Harry Simmons

[Hot_Charlie]

Healey was a quality player so let's not let his commentating affect how we remember that.

To be honest his biggest issue was he was able to play in so many positions. Best position was scrum half but wanted to play in his weakest - fly half!

Oh don’t get me wrong I was a huge Healey fan as a player, Kevin Putt incident excepted.
Massively unlucky to miss out on the 2003 RWC squad

A bit of footwork that is best forgotten, sadly.

[teds]

Healey was a quality player so let's not let his commentating affect how we remember that.

To be honest his biggest issue was he was able to play in so many positions. Best position was scrum half but wanted to play in his weakest - fly half!

Oh don’t get me wrong I was a huge Healey fan as a player, Kevin Putt incident excepted.
Massively unlucky to miss out on the 2003 RWC squad

A bit of footwork that is best forgotten, sadly.

I have a poor memory for many things but certain incidents stick. Healy’s petulant kick merited a significant ban, but as aI recall was barely punished.

[Darc Tiger]

Great to see him get his first premiership try today. He's showing he's definitely capable at this level. Hopefully he can stay injury free.

Interesting seeing that little inside ball to him off the lineout has worked two weeks in a row.

[mol2]

Played well and looks like the other wings will have to battle hard to oust him when all are fit.

[AngusMcCoatup]

For which I apologised further up champ. 4 months isn’t 7 weeks either if you want to be pedantic

You didn't apologise. Rather hard to play any earlier when you are signed up until December.

I said this
I’m sure I’d read 7 months, obviously incorrectly, but the point remains regarding the fan’s frustration, and I’m sure his, is that 2 games after a reasonable lengthy break he is injured again
Admittedly I didn’t use the word sorry
.
Just for clarification for whatever reason he didn’t play for best part of 4 months, and appears to have been injured v Exeter. Frustrating for everyone involved

Having read the last few postings by Rugbygramps I do wonder if he has the necessary qualifications to become a TMO being indecisive on weeks and months and probably having similar skills to yesterday's TMO Dean Richards in missing the touchdown that was so obvious to all in the Crumbie..

[Ian Cant]

I was at the game when Oz kicked out and am pretty sure he was banned for a couple of weeks!
Could be wrong.

[Ian Cant]

And I agree. Simmons is worth a start with OHC on the other wing. Watson and Basset to fight it out for maybe a place with Brown on the wing or full back.
Steward probably out until we get to the Quins’ game when it’s England call up time. Simmons could be on the bench as wing/scrum half cover but I read somewhere that his pass has slowed due to previous shoulder injuries!
Then Ealing Trailfinders I hope we put out the best side possible!

[Rugbygramps]

You didn't apologise. Rather hard to play any earlier when you are signed up until December.

I said this
I’m sure I’d read 7 months, obviously incorrectly, but the point remains regarding the fan’s frustration, and I’m sure his, is that 2 games after a reasonable lengthy break he is injured again
Admittedly I didn’t use the word sorry
.
Just for clarification for whatever reason he didn’t play for best part of 4 months, and appears to have been injured v Exeter. Frustrating for everyone involved

Having read the last few postings by Rugbygramps I do wonder if he has the necessary qualifications to become a TMO being indecisive on weeks and months and probably having similar skills to yesterday's TMO Dean Richards in missing the touchdown that was so obvious to all in the Crumbie..

You know what we all make mistakes and I’m happy to admit mine. I’m not a statistician and tend to go on gut feel. I was wrong on this occasion, and a few others, but even Watsons biggest fans can’t be happy with his current time on the pitch. Again my gut feeling is that he was injured at the end of our season, played v Ireland was injured again then due to contracts didn’t play again till mid December, so a better way of phrasing it would have been he played once in 7 months.
As for Kelly’s non try if the Crumbie couldn’t see it was his arms that stopped him grounding the ball they need their collective glasses renewing

[Pellsey]

I said this
I’m sure I’d read 7 months, obviously incorrectly, but the point remains regarding the fan’s frustration, and I’m sure his, is that 2 games after a reasonable lengthy break he is injured again
Admittedly I didn’t use the word sorry
.
Just for clarification for whatever reason he didn’t play for best part of 4 months, and appears to have been injured v Exeter. Frustrating for everyone involved

Having read the last few postings by Rugbygramps I do wonder if he has the necessary qualifications to become a TMO being indecisive on weeks and months and probably having similar skills to yesterday's TMO Dean Richards in missing the touchdown that was so obvious to all in the Crumbie..

You know what we all make mistakes and I’m happy to admit mine. I’m not a statistician and tend to go on gut feel. I was wrong on this occasion, and a few others, but even Watsons biggest fans can’t be happy with his current time on the pitch. Again my gut feeling is that he was injured at the end of our season, played v Ireland was injured again then due to contracts didn’t play again till mid December, so a better way of phrasing it would have been he played once in 7 months.
As for Kelly’s non try if the Crumbie couldn’t see it was his arms that stopped him grounding the ball they need their collective glasses renewing

Certainly his arms stopped the front of the ball touching the ground. Of that there is no question. I would have liked to have seen it from a different angle where the back of the ball could have been seen. Maybe that is what the Crumbie could see. For me, it is not conclusive just on that angle.

[Rugbygramps]

It would be instructive to see an angle from the big stand side certainly. The angle I have seen is from the Crumbie side and appears to show no grounding

[Pellsey]

It would be instructive to see an angle from the big stand side certainly. The angle I have seen is from the Crumbie side and appears to show no grounding

Apologies, you are right - the angle to look at would be from the "Members stand" or whatever it is called now ;)

[daktari]

I've seem a still (can't find it now) which shows the ball is definitely grounded but I can understand why it wasn't given...you would be there for hours trying to find the shot....that said if it was originally given as a try...

[Scott1]

I didn’t watch it,what was the original decision and what was the question asked please?

[TigerFeetSteve]

I didn’t watch it,what was the original decision and what was the question asked please?

This is the thing

Original decision try

So needs to be clear evidence it was held up

Video replay shows Daly's hand under one part of the ball from one camera angle.

However the debate is more about what was under (or not) the back half of the ball.

For me in reality the ball was "probably" held up, but at the same time I did not (in my opinion) see conclusive evidence that said the back point of the ball was held up.

For me I would have stuck with on-field and said try because for me not conclusive to overturn. Had the question been the other way around 100% it would have remained no try.

[Scott1]

I didn’t watch it,what was the original decision and what was the question asked please?

This is the thing

Original decision try

So needs to be clear evidence it was held up

Video replay shows Daly's hand under one part of the ball from one camera angle.

However the debate is more about what was under (or not) the back half of the ball.

For me in reality the ball was "probably" held up, but at the same time I did not (in my opinion) see conclusive evidence that said the back point of the ball was held up.

For me I would have stuck with on-field and said try because for me not conclusive to overturn. Had the question been the other way around 100% it would have remained no try.

Well the decision was wrong then ,and badly so! If it’s an onfield try there has to be solid evidence for it to be overturned,and clearly there wasn’t. So sounds like a shocker to me! I’ve seen the try but not the aftermath