Sour Grapes

1

Hilarious how the English are claiming that Cueto’s try should have stood despite the damning evidence of his foot being on the line before he grounded the ball.

The papers were full of this nonsense too yesteday. The Sunday Times had conclusive evidence that showed his foot in touch but still claimed elsewhere that it was a “surprising” decision.

Cueto himself is relying on a gut feeling instead of the video evidence which says it all.

Cueto: ‘it was a try’
Monday, 22 October 2007 13:52
Mark Cueto has reflected on the moment England’s dream of making World Cup history drifted into oblivion, claiming: ‘It was 100% a try.’

And the Sale Sharks wing’s sense of disbelief was only deepened by texters who bombarded his mobile phone while England fought tooth and nail to successfully defend their world title.

Cueto said: ‘There were about 30 text messages on my phone. I think 29 out of the 30 had ‘robbed’ in the text.’

Had Cueto’s 43rd minute ‘try’ been allowed, then England might well have gone on to complete mission improbable and retain the Webb Ellis Trophy against overwhelming odds.

But those hopes effectively crashed once 39-year-old Australian Stuart Dickinson decided Cueto’s foot made contact with the touchline as he dived over under pressure from Springboks number eight Danie Rossouw’s despairing tackle.

Television match official Dickinson, a professional referee who has controlled almost 40 Test matches, consulted numerous replays before breaking English hearts by delivering a verdict Cueto will probably never understand.

He added: 'Mathew Tait made a great initial break, and I think we got to within five metres of their line. There was an open blindside, Wilko (Jonny Wilkinson) managed to flick a pass to me and it was a case of just diving in.

'My gut instinct when I went over the line was that it was a try. As a player, you generally know when you are in or not. For me, it was 100% a try.

'From the front you could see the grounding was fine. From the back, they were obviously looking at the foot, but to me my foot came off the ground as I went over the line.

'I was amazed when it wasn’t awarded - I couldn’t believe it. At that stage of the game, we were six points behind. It would have taken us to within one. Wilko would probably have converted it and then we would have been a point up.

‘Neither team were that close to scoring throughout the game, so it could have been it, really.’

2

One man’s sour grapes is another man’s sweet fruit. And this fruit couldn’t have been any sweeter.

3

There was an element of doubt. I would say it wasn’t a try. It was certainly the right call by the referee. His foot was definitley over the line it, it’s whether or not his knee touched the line before he got the ball down is the question. The ref aired on the side of caution, and rightly so.

4

interesting that the element of doubt in football goes with the attacking team whereas in rugby it doesn’t

5

It had nothing to do with his knee - it was his foot that scraped across the line before he lifted it into the air. Video evidence - when you watch the angle from behind - shows it relatively clearly.

Anyway the element of doubt can go either way. In some circumstances the TMO is asked as to whether he can see if it’s a try or not - i.e. the doubt favours the defenders. In other situations (including those on Saturday) the TMO is asked as to whether he can see a reason why the try should not be awarded. In other words the referee feels it is a try and if there is no conclusive evidence otherwise a try can be awarded. So the TMO doesn’t need to see the ball being grounded for example if he’s asked that question, he just can’t give a try if he can see that it’s held up.