Disagree he knocked it forward
Their try by the replacement hooker looked suspect should have been reviewed but was not - looked short of the line and hand under the ball
Disagree he knocked it forward
Their try by the replacement hooker looked suspect should have been reviewed but was not - looked short of the line and hand under the ball
Dave
I also thought a try ws scored - but looking at the frames in the replay it clearly was a knock on by the tackler whem Pollard tried to pass the ball.
I hree about the last Aussie try being awarded ot seems it should have been reviewed I believe
,
Yup thank you for stating this.
It appeared pretty obvious that TMO wanted the bok to get the W. He missed a few things... but that no try was injustice... scrappy game and tbf JOC is average kicker if he got all kicks was another 7... btw pollard ur man of match...
Aussie injury toll bad... hoepfully nothing too serious...
Positive signs for wallabies... Lions warm up helped a lot... i predict resurgence in rugby will follow over here... only been 15yrs of pain.....
McReight’s hand cups the back of Pollard’s hand just after the ball goes forward. It’s possible some part of his hand touches the ball, but there is no clear evidence of that I could find. And there is no physical way his hand could have knocked the ball on and in that micro second got back to cup Pollard’s hand. On the evidence I’ve seen it was no knock on, it appears McReight’s hand knock’s Andre’s hand, which is holding the ball.
Eben's try also looked dubious but they don't have the side on replay in the highlights. Will check again when I have the full game.
so the people hoping for an OZ win are all shouting about poor reffing because they did not win. Amazing how they are always right and everybody else is always wrong.
Amazing how a geriatric still can't engage in a conversation at anything above the level of a petulant 10-year old.
No it s just trying to keep to facts not dreamed up BS manufacued by some membes on sie - Mozart being the leadin g B Ster in that and Pakie follow him faithully all the time. Fact s the try was dsiallowed after reepaed reviews and now they know better than anybody else while the try should have been allowed to stand.
My advice to ou is o keep to facs and not try to creaste fiction and then call it acual evidence - amazing.
, .
Definite knock on - ref and TMO got it spot on
Trad and Mike are both in my skip category. I literally don't bother.
Eben's ball touched the whitewash indeed so no problem.
Actually I’m not suggesting anything about the result ….the Boks produced the win, if not convincingly. It’s an interesting incident, which I can’t recall having seen before. Just saying the ref got it right is hardly convincing.
I can't see a frame of Kellaway's hand touching the ball either. This is the closest it comes, but it's nearly impossible to call for sure.
And here's the Aussie try that Dave is questioning. Definitely grounded on the line.
The decision was made very quickly ….to me it’s unclear, but any force Callaway applied to the ball has to have gone through Handre’s hand. Still…,once the ref has called the try, there has to be clear evidence to overturn the decision, that wasn’t demonstrated. Thanks for the image..
Watching it live in the review the knock looks obvious and that frame of yours tells us nothing
His hand is in contact with Pollard’s hand before and after contact with the ball….it never passes Pollard’s hand, it wraps around Pollard’s hand. At all times Pollard’s hand is between Callaway’s hand and the ball. That hand wrap continues well after the ball is dislodged.
The force that dislodges the ball is coming from Callaway but if it’s transmitted through Pollard’s hand there is no knock. That undoubtedly happens….the question is whether some part of Calloway’s hand also touches the ball, which is likely but can’t be determined from the individual frames.
It’s also possible his right hand which is wrapping round touched the ball, but without snicko…it’s impossible to tell.
So with no clear evidence the try should not have been turned over..,,.clearer now?
Actually looking again at the rotation of the ball it looks as if the right hand moving by changed the rotation, so I’m guessing the right call was made….but not for the reason given by the commentators.
After swearing that St Mozart claimed the try was wrongfully dealt with and should have been awarded he finally admited he was wrong - but is he ever right about anything relating to rugby?
Wait, I think I know what the problem is.
It's not his left hand that's the problem...it's after the ball comes out, his right hand comes around Pollard and touches the ball while it's in the air.
In Pakies image above, that's that the action that's dislodged the ball...but then as it travels backwards, the Ozzies right hand touches it.
That's possible, Plum. Impossible to tell for sure.
Nah, it was pretty clear man. Perhaps on the stream or something they didn't show it. But the ball travelled backwards, and after the Ozzies right hand touches it, it actually changes rotation and direction.
It was well clear of Pollard's hands/body when that happened.
Pakie continues with the BS even though Mozart and Plum fell off the train. Amazing - but true to the nromal Pakie approach. . .
Mike, you commenting on Pakie's credibility is like the ANC talking about morality.
If i want an honest and logical assessment of a game or situation, I'd go to Paks.
If i want a tarot card reading, full or irrationality and weirdness, I'll come to you.
Cheers Plummie.
I'm surprised ou Maaik hasn't found a way to bash Esterhuizen on this thread. Yet.
On almost every other thread though:)
There was no clear indication the TMO even saw the right hand issue…..I think they called it basis the left hand which was always cupped behind Pollard’s left hand in all the available images. The right hand is also dubious except for the change in the ball rotation as Plum said.
Clever doesn’t even have the class not to gloat about a mistake acknowledged first by the person making the mistake. If that were him his standard practice would be to leap to another string and attack his ‘enemies’ on that string. He wouldn’t refer to the first incident for a few weeks and then come back to it and repeat the original mistake hoping nobody would remember it wasn’t true..
I blame Andre Esterhuizen. He was in the arena, and it's his fault.
Ne, Mike?
49,636 posts
During the game I thought I spotted an issue. Looking at the incident frame by frame, I believe it was a fair try. No doubt the ball is propelled forward by Callaway’s left hand, but if you look just after the ball is loose, Callaway’s hand is cupping the backside of Pollard’s left hand. There is no image I can bring up which shows Callaway actually touching the ball. I believe what happened here is his hand swings round and hits Pollard’s hand and that dislodges the ball….no different from an arm grab causing a knock for the defense.