Was it a try for england ? have a look and make up your own mind? guys if you want too see this video in high quality. please add: &fmt=18 after the url. or click here. done for you: • England vs South Afric...
If you go frame by frame from 2:52 to 2:53 you can see his foot clearly ripping through the touchline. This is before the ball-carrier grounds the ball. Therefore the TMO had no other option than to disallow it.
1:46, pause and have a look! Boot touched the line before the ball was on the ground. No try! Pause it and use slow motion, you see clearly boot touched line!
im a massive england rugby fan and dont think it was a try. matthew tait is an absolute legend for that run but in the slow-mo replay from behind you can see cueto's left foot slide across the line before he puts the ball down
For those who may not understand how rugby works, it doesn't matter if his boot was in the air when the ball was grounded, he'd already grazed the line at 2:53 and therefore he'd "gone out" of play before the ball was even grounded. No try.
definitely in touch for me, his foot grazes the line just before the ball goes down. Therefore it's definitive proof that it's a no try, so correct to Allain Rollands question. Also my god I hate those commentators... awful and horrificly biased, not just here but every game they commentate, praying that they don;t jump ship from Sky over to whoever gets the Heineken Cup!
that was an amazing play by england. I was farily certain it was a try at the time but now I'm honestly not sure. Credit must be given to Tait and Cueto regardless. They gave it everything they had.
I am South African, and nothing would disappoint me more than to know that my team won unfairly. I have looked at this video over and over again, and I have to say I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the right decision. I like to think rugby players and fans alike pride themselves on fairness...unlike football...
Okay, it's not a try for a good reason.. But to be honest, SA got away from definite yellow there. It's definite try scoring opportunity broken down by Rossow. England were very unlucky there..
Yes I understand the concept of ''national bias''. From the camera behind the play (at the other end of the pitch) it can clearly be seen that the foot just touches the line before moving up into the air. No try and no win. Great performance to get to the final mind
@adamclark1972uk It's clear to see when u pause the video at 1.16-1.17. The foot hits the line before raising. The TMO was under huge pressure but kept his nerve and made the right call
The commentators seem to have briefly taken leave of their senses when claiming it's a try (understandable during a WC final). They're concentrating on the fact that Cueto's foot was in the air when he grounds the ball, forgetting the fact that his toe clearly touches the line before he raises the foot! Watch 2:52 - 2:53 and you can see it.
if you think this is a try its only because you are too biased to think straight, the left foot as clear as day touches the line. the bbc even said it was the right call
I personally believe that Cueto was in when he grounded the ball, but even if he wasn't, the try should still have stood. The referee asked if there was any reason he could not award the try. If he'd said try or no try, then it would be up to the TMO to make a choice. But with the phrasing used in the final, the TMO has to find a rock solid and certain reason not to award it, and if he's not certain, the try must stand. There is simply no way he could have been certain that Cueto was out in tha
Well , England didn't BEG for the world cup the week before the final. "We really need this win." "Our country is divided." "We need this win to reunite South Africa." "Our country is in trouble." BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! And then , SA were given EVERYTHING in the world. The cup + all the awards in rugby. CONGRATS SA , you've got some real CLASS
Couldn't believe this wasn't given. If the try had been given, as it should have been, the entire momentum of the game would have changed. England were the real winners of Rugby World Cup 2007.
Yeah, you're right. I guess if there is an element of doubt it should be no try. I believe the toe just has to touch the edge of the line and you're in touch.
it would have been a try if the SA player didnt come in from the side of the ruck, it gave england slow ball and enough time for the SA back line to organise. (infringement,result=penelty=5 metre scrum, put in by england, left wheel= TRY by easter!)
Blatantly in touch, take the rose glasses off and look at the divot his boot makes on the line, and the fact his boot hits the line! Nice break by Tait though, even though I don't rate him.
1:17 foot just, just, just touches the line, it was similar to ally hogg's disallowed try in the stade de france in 2005 (6 nations), a sing stud brushed the line, no try.
The camera is slightly above ground level though, and not quite perfectly in line, so it's hard to discern the exact moment the toe of his boot comes off the ground... @1:16 at 0.25x speed, I perceive some slight upward movement of his heel before his boot reaches the line, though that might mean it's just slightly less dug in. I *think* - maybe - he gets his foot off the ground by flexing and pushing off with his toes, which would suggest he was in touch. Does the tip of his boot sole eventually flex upwards from such a push off the ground (and the line)? If I had to bet, I might say he was more likely out, but with the effect of foreshortening and without a dead straight down the line, absolute ground-level view, I wouldn't be willing to call it definite.
Ryno van Zijl Wrong, His foot left the ground before it contacted the line. If you look at the replays from behind, you see mud flying up from his toe as it slides along the ground. The scuff on the turf caused by this stops short of the line, which is completely unmarked. Hence his foot must have ceased contact with the ground before it touched the line. The evidence is irrefutable. Had the referee actually examined the turf instead of relying on video evidence, this try would (and should) have been awarded. And, by the way, I'm not English so I have no bias either way.
King Curry "Had the referee actually examined the turf instead of relying on video evidence, this try would (and should) have been awarded." Is that you Grissom? Maybe they should have taken the time to make a plaster cast. Go and read the rules of rugby again.
Ryno van Zijl "Go and read the rules of rugby again". I don't need to; I've refereed enough. The referee and linesman can use any evidence they can gather on the pitch before going to the video referee. And if there is doubt, referees should award the try on the balance of probability - that is the IRB instruction. Unless there is CLEAR evidence that the try was not scored, it should be awarded EXCEPT if it is unclear if the ball was grounded correctly. In this case the ball was grounded correctly beyond doubt and there is no clear evidence that his foot was in touch. In that case, the try should have been given.
King Curry Unfortunately I can't attach the print screen I made, which clearly shows the foot on the line before the ball was grounded. In any case, the Boks already won and who said they wouldn't have countered with a try of their own. There was still a lot of rugby to be played. So the point is basically moot. And really this is not the minor leagues. If you can't make a decision on the ground, you go upstairs. So the ref made the correct decision by going upstairs.
Yup, it did lift over the line, but only after it had already touched the line. And on the line is out! There is definitely a a bit of this black boot that slides 1/2 way over the line before lifting up.
If you pause the video at 1:16, and you have to try it a few times, his foot slides onto the line. His foot, if you watch closely, is lifted out of the grass that the line is painted on. In my opinion that is a great piece of officiating. You have to get it right when the World Cup is on the line, plain and simple and no pun intended.
1) No, his foot does lift off the ground, however it has certainly made contact with the line before it lifts. Perhaps if you watch the video again, you might see the Tuft of grass that is lifted from the LINE.. The grass is not lifted from before line, so something must have made contact with the line. 2) South Africa still would have won anyway.
I am an England fan and you can just see the toes touching the floor (at about 1:18) - it's just a shame that the commentators were saying "try!", so I was angered at the time. But, looking back on it, you can tell that they are wrong. I also heard that a later independent investigation determined that the final decision by the referee was correct. In any case, South Africa were the better side, not just on the night, but throughout the tournament and were deserving winners.
haha. Just because his foot was in the air when he grounded the ball doesn't mean it's a try. He lifted his foot after it had crossed half of the line!
tbh not only is cuetos try a fine try but why hasnt matthew tait got a penalty try if cuetos is disallowed, hes through a try is going to be scored and the guy has taken him out from the side. that is why the penalty was awarded following the disallowed try.
it was tight, but his foot left the ground before touching the touch line, and ball was grounded before his knee went over the line... My opinion is that it was dissallowed because the TMO's a bloody ozzy and he's still pissed that England beat them in both the 2007 quarters and the 2003 final...
@mcdb06 If you look you will see that the heel of the foot starts to rise at 1:15. You cannot say with certainty whether any part of the foot is still touching the ground when it slides over the line.
Which comes first - 1 min 16 or 1 min 17 ? What happens at 1 min 17 is irrelevant because if the foot is in touch on 1 min 16 then he's in touch, and it's a line out. ( or in this case a penalty since ref was playing advantage). I'm no fan of Stuart Dickinson but in this case he was correct.
Stuart Barnes has to be one of the most bias commentators to ever commentate the game of rugby. It is clear as day light that the foot touched the line before grounding. He even manages to somehow convince his co-commentator to see the same thing. It must really eat him that South Africa beat them in two finals.
I saw the photo claiming to show Cueto's foot in touch. I couldn't see any contact between the foot and the line. I couldn't see the divot mark from the foot. I still think it could have been a try. It was our game for the taking you know.
Extremely close, but that was not a try. It was the correct decision. His left foot brushes over the line. 1.16. South Africa were the stronger team. England were superb to reach the final. They have been generally under-performing for many years after the Woodward era so no complaints from this Englishmen.
It seems a lot of people (including the commentators) are confused about the rules. It made not difference that his foot was raised at the time the ball was grounded because he was already out of play when his foot touched the line earlier. So a correct decision was made and the World Cup was won by the deserved team. England were courageous and gave their all but not up to the job in the end, no shame in that.
If I were to to please the crowd is I would definitely say try. However, if we are technical I would say it were in Touch because his line flew over the line first before the ball grounded.
For anyone who thinks it is not a try freeze the video on 1:18 and it will show you that it was definately a try, its just that cheeky Aussie TMO what a tawt
To those of you still claiming it was a try, i'll say this one more time - PAUSE THE CLIP AT ONE MINUTE SIXTEEN SECONDS! Where is Cueto's foot and where is the ball? There is no debate necessary, no grey area - the video referee was correct, end of story.
if you go in slow mo you can see he lifts his foot up before it touches the line. and he places the ball before his knee even gets close to the line. TRY!
Watch Schalk Burger, number 6. Tait was tackled, and Burger arrived from the side, off his feet and blatantly prevented the ball from being played. With no cover to the right and two England attackers waiting on the left that was at least a yellow card for Burger. Given how blatant was the interference and the position just a few metres from the try line that could have been a penalty try and 10 minutes in the bin for Burger. That could well have changed the game at a critical time of the match. Terrible refereeing. Not as bad as Andre Watson in 2003, but still poor.
This was 2007, so "through the gate" was not as it is today. Further, it's only "in from the side" if a ruck has been formed. The first arriving player (over the tackle/ball) can come from the side as it is still general play. Watch the ruck again - the Law says rucking players must maintain their feet, not go over and "kill" the ball - which is precisely what the English did. A referees lot is a hard one indeed - 'play on' is always a good call...
There's no debate that part of his leg was over the line: the big question is contact. You could only resolve that frame by frame with decent resolution. You know what? Scrap the replays let the refs call it and get on with the game like we always did.
42..what, what was that...6...at the hallowed ground of Twickenham. Didn't you guys invent Rugby...? There is plenty of footage and pictures which clearly shows the toe in touch before the ball is grounded - it's actually about a foot above the ground at the stage, some pictures even show the ball wasn't even over the line at that point. No try is no try, no matter how close you may think it was, it wasn't good enough. 42-6 at Twickenham, I love the sound of that...
Are you being serious, you are basically saying someone can run the length of the pitch miles in touch and then run on to score the try just in the corner as long as they are not in touch when they put the ball down.
OK, South Africa got all the points through someone "who can't run, pass or even tackle" as you said. What's England's excuse then? No use anybody arguing about the so-called "try" because there wasn't any! Live with it!
Blatantly in touch, take the rose glasses off and look at the divot his boot makes on the line! Nice break by Tait though, even though I don't rate him.
So you're in the Rugby World Cup final and you just scored a try that, potentially with a successful conversion, could give you the lead in the match. The adrenaline is pumping, you are fighting for your country, and you think instead of celebrating the team would go, "Well hold on, let's see what the TMO says" ? No, I didn't think so...
after pausing it on 1:51 you can see his toe is just lifted before it toutches the line. its increadibly close and if the TMO was given a freeze frame he would have seen iswell
I was in a pub full of welsh blokes and they looked at me and my dad and said sorry lads but uve been totally robbed there, there's no doubt that that's a try
The grass on which the line is painted constitutes where the line ends, the end of his boot came off the grass in the middle of the white painted line, you have to say no try
Hey Im just explaining why the video referee disallowed the try. Marting Johnson, the current English coach agrees it was not a try. But the Lions did play fantastic rugby and deserved the 3rd test.
thats absolutely minimalistic, but his toe is in touch, ya can really tell that the sommentators are english lol "its a try"they seemed a bit too confident of that, i suppose theyre all like that, i know, theyre always the same here with ireland... wish it was a try, might have livened up the game
If you knew anything about rugby you'd know that if you put your foot on the line touchline before you ground the ball then it is not a try. Pause the clip on 1 min 16 seconds for conclusive proof that the foot is on the line before he grounds the ball.
The ball was grounded by then, so the fact that his knee was over the line is completely irrelevant rosamundevoogt. I've watched the video replay many times and you can argue it both ways. You can say his left foot is in touch, but then you can argue that he was raising his foot at the time of the grounding and therefore it was never in touch. I think he just raises it in time. Absolutley gutted it wasn't given though.
@afrahhusain yes his foot isn't in contact with the ground when he places the ball BUT his knee goes over the line BEFORE he grounds the ball, therefore, it's not a try
I think alot of people dont seem to realise that you only have to just touc the white line to be considered out of play. Out of play = touch white line, NOT over the white line. His foot imo clearly touches the inside of the white line before the ball was grounded. Correct decision was given. Now if this technology could be put into football ffs.
The question is not whether he grounds the ball with his foot above the line, it is what happened before that. Pause the clip on 1min 16 seconds and you can clearly see his foot on the line with the ball still up in the air. Not that it would have made any difference to the outcome of the game - since when is a try worth 12 points anyway?
The angle from 1:12 shows it to be a try, although that alone wouldn't have won England the WC. Still, 9-8 with 40 mins to play would have been interesting.
Right Everyone from England read this Once and For All... Pause the video at 1:47... The ball is in the air. His foot is touching the line. In rugby, if you touch the line, it is Out. Therefore No Try. That is why the video ref did not allow the try. End of story. Now if you want to see a real try, search for Jaque Fourie against the Lions.
doesnt matter if the legs over the line, its if his leg touched the line before he grounded the ball n he grounded the ball 1st so definate try! an Aussie TMO, no suprise it wasnt given
pause at 1:17 if you get the timing right his toe is on the line meaning he is out of play. sadly this would have been an amazing final had it been given but it wasn't to be, and yes im english
WHATT?!?! i'm a kiwi supporter and i wanted the springboks to win personally. But even though i didn't want it: that was a try! his left leg went up before the line and i'm surprised that there isn't a humungous uprising of angry englang fans!!! if it was NZ i would!
If you go frame by frame from 2:52 to 2:53 you can see his foot clearly ripping through the touchline. This is before the ball-carrier grounds the ball. Therefore the TMO had no other option than to disallow it.
Pure nonsense - it is lifted before he touches the line
Just like Schrödinger's cat, the foot was simultaneously in and out of bounds until the TMO observed it!
1:46, pause and have a look! Boot touched the line before the ball was on the ground. No try! Pause it and use slow motion, you see clearly boot touched line!
I see clearly they got it right now, good spot
Nope
@@EllliotJackRussel1 lol haha . I like the taste of your tears . We kicked your english ass twice now in finals . Go bokke
Rubbish and it was a jealous Aussie adjudicator upstairs.
im a massive england rugby fan and dont think it was a try.
matthew tait is an absolute legend for that run but in the slow-mo replay from behind you can see cueto's left foot slide across the line before he puts the ball down
If you pause the screen at the exact moment before his leg lifts up it you can see it is touching the line.
For those who may not understand how rugby works, it doesn't matter if his boot was in the air when the ball was grounded, he'd already grazed the line at 2:53 and therefore he'd "gone out" of play before the ball was even grounded. No try.
And that is the bottom line.
@@martinbrowne4922 No it's not, it's the touchline.
@@EvsEntps Fact 👌👌
One of my favorite run's by Mathew Tait, Sucks that the try wasn't allowed though.
definitely in touch for me, his foot grazes the line just before the ball goes down. Therefore it's definitive proof that it's a no try, so correct to Allain Rollands question. Also my god I hate those commentators... awful and horrificly biased, not just here but every game they commentate, praying that they don;t jump ship from Sky over to whoever gets the Heineken Cup!
His foot's in the air then the Bok pulls it down.
That commentator just shouts the conclusion he thinks he's supposed to give instead of going through the details of the analysis.
that was an amazing play by england. I was farily certain it was a try at the time but now I'm honestly not sure. Credit must be given to Tait and Cueto regardless. They gave it everything they had.
I am South African, and nothing would disappoint me more than to know that my team won unfairly. I have looked at this video over and over again, and I have to say I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the right decision. I like to think rugby players and fans alike pride themselves on fairness...unlike football...
Italians would rather cheat and have a fake victory than lose with honour
😄 Australian TMO was never going to give it. He would have to have come and lived in West London.
Okay, it's not a try for a good reason.. But to be honest, SA got away from definite yellow there. It's definite try scoring opportunity broken down by Rossow. England were very unlucky there..
It was a try you fool
@@olivernewby4001it just wasn’t….fool
Yes I understand the concept of ''national bias''. From the camera behind the play (at the other end of the pitch) it can clearly be seen that the foot just touches the line before moving up into the air. No try and no win. Great performance to get to the final mind
Ah Tait, how I'd love to see you playing like this again
@adamclark1972uk It's clear to see when u pause the video at 1.16-1.17. The foot hits the line before raising. The TMO was under huge pressure but kept his nerve and made the right call
The commentators seem to have briefly taken leave of their senses when claiming it's a try (understandable during a WC final). They're concentrating on the fact that Cueto's foot was in the air when he grounds the ball, forgetting the fact that his toe clearly touches the line before he raises the foot! Watch 2:52 - 2:53 and you can see it.
Agreed.I tried pausing the vid everytime the ball was grounded and always have the same result. It's a try.
Definitely not
Thought this was a try at first look, but the tip of his boot was on the line before it lifted. Good, hard call by the TMO
Doesnt matter. his foot was in the air when the ball was grounded. no part of his body was out of bounds when he grounded the ball. 100% a try
@@Geronimo98 No, the tip of his foot was on the line, aka in touch, before he grounded the ball. Thereafter he lifted his leg. 100% no try
@@Geronimo98 With that logic I can run into touch and then back and score a try and it has to be a try
if you think this is a try its only because you are too biased to think straight, the left foot as clear as day touches the line. the bbc even said it was the right call
Nathaniel Kahn ya blind !
He isnt blind mate u dont win by divine right because ur english it's a try it's a try lol
The thing that flipped me out about this is the UNREAL try that Eng had the previous week with the kick reception RIGHT at the same place.
it amazes me the commentator can't see that his toe touches the line before lifting
he doesn't want to see it ;) slightly different
@@zisssssouCorrect-did not want to see it!!
Stop time on 2:53
Illegal tackle. Yellow card and a penalty try
@@reissknell3305 you dont know shit about rugby
how is this even an argument still. Clearly in touch, should never have ever been questioned.
No no, there is a pause and magnified pic of his Cue TOE touching the line, good decision
Paused and gone through frame b frame. I think his toe in in touch just before he scores. No try.
I personally believe that Cueto was in when he grounded the ball, but even if he wasn't, the try should still have stood. The referee asked if there was any reason he could not award the try. If he'd said try or no try, then it would be up to the TMO to make a choice. But with the phrasing used in the final, the TMO has to find a rock solid and certain reason not to award it, and if he's not certain, the try must stand. There is simply no way he could have been certain that Cueto was out in tha
Well , England didn't BEG for the world cup the week before the final.
"We really need this win."
"Our country is divided."
"We need this win to reunite South Africa."
"Our country is in trouble."
BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG ! BEG !
And then , SA were given EVERYTHING in the world. The cup + all the awards in rugby.
CONGRATS SA , you've got some real CLASS
cueto has the strength. i wish he took one step in.
His foot touched the line before he raised it up and grounded the ball.
Yes, if the foot touches the line it's out.
Couldn't believe this wasn't given. If the try had been given, as it should have been, the entire momentum of the game would have changed. England were the real winners of Rugby World Cup 2007.
Clear no-try, the view from behind at 1.16 clearly shows it rising from the ground after the line. great decision by TMO.
😂
Yeah, you're right. I guess if there is an element of doubt it should be no try. I believe the toe just has to touch the edge of the line and you're in touch.
it would have been a try if the SA player didnt come in from the side of the ruck, it gave england slow ball and enough time for the SA back line to organise. (infringement,result=penelty=5 metre scrum, put in by england, left wheel= TRY by easter!)
Blatantly in touch, take the rose glasses off and look at the divot his boot makes on the line, and the fact his boot hits the line! Nice break by Tait though, even though I don't rate him.
1:17 foot just, just, just touches the line,
it was similar to ally hogg's disallowed try in the stade de france in 2005 (6 nations), a sing stud brushed the line, no try.
The camera is slightly above ground level though, and not quite perfectly in line, so it's hard to discern the exact moment the toe of his boot comes off the ground... @1:16 at 0.25x speed, I perceive some slight upward movement of his heel before his boot reaches the line, though that might mean it's just slightly less dug in.
I *think* - maybe - he gets his foot off the ground by flexing and pushing off with his toes, which would suggest he was in touch. Does the tip of his boot sole eventually flex upwards from such a push off the ground (and the line)?
If I had to bet, I might say he was more likely out, but with the effect of foreshortening and without a dead straight down the line, absolute ground-level view, I wouldn't be willing to call it definite.
Pause on 2:52 and you will see that his foot touches the line before the ball was grounded. No try.
***** Shame, I have just the person for you. www.drphil.com/
Ryno van Zijl Wrong, His foot left the ground before it contacted the line.
If you look at the replays from behind, you see mud flying up from his toe as it slides along the ground. The scuff on the turf caused by this stops short of the line, which is completely unmarked. Hence his foot must have ceased contact with the ground before it touched the line.
The evidence is irrefutable. Had the referee actually examined the turf instead of relying on video evidence, this try would (and should) have been awarded.
And, by the way, I'm not English so I have no bias either way.
King Curry "Had the referee actually examined the turf instead of relying on video evidence, this try would (and should) have been awarded."
Is that you Grissom? Maybe they should have taken the time to make a plaster cast. Go and read the rules of rugby again.
Ryno van Zijl "Go and read the rules of rugby again".
I don't need to; I've refereed enough. The referee and linesman can use any evidence they can gather on the pitch before going to the video referee. And if there is doubt, referees should award the try on the balance of probability - that is the IRB instruction. Unless there is CLEAR evidence that the try was not scored, it should be awarded EXCEPT if it is unclear if the ball was grounded correctly.
In this case the ball was grounded correctly beyond doubt and there is no clear evidence that his foot was in touch. In that case, the try should have been given.
King Curry Unfortunately I can't attach the print screen I made, which clearly shows the foot on the line before the ball was grounded. In any case, the Boks already won and who said they wouldn't have countered with a try of their own. There was still a lot of rugby to be played. So the point is basically moot. And really this is not the minor leagues. If you can't make a decision on the ground, you go upstairs. So the ref made the correct decision by going upstairs.
Bloody try! TBF though the Saffa's were better than us, but it would made for such a better second half.
It’s literally a hairs width, but it’s a no try 😭
Try, attacker gets benefit of doubt when not conclusive. Wow Mathew Tait.
Yup, it did lift over the line, but only after it had already touched the line. And on the line is out! There is definitely a a bit of this black boot that slides 1/2 way over the line before lifting up.
That was a try, it was clear to see his Left leg lift as he scored
If you pause the video at 1:16, and you have to try it a few times, his foot slides onto the line. His foot, if you watch closely, is lifted out of the grass that the line is painted on. In my opinion that is a great piece of officiating. You have to get it right when the World Cup is on the line, plain and simple and no pun intended.
1) No, his foot does lift off the ground, however it has certainly made contact with the line before it lifts. Perhaps if you watch the video again, you might see the Tuft of grass that is lifted from the LINE.. The grass is not lifted from before line, so something must have made contact with the line.
2) South Africa still would have won anyway.
His left foot touches the line before the ball is grounded. That's the end of it. Look at the action from the camera down the line, behind Cueto...
I am an England fan and you can just see the toes touching the floor (at about 1:18) - it's just a shame that the commentators were saying "try!", so I was angered at the time. But, looking back on it, you can tell that they are wrong.
I also heard that a later independent investigation determined that the final decision by the referee was correct. In any case, South Africa were the better side, not just on the night, but throughout the tournament and were deserving winners.
Even though Mark Cueto didn't score it. It should have been a penalty try as South Africa deliberately tried to kill the ball
Has to be a try.... i'm Irish so not being bias.. Ball is down well before he touches the line.. Its a super finish
haha. Just because his foot was in the air when he grounded the ball doesn't mean it's a try. He lifted his foot after it had crossed half of the line!
tbh not only is cuetos try a fine try but why hasnt matthew tait got a penalty try if cuetos is disallowed, hes through a try is going to be scored and the guy has taken him out from the side. that is why the penalty was awarded following the disallowed try.
Thanks for the memories Taity and all the best with retirement.
it was tight, but his foot left the ground before touching the touch line, and ball was grounded before his knee went over the line... My opinion is that it was dissallowed because the TMO's a bloody ozzy and he's still pissed that England beat them in both the 2007 quarters and the 2003 final...
@mcdb06 If you look you will see that the heel of the foot starts to rise at 1:15. You cannot say with certainty whether any part of the foot is still touching the ground when it slides over the line.
Which comes first - 1 min 16 or 1 min 17 ? What happens at 1 min 17 is irrelevant because if the foot is in touch on 1 min 16 then he's in touch, and it's a line out.
( or in this case a penalty since ref was playing advantage). I'm no fan of Stuart Dickinson but in this case he was correct.
Stuart Barnes has to be one of the most bias commentators to ever commentate the game of rugby. It is clear as day light that the foot touched the line before grounding. He even manages to somehow convince his co-commentator to see the same thing. It must really eat him that South Africa beat them in two finals.
I saw the photo claiming to show Cueto's foot in touch.
I couldn't see any contact between the foot and the line.
I couldn't see the divot mark from the foot.
I still think it could have been a try.
It was our game for the taking you know.
Extremely close, but that was not a try. It was the correct decision. His left foot brushes over the line. 1.16.
South Africa were the stronger team. England were superb to reach the final. They have been generally under-performing for many years after the Woodward era so no complaints from this Englishmen.
It seems a lot of people (including the commentators) are confused about the rules. It made not difference that his foot was raised at the time the ball was grounded because he was already out of play when his foot touched the line earlier. So a correct decision was made and the World Cup was won by the deserved team. England were courageous and gave their all but not up to the job in the end, no shame in that.
Totally agree. ospresys supporter, with Welsh (english accent) dad and a England supporter
ENGLAND WAS SO CLOSE TO WINNING THE WORLD CUP AND MAKING HISTORY
Can't believe how we was robbed in this final.
2:53 you can clearly see his foot touches the line, thus he was in touch. How were England robbed?
If I were to to please the crowd is I would definitely say try. However, if we are technical I would say it were in Touch because his line flew over the line first before the ball grounded.
For anyone who thinks it is not a try freeze the video on 1:18 and it will show you that it was definately a try, its just that cheeky Aussie TMO what a tawt
Iv always said that particular ref had a thing against the English
Ref said it was a try. TMO disallowed it.
To those of you still claiming it was a try, i'll say this one more time - PAUSE THE CLIP AT ONE MINUTE SIXTEEN SECONDS! Where is Cueto's foot and where is the ball? There is no debate necessary, no grey area - the video referee was correct, end of story.
his foot does touch the line,
im not biased as well coz im english
if you go in slow mo you can see he lifts his foot up before it touches the line. and he places the ball before his knee even gets close to the line. TRY!
Watch Schalk Burger, number 6. Tait was tackled, and Burger arrived from the side, off his feet and blatantly prevented the ball from being played. With no cover to the right and two England attackers waiting on the left that was at least a yellow card for Burger. Given how blatant was the interference and the position just a few metres from the try line that could have been a penalty try and 10 minutes in the bin for Burger. That could well have changed the game at a critical time of the match. Terrible refereeing. Not as bad as Andre Watson in 2003, but still poor.
This was 2007, so "through the gate" was not as it is today. Further, it's only "in from the side" if a ruck has been formed. The first arriving player (over the tackle/ball) can come from the side as it is still general play. Watch the ruck again - the Law says rucking players must maintain their feet, not go over and "kill" the ball - which is precisely what the English did. A referees lot is a hard one indeed - 'play on' is always a good call...
There's no debate that part of his leg was over the line: the big question is contact. You could only resolve that frame by frame with decent resolution. You know what? Scrap the replays let the refs call it and get on with the game like we always did.
42..what, what was that...6...at the hallowed ground of Twickenham. Didn't you guys invent Rugby...? There is plenty of footage and pictures which clearly shows the toe in touch before the ball is grounded - it's actually about a foot above the ground at the stage, some pictures even show the ball wasn't even over the line at that point. No try is no try, no matter how close you may think it was, it wasn't good enough. 42-6 at Twickenham, I love the sound of that...
you know, aslong as his foot/leg is ABOVE the line when the ball was grounded it's a try and THAT'S what is clearly shown there.
Are you being serious, you are basically saying someone can run the length of the pitch miles in touch and then run on to score the try just in the corner as long as they are not in touch when they put the ball down.
His foot was ON the line BEFORE the ball was grounded. No try.
OK, South Africa got all the points through someone "who can't run, pass or even tackle" as you said. What's England's excuse then?
No use anybody arguing about the so-called "try" because there wasn't any! Live with it!
Blatantly in touch, take the rose glasses off and look at the divot his boot makes on the line! Nice break by Tait though, even though I don't rate him.
So you're in the Rugby World Cup final and you just scored a try that, potentially with a successful conversion, could give you the lead in the match. The adrenaline is pumping, you are fighting for your country, and you think instead of celebrating the team would go, "Well hold on, let's see what the TMO says" ? No, I didn't think so...
And Mike Cat Smiling, you needed a South African in the team to try a beat us.
after pausing it on 1:51 you can see his toe is just lifted before it toutches the line. its increadibly close and if the TMO was given a freeze frame he would have seen iswell
I'm still not sure, but it looked like a try. Rolland should have given a penalty try anyway, there is no way Berger didn't do it to stop a try
As he grounds the ball his foot is fine , its before he grounds it where he goes into touch
I was in a pub full of welsh blokes and they looked at me and my dad and said sorry lads but uve been totally robbed there, there's no doubt that that's a try
"A pub full of welsh blokes" and "Highly experienced and qualified TMO"... who should we trust?
@@MGoose66 Welsh blokes
the moment his foot touches the line and crosses it he is out, it could not be closer but it was the right decision
It still hurts.
The grass on which the line is painted constitutes where the line ends, the end of his boot came off the grass in the middle of the white painted line, you have to say no try
1:46 you can clearly see his foot on the line before the ball was grounded
Hey Im just explaining why the video referee disallowed the try. Marting Johnson, the current English coach agrees it was not a try.
But the Lions did play fantastic rugby and deserved the 3rd test.
Marting Johnson was a great player.
Looks to me his foot touched the line just before he lifted it. Glad I didn't have to make the call.
thats absolutely minimalistic, but his toe is in touch, ya can really tell that the sommentators are english lol "its a try"they seemed a bit too confident of that, i suppose theyre all like that, i know, theyre always the same here with ireland...
wish it was a try, might have livened up the game
If you knew anything about rugby you'd know that if you put your foot on the line touchline before you ground the ball then it is not a try. Pause the clip on 1 min 16 seconds for conclusive proof that the foot is on the line before he grounds the ball.
The ball was grounded by then, so the fact that his knee was over the line is completely irrelevant rosamundevoogt.
I've watched the video replay many times and you can argue it both ways. You can say his left foot is in touch, but then you can argue that he was raising his foot at the time of the grounding and therefore it was never in touch. I think he just raises it in time. Absolutley gutted it wasn't given though.
@afrahhusain yes his foot isn't in contact with the ground when he places the ball BUT his knee goes over the line BEFORE he grounds the ball, therefore, it's not a try
Terribly biased commentators. Take the eye patch off. It's like listening to Justin Marshall when he used it commentate for the ABs. Painful
I think alot of people dont seem to realise that you only have to just touc the white line to be considered out of play. Out of play = touch white line, NOT over the white line. His foot imo clearly touches the inside of the white line before the ball was grounded. Correct decision was given. Now if this technology could be put into football ffs.
The question is not whether he grounds the ball with his foot above the line, it is what happened before that. Pause the clip on 1min 16 seconds and you can clearly see his foot on the line with the ball still up in the air. Not that it would have made any difference to the outcome of the game - since when is a try worth 12 points anyway?
The angle from 1:12 shows it to be a try, although that alone wouldn't have won England the WC. Still, 9-8 with 40 mins to play would have been interesting.
Im English but he's right, if you pause it at 2.53 you can see his toe touching the line. Very unlucky :(
Based on the review it was a try. The momentum of his foot kicked up the dirt to make the divot. His foot was not in touch.
End of.
Look at 2:53 exactly. That seals it. His foot is touching the line. No try. Good call Ref.
Right Everyone from England read this Once and For All...
Pause the video at 1:47...
The ball is in the air. His foot is touching the line.
In rugby, if you touch the line, it is Out.
Therefore No Try.
That is why the video ref did not allow the try.
End of story.
Now if you want to see a real try, search for Jaque Fourie against the Lions.
If you are a biased englishman you will say this was a try , anyone else can clearly see cueto's foot brushing the line.
doesnt matter if the legs over the line, its if his leg touched the line before he grounded the ball n he grounded the ball 1st so definate try! an Aussie TMO, no suprise it wasnt given
pause at 1:17 if you get the timing right his toe is on the line meaning he is out of play. sadly this would have been an amazing final had it been given but it wasn't to be, and yes im english
number 6 came in from the side the ref even called Smit over to tell him!
if you pause it at 1:47 then you can see the ball down and the foot hovering over the white line but it is not acctually over the grass
WHATT?!?!
i'm a kiwi supporter and i wanted the springboks to win personally. But even though i didn't want it: that was a try! his left leg went up before the line and i'm surprised that there isn't a humungous uprising of angry englang fans!!!
if it was NZ i would!