so gutters are you saying that you were unable to work out if it was try or not from a camera that was on the gantry on the half way line? so the gantry is therefore at least 80mtrs from where the ball was or was not grounded and the grounding of the ball was not visble bt the camera because there were oohh i think 3 players between the camera and the ball, I have to say the TJ was very well placed, the right side of the players, specifically watching the ball and with an unobstructed view
You wanna go away and do the maths on that one

the try was scored, we should all stop whinging, and if we have resorted to writing to Red Hill then its a bit sad

The officials were well placed, the cam could not see it, and lets be honest i dont think from anywhere in the stand can you actually see the touchline

I was more or less with you up to there but that last statement just ain't true.

Yes the TJ was much better placed than I was and certainly won't have worse eyesight than me but I still disagree with him.

FWIW, having been at the game and seen the video, I think that Cas should have had that try disallowed and we should have had 2 disallowed, one for a massive forward pass (Williamson to Randall) and our last one for a blatant obstruction.

From row w You can see the corner post/try line and touch line.

You might not be able to see the touchline on the halfwayline as the concourse is at its widest there, but I was between the tryline and ten metre line at that end; the concourse is relatively narrow there, you're closer to the pitch, you can see the touchline, and Ferres dropped the ball as he went into touch anyway. He didn't ground it anywhere, the tackle dislodged it from his hand about a foot above the surface! Everyone around me cheered, I don't recall any Cas player reacting as if he thought a try had been scored, and we were all looking at each other in disbelief when it was given. It wasn't even doubtful or dubious, and anyone who worote to the RFL regarding the matter after paying good money to see this farce is fully justified in doing so. It was a shocker.

er...what I said was

I am saying it wasn't a try...where was there room for misunderstanding?

Which is exactly as I saw it from the back of the stand opposite the 20 m. line.

Then I noticed, to my amazement, that the TJ had taken up his position at the junction of the dead ball line and touch in goal line, flag down, indicating that he thought the try was OK.

Egg on face time maybe?

I watched this try frame by frame. Ferres goes over the tryline backwards with the ball in his right hand. It vanishes from sight behind him but then reappears beneath his raised legs and in contact with the grass, close to the touch in-goal line or possibly in contact with it. Only the lower part of the ball is visible so it's impossible to tell whether or not Ferres still is in contact with it. The ball then rolls or bounces away outside the touch in goal line. So that's not in accord with what PoD and I both saw (or thought we saw), i.e. the ball not touching the ground within the in-goal area. The TJ was perfectly placed and did not hesitate.

Ferres did not come up claiming a try but he would probably not have been able to see whether or not he'd grounded it properly.

So, does anybody else fancy taking a look?

As an aside, Cas engineered this try with a very smart blind-side move which involved McGoldrick coming into the play, something that we didn't spot, and we (Penny actually) made a woeful missed tackle, hardly making contact with the ball carrier.

The key point is whether the ball was actually "grounded" as per the rules............. i.e

(a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or
hands or
(b) exerting a downward pressure on the ball
with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the
ground or
(c) dropping on the ball and covering it with the
part of the body above the waist and below
the neck, the ball itself being on the ground.

I was sitting in AG about 20 rows back and from what I saw (and those around me) he dropped the ball rather than place, exert any downward pressure or actually drop on the ball , even throwing it down could not be interpreted as grounding the ball!!!! If the ball either rolled or bounced away then surely it could not have been grounded as per the rules??????? (I'm sure someone will be along to correct me in a minute?)

What's done is done but I think we'll be talking about this in years to come, a bit like Geoff Hurst's goal in the 1966 World Cup!!!!!

Did you think he dropped it in the in-goal area? I didn't but the video shows the ball in contact with the ground in the in-goal area or maybe on the line,


That often happens after a valid grounding.

Enough from me on this, it's in danger of becoming an obsession.

At the time I, along with a few others thought he dropped it in the in goal area ( losing contact) and didn't actually ground it - have been replaying it for the last hour and am now more confused than I was on the day!!!!!

Whoa! I never said where the ball hit the ground, only that it was dropped. I haven't been able to review the video footage as it's blocked at work and my home PC isn't good enough to play it properly, but Ferres dropped the ball; it definitely hit the ground in goal before bobbling into touch, but it was definitely not grounded with downward pressure, or indeed with any part at all of the player still in contact with it. I was ten or eleven rows back and almost right in line with it, and I'm adamant about what I saw. The referee's view of the ball would probably have been obscured by Clubb and/or Ferres and I can only asume the TJ somehow took his eyes of the play at the crucial moment.

As you say, it was a slick move that appeared to have unhinged our defence and a try seemed a formality. Ferres was guilty of complacency; he just cruised over the line and attempted to place the ball down with one hand instead of diving in low, and he reckoned without the speed and strength of Clubb whose tackle caused him to spill the ball as well as knocking him into touch.

That's how I saw it on the day as well !!!!

we all seem a wee bit obsessed with this try!!! IT WAS A TRY! the officials deemed it that way and there is nothing that can be done to change that, we won, why is there such a major discussion over this one?
Why is nobody talking about our try that was disallowed for obstruction? From what i saw on boots and all the tries, the 2 quins players that were alledgedly committing the offence had run thro the gap and when Howell ran the loop they were actually behind the cas defensive line!! how that is obstruction beggers belief
BUT, I think the big issue is, we are starting to rely on video replay in our game far too much!! and we anylise stuff far too much, why dont we just accept officials on the spot decisions can be wrong! and they go both ways! we did get a try thro a fwd pass so it does actually balance out

WE WON! lets enjoy it

Probably because
I just thought that was a clever run by Howell, abetted by some rather lethargic defence, and nobody would have stopped him anyway, but nobody really seemed to complain at the time so I assumed I must have missed something.


I certainly agree re. the video analysis. Once people begin replaying incidents frame by frame they are often still so inconclusive as to be worthless. Sometimes the officials may be genuinely unsighted, but half the time they're right on top of the action when they refer something to the video ref; most of the time I think it's best to trust your judgement at the time.


Oh, I can assure you I enjoyed it! Much more so than if we' remained ten points in front and just steadily extended our lead for a comfortable win. However I also enjoy grumbling. I find it very theraputic.

When all I get is 9 minutes of silent highlights to see then that TRY does stand out for me. I can see where you are coming from, but as other have said, it could have turned the game. If it had, this thread woulf be on the VT and 300 posts deep by now......but as you say, yeasterdays chip wrapper.....onwards and upwards