As a matter of interest, which "step" did you think was out?

The first one on the replay, showed grass between the line and his foot.

The second one showed that although the back of his foot was over the line, this part of his foot was off the ground.

I never saw grass between on the first one although I think he was not out.

IMO it was not given for hitting the flag.

Yep, that's what I saw!

Couldn't tell initially from where I was sat. When they showed the big screen replay I thought his foot grazed the touchline once, maybe twice but I had the horrible feeling that it was that close he might have been given the benefit of doubt. However, it became academic once they showed the contact with the corner flag - indeed most of both his legs were in touch by the time the ball hit the ground.

Re Smith's try, I thought it was offside. Having since seen the replays I'm not sure. Either way, I haven't seen many attacking sides benefit from such a marginal video call before (at least not for an onside/offside decision).

Yes - that was my earlier point. If he'd grounded it, it would have been given. Therefore the Eastmond foot on line would have been just as close as the Lee Smith call IMO.

Clearly the stills show that Lee Smith was well onside. Wally was offside, but made no move towards the ball or an opponent, so the try was rightly given.

I can spot Wally, but where's Leon Pryce?

I thought they were one and the same?

Hence it was a 20 metre restart as the corner flag is touch in goal.

If the try had been disallowed for being in touch, it would have been a scrum defence instead.

Why not, It's a very very tight line between the ball and Smith with no conclusive evidence either way, therefore it's a 50/50 that went to the attacking team, It's not like the ridiculous MM try, please tell us or show us why it should not have been given.

It appears we are.



Can you see at anytime where Mcguire has the ball in hand and Smith is in front of the ball?



I'm sure he's devastated to hear that news.