all 8 of them :biggrin:
...1. He was still entitled to promote the ball so long as he did so immediately (and he did) even of it was grounded.
2. You have the wrong game. The word "fumble" is an American Football term. It does not appear in the Laws of our game.
3. There was never any separation between Cruden's hands and the ball as he placed the ball on the goal-line, so, there was no knock on.
...Perhaps you've spent so much time in Holland that your English language skills have atrophied?
England would have done exactly the same if the situation had been reversed.......as would any other team.
As I understand it parts of this forum are open to non referees ( although I do not see any "proof" being required before being considered a ref is is just a "trust" thing? Some of the stuff posted leads me to question the qualifications of some) what would these folk thing of some of us from some of the bombastic rantings on here?
I make absolutely NO apologies for bringing up those decisions where I think the referee has been harsh on the All Blacks, and I leave the job of bringing up decisions where other teams were hard done by to the supporters of those other teams... its their responsibility to do so, not mine.
I think the ABs were deliberately taking up time at the end.
Someone else suggested this in a different thread: I'd like to see an EVL where when there is a reset scrum, for any reason, the clock stops until the ball emerges successfuly from the new scrum.
So that you can't waste time by disrupting scrums.
It is quite possible that NO had seen a legit try yet if he had referred it for clarification it would have come back as inconclusive.
That all depends on what question he asks the TMO.
If he asks "is there any reason I can't award the try" he is saying, I saw a try and will award it unless you can give me a solid reason not to. If it's inconclusive for the TMO then the try stands.