talkFORUM

Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

If you genuinely want an answer to your question then you have posted it in probably the least appropriate thread on the entire internet.

As a part-time existentialist and full-time cunt I would just add: What really is the whole fucking point of all this bollocks?

Surely the purpose of life is to create and build. Not run around a field with a fucking ball.

No wonder the human race is fucking doomed.

Reg wrote:

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

If you genuinely want an answer to your question then you have posted it in probably the least appropriate thread on the entire internet.

ha ha, yes, Reg - very true.

I did search on here for another thread but couldn't find one and I've been searching on the net on and off all day, hence my comments about an endless array of agree / disagree comments without any explanation.

Here we are entering another day and I've lost the will to live with it!

By the way, considering your excellent Avatar photo, have you seen this from my blog?

http://www.goalsandwickets.co.uk/footba ... n-edwards/

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

I heard them on the day saying the new law was you have to have the ball under control which they thought he hadn't

sjbarca wrote:

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

I heard them on the day saying the new law was you have to have the ball under control which they thought he hadn't

Indeed, Doug which is what I thought watching it. To my eyes, he slapped at the ball and it even bounced just a bit before the England wing's hands got on it. You can see the very slight bounce only when looking at the clip in full and not by looking at stills, as have been shown numerous times on Twitter.

However, it seems the IRB / Refs section thought otherwise and the Head Ref has apologised to Gaitland!!!

Sounds a bit like the NFL catch rule which has caused various incidents:

See an explanation here: eeeeee
And here:

tennisman wrote:

Reg wrote:

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

If you genuinely want an answer to your question then you have posted it in probably the least appropriate thread on the entire internet.

ha ha, yes, Reg - very true.

I did search on here for another thread but couldn't find one and I've been searching on the net on and off all day, hence my comments about an endless array of agree / disagree comments without any explanation.

Here we are entering another day and I've lost the will to live with it!

By the way, considering your excellent Avatar photo, have you seen this from my blog?

http://www.goalsandwickets.co.uk/footba ... n-edwards/

Some great pictures there.

How’s this for an England line-up for 1966, if fate hadn’t intervened...

Banks
Armfield
Moore
Swan
Wilson
Ball
Charlton
Stiles
Edwards (captain)
Greaves
Hunt

Reg wrote:

tennisman wrote:

Reg wrote:

tennisman wrote:Can someone who knows the laws explain how the Welsh 'try' is now being said to be one?

Looking at in real time, it actually looks like he bounces the ball down a split second before the England wing's hands get to the ball.

It's hardly a case of grounding though and he's never in control of the ball.

But what do the laws say and how could it be deemed to be a try in the context of them?

All day long, we've had yes it is / no it isn't comments but no-one explains why.

If you genuinely want an answer to your question then you have posted it in probably the least appropriate thread on the entire internet.

ha ha, yes, Reg - very true.

I did search on here for another thread but couldn't find one and I've been searching on the net on and off all day, hence my comments about an endless array of agree / disagree comments without any explanation.

Here we are entering another day and I've lost the will to live with it!

By the way, considering your excellent Avatar photo, have you seen this from my blog?

http://www.goalsandwickets.co.uk/footba ... n-edwards/

Some great pictures there.

How’s this for an England line-up for 1966, if fate hadn’t intervened...

Banks
Armfield
Moore
Swan
Wilson
Ball
Charlton
Stiles
Edwards (captain)
Greaves
Hunt

What a team!

Edwards AND Charlton.

Rugby tickets:

England v Ireland March 17 St Patrick’s Day Twickenham

This may be of interest to one of you. A friend of mine has two tickets in a corporate box for England v Ireland 17th Mar. He paid £300 each, but he didn't realise when he bought them months ago that it was going to be the same day as his wedding. If you are interested, he is looking for someone to take his place.


It's at Marylebone Registry Office, at 4.30pm. The bride's name is Nicole -- she's 5'4", about 8 stone, quite pretty, has her own income and is a really good cook.

So much I could say here...

Say it anyway, those ruggerby cunts deserve everything!

Great news today.

None of this again for two weeks!