There was plenty of controversy late as England were thought by some to have been wrongly denied a potential match-winning try, yet for All Blacks coach Steve Hansen, the incident was simple.
England were pinged three times for offside (the drop goal was under advantage for offside) apart from the disallowed try. I know this won't matter as a new Kiwi rugby myth that they didn't score 80 points because the England backs were lined up along side the AB backs has already been born, and once a Kiwi rugby myth is born there is literally no possible evidence that can be deployed to shift it.
I've always been fascinated by a Kiwi definition of 'arrogance'. Apparently, it is defined as disagreeing with a Kiwi about anything involving the ABs. The irony appears lost on them.
He most certainly did blow the whistle for the try. He signalled it and then on the way back to the mark for the conversion got into a conversation with the TMO.
Why do you assume Lawes wouldn't have been in a position to charge down the kick? Are you saying every charge down is offside? Perenara dawdled, Lawes is 6ft 7, and the ABs didn't have a blocker in place.
No, but he can not slide back any longer, ball must be transferred back but it can be where ever they want it. It's just usually more secure at the back.
Mung,
England only penalised once for off-side, twice, if you count that moment. There were several other instances of that rush defense being a little premature.
Thought it was a try in real time but in slow-mo it's pretty obvious that Lawes has over-stepped.
Overall, I thought England were immense, considering their injury ward, and that both teams competed well in pretty rough conditions.
To be fair you guys probably got the rub of the green last weekend...
Might have pulled the rug over that mug Gardner's eyes last week but lightening rarely strikes twice. 7-9 English backs standing on what they collectively thought was the onside line were 1/2 meter behind Lawes. Voting with their feet one might argue.
Ha! Kiwis being as arrogant as ever. Looked to me he was right on the line and the kiwi forward moved a step forward which made it look worse when the scrum half picked up the ball. Should’ve been play on...
Not coming from a country that has paranoid delusions that mind-altering mind rays emit from Twickenham to undermine sturdy Kiwi virtue, I'm not sure, Paulo. I can only go on what I see and what I'm told the role of the TMO is once a try has been awarded.
Well, if they drew it on TV that seals it then. It’s probably that kiwispiracy again kicking in, always giving the ABs free decisions and points. Or was it the TMO from South Africa still filthy about being robbed in the game last week?
The thing is though, he didnt award the try at all.
Garces never blew his whistle for a try. He was always going to check it.
Lawes has to be behind the offside line and he wasn't so it's offside.
If he was we probably wouldn't be having th his conversation because he wouldn't have been in a position to charge down the kick.
Nope, try should have stood. TV after the game drew a line from the appropriate position in the ruck (which isn’t the hands of the furthest forward AB leaning on the ground) and Lawes foot. Depending on when you judge the millisecond that the scrum half lifts the ball from the turf he is ether just on or just offside. The point is the ref had awarded the try and, therefore, to chalk it off requires a clear and obvious infringement. Not even ‘it was probably offside’ should be enough.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
England were pinged three times for offside (the drop goal was under advantage for offside) apart from the disallowed try. I know this won't matter as a new Kiwi rugby myth that they didn't score 80 points because the England backs were lined up along side the AB backs has already been born, and once a Kiwi rugby myth is born there is literally no possible evidence that can be deployed to shift it.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
I've always been fascinated by a Kiwi definition of 'arrogance'. Apparently, it is defined as disagreeing with a Kiwi about anything involving the ABs. The irony appears lost on them.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
He most certainly did blow the whistle for the try. He signalled it and then on the way back to the mark for the conversion got into a conversation with the TMO. Why do you assume Lawes wouldn't have been in a position to charge down the kick? Are you saying every charge down is offside? Perenara dawdled, Lawes is 6ft 7, and the ABs didn't have a blocker in place.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
It was an electronically drawn line using computer technology that I believe is due for rollout in NZ in 2028.
rebel
Roar Guru
Agreeing with a refs decision is arrogant, gotcha.
rebel
Roar Guru
No, but he can not slide back any longer, ball must be transferred back but it can be where ever they want it. It's just usually more secure at the back.
rebel
Roar Guru
Probably the advertising signage line that some like to use even though it is at 45 degrees to te pitch.
Mr Wendell
Guest
What about the try from the maul? Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the ball carrier be at the back of the maul when he scores?
Richard
Guest
Doesn't matter where the Kiwi player was. The law states that the off side line in a ruck is the rearmost foot of your own team
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Mung, England only penalised once for off-side, twice, if you count that moment. There were several other instances of that rush defense being a little premature. Thought it was a try in real time but in slow-mo it's pretty obvious that Lawes has over-stepped. Overall, I thought England were immense, considering their injury ward, and that both teams competed well in pretty rough conditions. To be fair you guys probably got the rub of the green last weekend...
Kane
Roar Guru
But the kiwi forward moving forward also shifts the offside line? So by making it "look" worse only by virtue of it being worse.
Brizvegas
Guest
Mugbean 72 Yet to meet an arrogant Pom who finds it easy that Farrell tackle was legit and Lawes being offside is difficult lol.
Danny
Roar Pro
Might have pulled the rug over that mug Gardner's eyes last week but lightening rarely strikes twice. 7-9 English backs standing on what they collectively thought was the onside line were 1/2 meter behind Lawes. Voting with their feet one might argue.
Mungbean74
Roar Rookie
Ha! Kiwis being as arrogant as ever. Looked to me he was right on the line and the kiwi forward moved a step forward which made it look worse when the scrum half picked up the ball. Should’ve been play on...
FunBus
Roar Rookie
Not coming from a country that has paranoid delusions that mind-altering mind rays emit from Twickenham to undermine sturdy Kiwi virtue, I'm not sure, Paulo. I can only go on what I see and what I'm told the role of the TMO is once a try has been awarded.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Well, if they drew it on TV that seals it then. It’s probably that kiwispiracy again kicking in, always giving the ABs free decisions and points. Or was it the TMO from South Africa still filthy about being robbed in the game last week?
Kesmcc
Guest
The thing is though, he didnt award the try at all. Garces never blew his whistle for a try. He was always going to check it. Lawes has to be behind the offside line and he wasn't so it's offside. If he was we probably wouldn't be having th his conversation because he wouldn't have been in a position to charge down the kick.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
Nope, try should have stood. TV after the game drew a line from the appropriate position in the ruck (which isn’t the hands of the furthest forward AB leaning on the ground) and Lawes foot. Depending on when you judge the millisecond that the scrum half lifts the ball from the turf he is ether just on or just offside. The point is the ref had awarded the try and, therefore, to chalk it off requires a clear and obvious infringement. Not even ‘it was probably offside’ should be enough.
Lara
Guest
Because he is stating the obvious , so what is he suppose to say.....even Eddie is smiling after the lose.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
A pretty straightforward decision.