic" (and therefore respectful).

In the same way, I attended a France's match in the Stade de France agains Wales, and I was very disapponted by the crowd behaviour, mainly because it attracts many non-rugbystic people who don't know words such as "respect" and "fair-play"...

By Ithilsul, at October 14, 2010 5:22 pm
Two separate issues here:
(1) try or no try (did Lemi correctly ground the ball)?
(2) when should the ref go to the TMO if unsure about (1)?

*1. Ball Grounded in In-Goal?*
No real controversy here; the answer is yes. The relevant law is 22.1 http://is.gd/g1Qeg. There are actually two different situations when it comes to grounding the ball in the in-goal (and both of these apply whether it's an attacking player attempting to score a try or a defending player attempting to ground the ball in his own in-goal):
(a) ball already on the ground in the in-goal area and player seeks to ground it without first picking it up
(b) All other situations.
(For anyone wishing to consult the laws, Law 22.1 actually reverses the order of these).

==> In situation (a) the player must apply downward pressure to the ball with either his hand(s), arm(s), or the front of his body between waist and neck inclusive. If he does then the ball has been grounded in in-goal. If not then it hasn't.

==> In situation (b) the player must "hold" (i.e. be in control of) the ball in his hand(s) or arm(s) and *whilst so holding the ball* bring it into contact with the ground in the in-goal area. If a player does this then the ball has been grounded in in-goal. If not then it hasn't.

There is a requirement for "downward pressure" in (a) but NOT (b). You only need "downward pressure" if you are seeking to ground a ball that is *already* in contact with the ground. In all other situations the player needs to be "holding" (i.e. in control of) the ball in his hand(s)/arm(s) and then bring it into contact with the ground and talk of "downward pressure" is wholly irrelevant in this situation.

So what's this say about the Lemi incident? Well the ball was grubbered through which means that at times it was in contact with the ground and at times it was in the air.
==> *IF* Lemi made contact with the ball at an instant whilst it (or part of it) was touching the ground then he must apply downward pressure to it with his hand(s)/arm(s)/upper body.
==>*IF* on the other hand Lemi gathered the ball whilst it was in the air (i.e. whilst no part of it was touching the ground) then he must (i) "hold" (i.e. be in control of) it with his hand(s)/arm(s) and (ii) in so doing bring it into contact with the ground.

Looking at the video it is impossible to say for sure whether part of the ball was already touching the ground when Lemi made contact with it. So we can't say for sure whether the relevant test under Law 22.1 is (a) exerting downward pressure on a ball on the ground or (b) bringing a ball in his control into contact with the ground. But in any event it is clear that *both* tests are satisfied. So whichever test is the technically correct one to apply it was satisfied and there is no doubt that a try was scored.

*2. When to go to the TMO?*
The laws of rugby are silent on this question. The laws don't spell out when the ref is to stop play to consult the TMO. There may, however, be some official guidance issued outside of the laws but if so I've never seen it because I've never refereed at that level. I suspect that it would be the ERC as match organiser and not the IRB that would be responsible for setting down any such guidance to referees.

Personally I think this was the right decision -- although I've never seen it done before. Normally refs go straight to the TMO and re-start the game with a 5 metre scrum which isn't really fair to the defensive team. I think the defending team should always be allowed to gain an advantage until the referee has adjudged the ball to go dead.

By The Referee, at October 14, 2010 5:27 pm
I think the guys saying the ref played this correct are missing a big piece of the argument.

If the ref lets Toulouse play an advantage, then he's already decided it was a knock-on, and he should not be coming back to the TMO. There's no such thing as advantage when you don't know if there was a knock-on, and if he's called for a TMO eventually, he's admitted he didn't actually know... in which case he should have gone upstairs immediately it looked like a try could have been scored.

I think the point about a Toulouse 5m scrum being a pretty crappy outcome for the defending team is a fair one, perhaps they could modify the law to say if a guy knocks on over the goal line in the process of scoring a try, then it's a 22m restart. That would sort that out.

But this is quite separate from the decision of when to go to the TMO, for me it has to be right away, any alternative is worse.

By edbok, at October 14, 2010 6:57 pm
@Von

"Personally I'm not sure why players are content to score tries like this - I'm not saying it's easy, but it looks like Lemi could have made that a lot more convincing and avoided any element of doubt, whereas he - like many others - seemed happy just to get fingertips on it and rely on the TMO to confirm."

But it's not by design that he only just gets it down, it's under pressure from Poitrenaud that he dives and also Poitrenaud gets a clear touch with his foot just before claims the try. It almost got away from him, if he hadn't dived early though a ST player might have got their boot or hand to it before him.

By John F, at October 14, 2010 7:53 pm
@edbok:
what about the situation where there is no grounding but no knock on? Here the referee wouldn't be playing *advantage* to Toulouse but would simply be playing on (since the ball hadn't gone dead and there hadn't been an infringement).

If for the sake of argument Lemi had gathered the ball but dropped it straight down or backwards there would be no grounding and no knock-on. Or if for the sake of argument he had unsuccessfully attempted to dive on the ball and it had come forward off his head, chest, neck, waist or leg (none of which is a knock-on under the definition of a knock-on) without there being any downward pressure on the ball from his hands / arms / front of body (from waste to neck inclusive) then there would be no grounding and no knock-on. In these cases the correct decision by the referee would simply be to waive play on and Toulouse would be entitled to attempt to advance the ball upfield any way they like.

Calling for the TMO in such circumstances before the ball had gone dead wouldn't deny Toulouse the "advantage" after an infringement by Wasps, but it would deny them the chance to make the best of a situation of general play.

Consider a situation in which there had been no grounding by Wasps but also no knock-on and the referee goes to the TMO. If Toulouse had immediately made the ball dead (either by grounding it in-goal, kicking it dead or kicking it into touch) then there would be little controversy about the correct restart. The TMO would advise the referee "no grounding by Wasps and no knock-on by Wasps so play to resume as per normal following Toulouse making it dead in-goal or kicking to touch (as the case may be)". But what if Toulouse hadn't opted to immediately make the ball dead but instead wanted to chance their arm and run it? If the referee were to stop play immediately to go to the TMO and the TMO then advised him that there had been no grounding by Wasps but also no knock-on by Wasps then we can say that the referee had wrongly blown up a situation of general play before the ball had gone dead and denied Toulouse the opportunity to make the best of it. What is the correct restart in such a situation? Well there's only a "least bad" option here and that is a scrum to the team in possession (presumably Toulouse) where the referee had blown up play (which in the case of play blown up in-goal gets moved 5 metres out from the goal line). That's cold comfort if Toulouse were wrongly denied the opportunity to advance the ball by running it upfield in a situation of general play, possibly even scoring a try of their own.

By The Referee, at October 14, 2010 10:08 pm
@Von October 14, 2010 10:25 AM and Gman October 13, 2010 11:40 PM:

Q: Don't you have to be in control of the ball?

A: Not any more. Not sure when the rule changed (about four years ago I think?), but you no longer need downward pressure or indeed control of the ball: you just have to have some contact with the ball (hand, arm, neck, chest) while it's touching the ground.

Not so. You either need downward pressure or to be "holding" the ball (which I would argue implied control and not mere contact), depending on the situation (there are in fact two distinct situations when it comes to grounding the ball in-goal). I explained the law in an earlier post although that wasn't done with your post in mind.

Here is Law 22.1 quoted verbatim:

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball.
A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball.
A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

In other words:
*If you are diving on a ball on the ground you need to exert downward pressure (="press down") on the ball with either the hand(s), arms(s) or front of the upper body (waist to neck inclusive).
*Otherwise you must "hold" the ball in the hand(s) or arm(s) and in so doing bring the ball into contact with the ground (no downward pressure required). What this means is going to come down to the definition of the word "hold". Since the word is not specifically defined in the laws of rugby it will come down to the word's natural meaning. I would respectfully submit that "hold" here implies more than mere contact and the player must in fact be in control of the ball. Mere contact of the ball with the hand or the arm is stretching the definition of the word "hold" beyond its natural sense.

So as the law currently stands you either need to (1) exert downward pressure with the hand(s) / arm(s) / front of the upper body on a ball on the ground or (2) bring a ball you are "holding" in your hand(s) / arm(s) (which I would argue implies 'control' of the ball) into contact with the ground.

By The Referee, at October 14, 2010 10:44 pm
Great refeering. How anyone can criticise a ref for getting the decision correct is beyond me.

By Anonymous, at October 15, 2010 12:02 am
I think some of the fans are mistaking the glance off Medard's foot as a knock-on my Lemi.

Rather disappointed to see folks boo the call. Perhaps they think that Lemi whinged his way to geting the TMO involved.

To be is seemed that if anything, the referee wanted to let play continue, rather than kill a potential advantage for Toulouse.

By cheyanqui, at October 15, 2010 7:38 pm
@Flooz
I know your posting is a while back, but do not bring the thomond crowd into this!
Renowned as respectful the world over and rightly so.
Passionate yes, but also knowledgeable and respectful.

Also, in general, good to see a proper level of debate on a micro point. More like a referees convention in here so it is.

By mise, at October 16, 2010 2:58 am
How is it not a try?! Downward pressure is applied on the ball, it isn't knocked on, it's touched down under the posts! Absolutely no doubt, but good call from the referee playing on rather than stopping the game dead.

Whoever said French fans are worse because of booing this decision then you clearly haven't seen a game in England for a while. As an Englishman myself I say we moan a fair bit! (But at least we dont strike for fun ;) )

By Jimbo, at January 19, 2011 4:34 pm