i had to read that twicecorkbarry wrote:His foot was stuck in neutral which is why it wasn't a try, and Hamilton tyres were on the white line before he ,erm i think i'm getting confused.
as hamilton loses the english football stars fail, and....
-
All_Arsenal_1886
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:32 pm
- Location: South London/Benalmadena
- Contact:
Because SA were penalised in the tackle on Matthew Tait. Nobody has fully explained without a chuckle so if I didn't know better I would say that it was a "consolation" because of the doubt surrounding the try.DanielD wrote:I think it was a try, you could see his leg lift up the ground just when it was reaching the line.
Even if it wasn't a try, why did england got a penalty afterwards?
The guys on the BBC Radio said that it definitely wasn't a try - and one of the them was ex-England international Matt Dawson
SA made fewer mistakes and performed better in the line-out, so were the better side but in other areas it was about level.
The irony is that the only moment of real incisiveness came from England and South Africa chose not to play an expansive game. But I'm sure that's England's fault as well
-
I Hate Hleb
- Posts: 18632
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 3:36 pm
- Location: London
THERE, THERE, CORKBARRY. A MAN OF YOUR AGE SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING!corkbarry wrote:His foot was stuck in neutral which is why it wasn't a try, and Hamilton tyres were on the white line before he ,erm i think i'm getting confused.
WOULD YOU LIKE A CUP OF COCO BEFORE YOUR EARLY AFTERNOON KIP? 
I Hate Hleb wrote:THERE, THERE, CORKBARRY. A MAN OF YOUR AGE SHOULDN'T BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING!corkbarry wrote:His foot was stuck in neutral which is why it wasn't a try, and Hamilton tyres were on the white line before he ,erm i think i'm getting confused.
Not surprising that a virile young bear like IHH loves a bit of coco from time to time....
Must be coco's sporting prowess that IHH finds most attractive
