And another thing. Please tell me this isn't going to be 5 weeks of the beeb banging on about both Farrells being father and son.

Originally Posted by Stooriefit

Distance has got nothing to do with it. Players regularly take a pop at a drop goal safe in the knowledge that if they miss, the play will be called back and the penalty awarded.

Not after having run a quarter the length of the pitch. He crossed the try line, that was his advantage over.

Originally Posted by Markintime

Getting over the try line is definitely gaining an advantage, that he failed to ground the ball is not grounds to allow a penalty. Advantage does not mean 'score' otherwise you'd be able to retake a missed penalty because you didn't gain an 'advantage' from it.

Then there is also the point of holding back the player without the ball. If he hadn't put his arm round the shoulder and waist prior to contacting the ball ever so slightly he wouldn't have been in the position he was in!

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Is that all you've got?

Originally Posted by Dicey

Sorry - to whom were you referring ?

Oh, sorry, to the somewhat wilted Flower of Scotland. Thought the boring English were supposed to be destroyed today?

At least with tomorrow's game I expect the Gogs to win convincingly so I can only be surprised

Originally Posted by johnboyzzz

And another thing. Please tell me this isn't going to be 5 weeks of the beeb banging on about both Farrells being father and son.

They've had years of it.

Originally Posted by the_guru

Erm, they got the ball over the line over 20 metres in front of the offence. I'd say they had enough of an advantage. How far do you want to go back....Bannockburn?

But surely the advantage must be demonstrable? Scotland kicked ahead and the ball was grounded in touch by an English player. Where was the Scottish advantage? This isn't a Scotland - England thing, I'm genuinely curious as to how it can be considered that Scotland had an advantage. Any refs care to enlighten me?

Originally Posted by Lance_corp_more_rant

Then there is also the point of holding back the player without the ball. If he hadn't put his arm round the shoulder and waist prior to contacting the ball ever so slightly he wouldn't have been in the position he was in!

To tell the truth I hadn't noticed but I have always thought that advantage is gained by crossing the try line.

Originally Posted by the_guru

Like MIT said, the advantage was definitely over.

Still think he got enough on it, but can see why it wasn't given.

If you're a sad bastard and slow it right down you will see that his hand overshot the ball and it was actually the ball that rolled up and touched his wrist. At no time did he put any downward preasure on the ball.

Originally Posted by Markintime

To tell the truth I hadn't noticed but I have always thought that advantage is gained by crossing the try line.

Advantage is gained but if you can't put the ball down with downward pressure then advantage is over. Playing the player without the ball could be seen as deliberate interference and potential obstruction of play, which is what occured at and over the try line if you watch the playback.

Side view of no try!