Home > Rugby > So trying for England and Cueto as South Africa win the Rugby World Cup
by Donna Gee on 20 October 2007
Email this Article (20) Comments
Comments (20)
by harry the hornet on October 20, 2007
hy wasn't it a try..i'm more a football man than rugby but even with all the replays it seemed like a try
by Zeev on October 20, 2007
I agree but am far from an expert but did not like a try in any case South Africa was just the better team
by John Christie on October 20, 2007
Congratulations to SA Fans who can celebrate and cheer on the best team in the World! Your team lived up to expectations and predictions!
by Aasim Shaffi on October 20, 2007
Im way more of a tennis fan then a rugby fan. But even i can see the effort and talent England put in it. By living in England i naturally wanted them to win but South Africa was simply the better team. I don't like the question stated at the end. It is just dirty and un called for. Sure there was that issue but South Africa won it with pride and truth. England did well to get to the final. Well done to both teams!
by matt on October 20, 2007
His foot literally touched the line, but that counts as out of play and so the try was disallowed. Good decision by the ref but after the great run from Tait, England did deserve a try from it. Well played both sides.
by Hamish McBrearty on October 21, 2007
Definitely not a try, but oh so close. I'm glad the officials took as long as they did to get it right. Cueto's foot touched the line just before he grounded the ball, but there was only a blade of grass in it
by Chris on October 21, 2007
'Even the playbacks seemed to show Cueto's leg was in the air as he touched down, and not grounded over the touchline' So what? You are conveniently ignoring the fact that his foot touched the sideline before placing the ball. What he did after this point, which you have described is irrelevant. BTW even if the try was allowed and converted from the sideline that would still leave England 5 points short of SA. How were they going to make up that deficit? The irony is that even if a try was awarded they would still have lost to a team playing their own game better. Ugly Rugby. Bring back the running game.
by Baksteen van der Lingenveld on October 21, 2007
South Africa were always going to win it. They've been playing consistently good rugby for the last few years. Even though England is a quality outfit, they honestly did not deserve to be in the finals,looking at their poor performances leading up to the World Cup. England was lucky to beat New Zealand, and it's a pity that the men in black weren't in the final in stead of England.Go Southern Hemisphere!
by Luke on October 21, 2007
England showed amazing tenacity in coming back from being written off by all prior to the knock out rounds, but SA were the better team; on the day and for the entire tournament. I work with an office full of Brits who are all contemplating “what if scenarios” and it’s a sad end to fantastic battle. Your players & coach have unanimously accepted the better team won and that “The Try” not being allowed was disappointing, but that dwelling on what could have been is foolhardy. SA have been trailing in points before and we’ve come out and scored tries to sort things out. Had the try been awarded we might have had incentive to pickup our game. See? Anyone can make up “what ifs”. The final score was still more than a converted try and that’s all you should be considering. Well played England. Your team showed signs of true champs and you remain formidable foes.
by Hamish on October 21, 2007
SA's dominance at the lineout was spectacular! Well done SA! Bring back the running game?? Go and watch some rugby league Chris! Forward play and the physical power and dominance as England showed against Australia requires a very good ref to oversee but makes for an amazing display when it happens.
Hamish I could suggest you should go and watch Soccer if you want to see a game where points are accrued only by goals. That was an ugly match, typical NH style Rugby. I have no problem with forward power and dominance but I would like to see the backs play their part rather than kick, kick, kick, kick, kick..... 3N and S14 encourage try scoring. RWC finals do not, hence the ugly Rugby that damages the Rugby brand rather than promote it. Shame we didn't see a NZ vs SA final. You guys would be surprised how exhilarating Rugby can be.
by H Dawson on October 21, 2007
Couldn't agree with "Chris (21 / 10 / 2007 08:39)" anymore. Why couldn't people see his foot hit the line BEFORE the ball went down? Plain as day, jeez it's not rocket science.
by Robert Ian Goodall on October 21, 2007
One camera replay clearly showed that Cueto's boot touched the line before he grounded the ball. From the moment his boot touched the line he was in touch and play stopped. Anything that happened after that was irrelevant until the game had re-started from a throw into a lineout. If we want to use technology we must live with the results - in this case the TMO read the pics correctly - Cueto went into touch before he grounded the ball in the in-goal area - No try!
by Shane Robinson on October 22, 2007
What a shocker, I knew as soon as the decision was made England would have something to cling to and moan about and thuis it has been proven. Foot in touch BEFORE he touched the ball down, granted in the air as the ball struck turf but he was out anyway so it's not relevant. Well done video ref for getting such a crucial decision right. Do not agree England matched the Boks at all, SA comfortably controlled the game apart from a 10 minute spell in the second half. Beyond that England were always kept at arms length and the Boks never looked in trouble. Clever rugby, get your scores and don't lose the head. Well done South Africa! Winners as I predicted after the Samoa game. Well done England too for getting this fa but let's leave it now, eh? No replays and news stories ad infinatum whinging about how you were 'robbed'. Chris is right, even with that try there was still a significant deficit and the Boks looked more than capable of stepping it up another gear if they needed to. Let's not be so disrespectful
by Rabobi on October 23, 2007
sadly i knew this was going to be the case. but hey, that's sport. when ruben kruger scored what we all believed to be a try in the 1995 final, i knew that if SA lost that game, THAT would probably be discussed for days..weeks ... months. the bottom line is simply that the game was a great final, the try wasn't awarded ... and sometimes the call goes the other way (argentina against south africa - where the world could see he dropped the ball was awarded) but again, and i actually have a picture sent to me this morning to prove it ... it wasn't a try. his foot touched the line 2 frames before dotting the ball down. it was a great tackle and that's that. it was a great tournament, england did the country proud...after everyone wrote them off... think about that rather. to john smit and his band of brother .... yes please! we welcome you home today and celebrate our second title. viva rugby ...viva bokke
by Koos Karoo on October 23, 2007
Mark Cueto and the whining English rugby fans should stop agonising about his "try" which was not awarded. It was no try. Click on http://geocities.com/groep63/notatry.jpg and see for yourself.
by Ai Rui Sheng on October 24, 2007
The Opium Pushing Slave Traders are whingeing and the cup is back in the south, where it should not have ever left. 1. You can put the ball down as often as you like with your feet in the air, if you do not put your foot out first. I like Dickinson a little more than the Ayatolla Lamerde. 2. England did not match the Bokke. The Boks did not even have to score a try and won in a canter.
by Anton on October 25, 2007
England came to the final with a lot of luck, They did not demolish Austalia..Australia chocked(and i think the reason for this was there own blown up ego`s, If SA beat england so easily then surely they can do better, and they came unstuck in the last 20 min of a non score game) Next step france, with all the pressure on them as hosts, they also fell for the no score but we are ahead game plan..Untill 7 min to go when england got penalty and win..Through a stupid substitute france made.. England already lost that game but somehow luck brought it back to them...(England is France`s waterloo as France is New Zeelands waterloo in World cups it seems) And then it was the Boks..Johnny had his dropkicks at goal..Not even rushed as we were not going to give dumb penalties away, and seen in context with the game we were almost always 3 scores(penalties) up on England why do we then need to take the play to them, England needed the points and they never threatened to get it. take the pressure situation
by Graham Griffiths on October 25, 2007
I'm amazed at the number of people who can still argue that Cueto scored. As another poster has said, there was only a grass blade in it, but it was still not a try! Even the player himself maintains it was a try, so presumably he has eyes in his arse.
by sportsman on October 26, 2007
Cueto was clearly in touch - everyone who recorded that game (all 600 million of us) have watched that move over and over on super-slow-mo, and he clearly was in touch. All this hand-wringing about what "might have been" is pathetic - out is out - that's why we have a TMO. If you want to complain about biased referees, why was England not given a yellow card for shoving Montgomery into a TV camera? Any Springbok doing that would get a red card and a sixty match ban, but England? Not even a penalty? Is that fair? SA have beaten England five times in a row - in London, in SA and now on neutral ground in Paris - twice. England lost their world champion status long before Cueto's "instincts" let him down.
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *