Were England crucially denied a game-winning try against the All Blacks?

No chance of Jones being accused of misty eyed journalism. Within the last two weeks he’s described Retallick’s rating amongst the best locks as a joke, that he wasn’t in the best 10 right now and that Whitelock was a clearly superior player. He also described Retallick’s MoM on Saturday as a farce given Itoje was easily best on ground and had given Retallick a bath. Of course he described the decision on Lawes as a travesty. I think he drinks heavily during games

Funbus NZ has their own line drawing machine too....And that showed Lawes as being offside by about half a metre or 18 inches.....he never got back onside...But if he had been onside why were all the other England defenders half a metre behind the offsideline then?...They were at the line and Lawes was over the line....

Agree Kirky...Some of those decisions in the older tests were the exact reason technology was bought in in the first place.....The bit about the rule book in the back pocket is very true...And I believe the ABs excell at knowing the rule book from front to back which certainly gives them an advantage at times...

Funbus that is my point......As an English fan you clearly wanted them to win...I dont have any issues with that and thats the way it should be. There is certainly nothing suspect about that...But that ruling did not cost any team the win.....There was still 4.5 mins left...NZ scored 10 points in the last 2 mins of the first half so the opportunity was there....England did very well in those mins but couldnt quite nail it and with so many rambling on about BB not kicking a drop goal against SA you have to wonder why Farrell didnt go for 1 against the ABs

'a certain amount of glee and enthusiasm'. Keep drawing at straws Fug Bus, if there was glee in the TMO's voice it would be rather like the chuckling in the commentary box when Agnes decided that Farrell's 'tackle' was legitimate. The laughter was because the commentators thought it was a clear penalty for no arms, with a possible yellow card. The commentators simply couldn't believe the decision. Any way, you who rails at the injustice of the refs against poor old England is being hypocritical in the extreme when you suggest how easily AB fans take offence.

Jonathon Hall, cool stats' mate and thanks for that as it more or less verifies my statement earlier that ''had it been a dry day the Poms would've been minced'' ~ Just imagine the All Blacks with that amount of possession on a dry day, we've all seen it many time before, being behind by 15 points has never phased this team whatsoever, the only difference is it would surely have been a much higher score line to the Kiwi's.

Good to see Retallick continuing to school the golden child.

Yeah but it comes across as typical you know what, something we are told ‘endlessly’. Particularly by you. So, take it like a man.

So British tv analysed an english player and said yup, 11 missed tackles a match is great, wish there were more. You dont think the ABs arent already targeting that? Farrell goes 12 missed tackles during a workd cup knockout and england and winning anything.

Nicely done.....hope it is all correct, but I get your drift.

Jacko! Remember back in the 1950's/60's/70's and 80's, and some of those goddam tries that were awarded never were tries, ~ there was only the Referee and two Touchies who were only there to put the flag up when a player or ball went out! ~ some dubious points were scored no doubt about that, the Refereee sometimes would blow for a try when he was 20 or more yards away!! To say there was some bad blood because of the methods of the day would be an understatement, a lot of dubious results for sure! ~ Within reason, there's no doubt the TMO has his place as it is today, the biggest problem is the consistent changing of the Laws, once upon a time there was only around 6 rules and you knew them all ~ you could even smack a guy in the ear who over rucked you in any ruck, right in front of the Referee and all he'd likely say was '' behave you two'' and carry on, ~ but today you need a Rule Book in your back pocket!

Fun Bus; The points are on the board mate, end of story and there's sweet fanny you or I can do about that, ~ give the All Blacks credit, they did what they usually do after being 15 or more points down, they kicked butt and your Boys never scored again, it's a common occurrence for the All Blacks to do that, ho hum stuff they call it mate! ~ End of the day you lost!

Gloria; The Poms only played as well as the wet weather allowed, but I can say with much surety that had it been a dry day, the All Blacks would have minced those Poms, who played better than I've seen them for years, but with Retalick skinning Itoje in the lineouts, it set the pattern for them getting run over by those Kiwi's and they did, and if perchance a couple of those misguided kicks by Barrett and McKenzie to name only two had've found the mark for the desired result, there was at least two tries that went begging for the All Blacks .~ To be honest the All Blacks would never be too concerned about being behind by 15 points as usually they make that up in around 10 minutes, but didn't they get the lead by the massive margin of around 9 minutes, they do that all the time, very regularly in fact and as I said earlier, if it had been dry, it would without doubt have been a different game, then you'd have seen the Kiwi's really fly as they normally do! Lawes was never onside and you all know it, anyway it's poetic justice for last week for that second rate first five of yours, Farrell I think his name is and his ''no arms head on tackle'' that he got away with! ~ Any way the Poms have never troubled the Kiwis much over a 100 years and more, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the two sides have played each other 42 times, All Blacks winning 36 and your Poms 5 wins with one draw, (those figures may be slightly askew, but very little) so at the end of the day, they are lucky to even be on the same ball park as the Kiwi's!

No Jacko, it wasn't. Unless you were watching in England you wouldn't have seen the brief coverage 30 minutes after the match. The imaginary offside line was electronically drawn from the exact place Richard said it should be drawn (I'm taking his word on the law as I haven't read it myself) and Lawes foot. Lawes is on the move forward and half his foot is on that line half behind when they guess the scrum half lifts the ball. I say guess because you can't isolate the exact millisecond the ball leaves the turf. A millisecond later, he's offside, a millisecond earlier he's onside. If you think that's 'clear and obvious' than that's up to you.

But was it a 'clear and obvious' infringement which is the requirement to overturn the try award.

I'm not entirely sure why an England fan wanting England win is something that seems a bit suspect to you, Jacko. It doesn't alter my analysis. Having watched it numerous times with the aide 30 minutes after the game of an electronic line being drawn from the ruck to Lawes foot, I'm still not sure whether he was offside or not because it's impossible to isolate the exact millisecond the ball left the turf. It can't possibly meet the 'clear and obvious;' threshold. Whether the TMO believed that, on balance, after 8 replays from different angles, and weighing everything up, he thought he was offside isn't the point.

England were in fact very well beaten. Look at the stats Metres carried NZ 431metres Englan 280 Possession NZ 62% England 38% Territory NZ 63% England 37% Clean Breaks NZ 14 England 5 Defenders Beaten NZ 46 England 15 Offloads NZ 10 England 3 Tackles Made NZ 86% England 76% Scrums NZ 100% England 83% Lineouts on throw NZ 92% England 66% Penalties Conceded NZ 4 England 7 So NZ beat them convincingly on every stat except 1 They made 20 errors and conceded 20 turnovers to 10. That was all that kept England in the game and on a dry track it will be game over. England are getting completely ahead of themselves and Eddie knows.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=wqzsw1&s=9 shows that the halfback has already picked up the ball. Is the England player conclusively offside?

Again Funbus...It was very Clearly offside.....It was obvious that it was offside....Therefore it was clear and obvious that Lawes was offside...I hope that is clear and obvious....

I guess the TMO thought it was clear and obvious Funbus.....Which it was....Whats also clear and obvious is that you were desperate for the Abs to get beaten....