Scotland France for the lazy buggers

[westport]

Well i am not going to dwell too much on the obvious decision at the end, it is what it is, hey ho that is life. I am old school and more annoyed about not trying to take the points when they are available and keep the scoreboard ticking over. There were a few kickable penalties that went to the corner rather than getting points on the board.
Also we are dreadful at restart towards us

[Openside]

Blatantly wrong decision from the TMO. No only did the ball visibly touch the ground on one angle, you can see it rebound slightly afterwards. It isn’t controversial. It’s just wrong.

This

This, as clear and obvious as the blatant forward pass for the Dingwall try for England.
But at least in the England match the better team won.

I must say I am normally hot on spotting forward passes, I don’t recall that one but a lot are going in picked up.

[weegie01]

Well i am not going to dwell too much on the obvious decision at the end, it is what it is, hey ho that is life. I am old school and more annoyed about not trying to take the points when they are available and keep the scoreboard ticking over. There were a few kickable penalties that went to the corner rather than getting points on the board.
Also we are dreadful at restart towards us

The more you watch the last bash at the line, the more obvious it is that one pass a few yards away was a clear run in.

The only problem with this is that Russell is screaming for the ball, the French will hear as well as the Scots so will cover the space. Still, a forward lifting his head for a second would see this. I get that forwards would expect the backs to call for th eball if they want it, but then the cover will also react. What is needed is a forward to lift his head and see the space so the ball goes to the backs when the opposition are not expecting it.

[Tichtheid]

Well i am not going to dwell too much on the obvious decision at the end, it is what it is, hey ho that is life. I am old school and more annoyed about not trying to take the points when they are available and keep the scoreboard ticking over. There were a few kickable penalties that went to the corner rather than getting points on the board.
Also we are dreadful at restart towards us

The more you watch the last bash at the line, the more obvious it is that one pass a few yards away was a clear run in.

The only problem with this is that Russell is screaming for the ball, the French will hear as well as the Scots so will cover the space. Still, a forward lifting his head for a second would see this. I get that forwards would expect the backs to call for th eball if they want it, but then the cover will also react. What is needed is a forward to lift his head and see the space so the ball goes to the backs when the opposition are not expecting it.

Ideally it would take a nod between Finn and Wee Dod at that point

[Yr Alban]

This

This, as clear and obvious as the blatant forward pass for the Dingwall try for England.
But at least in the England match the better team won.

I must say I am normally hot on spotting forward passes, I don’t recall that one but a lot are going in picked up.

I often miss them. This one I saw and thought ‘hold on, that looked well forward’.

[topofthemoon]

Transcription of the ref and TMO chat if anyone wants to look at exactly how the discussion progressed:



One thing that we can say for sure - the try was ruled out by Nic Berry because the ball was held up on a foot which was conclusively proved to be incorrect during the review. So because we can't get the 'definitive evidence' the TMO claimed to need we have ended up going back to a decision that we know is wrong. Rugby does love to tie itself in knots...

[C69]

Ah Nic says, every loser wins.

[weegie01]

Well i am not going to dwell too much on the obvious decision at the end, it is what it is, hey ho that is life. I am old school and more annoyed about not trying to take the points when they are available and keep the scoreboard ticking over. There were a few kickable penalties that went to the corner rather than getting points on the board.
Also we are dreadful at restart towards us

The more you watch the last bash at the line, the more obvious it is that one pass a few yards away was a clear run in.

The only problem with this is that Russell is screaming for the ball, the French will hear as well as the Scots so will cover the space. Still, a forward lifting his head for a second would see this. I get that forwards would expect the backs to call for th eball if they want it, but then the cover will also react. What is needed is a forward to lift his head and see the space so the ball goes to the backs when the opposition are not expecting it.

Ideally it would take a nod between Finn and Wee Dod at that point.

It has been too long since I played so, and I was a wing / FB so have no idea what goes on. I spoke to my son this evening who said that in the teams he played for (he was a tighthead) they had a system of signals for exactly this circumstance. The aim was to get the message across without alerting the oppo. He did say it rarely worked as in trying to be subtle the signal was usually missed.

[weegie01]

I knew he'd only played a handful of games, but it turns out that Harry Paterson's debut was his 9th game of pro rugby.

[Jim Lahey]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

[Biffer]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I think the idea is if they acknowledge something was done wrong, they will act to improve it in the future. If they get to ignore it and hope it goes away, then there won't be any change. That's what happened off the back of the World Cup QF with Joubert's bad decision.

[Slick]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I tend to agree.

I listened to the BBC Scotland Rugby podcast last night and it was interesting that Tom English was laying the fault squarely on the ref, saying the TMO did everything he could within his remit to get Berry to change his decision but Berry ignored it. This was straight after the game so opinion may have changed by now.

[Biffer]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I tend to agree.

I listened to the BBC Scotland Rugby podcast last night and it was interesting that Tom English was laying the fault squarely on the ref, saying the TMO did everything he could within his remit to get Berry to change his decision but Berry ignored it. This was straight after the game so opinion may have changed by now.

I don't agree with you guys. They revised the way the TMO operates after the last fuckup by Joubert - that wouldn't happen again now, due to the protocols being revised after that high profile error. Hopefully there will be some way to revise things so a similar incident doesn't happen again.

Fucking frustrating that it always seems to be fuckups against us that drive these things though.

[Jim Lahey]

I get the frustration.

But how as a sport do we marry that frustration with refs fucking up (and they will continue to do so, even if changes are made), with us all slapping each other on the back as rugby fans and telling each other and the world that we are better than other sports as we respect the referee?

In fairness, Finn and the Scottish players took it like champs on Saturday. I didn't see any of the tantrums that I reckon Jamie Ritchie would have likely have thrown had he been on the pitch. But the fans, the media and now the SRU are baying for Nic Berry's blood.

This isn't an isolated poke at Scottish fans by the way. I'm sure Irish, English, Welsh, Kiwis, Saffers etc., would all throw their toys out of the pram if what happened on Saturday happened to their sides. But its the hypocracy of "respecting referees" then feeding them to the lions when they fuck up that I don't like.

[Biffer]

I get the frustration.

But how as a sport do we marry that frustration with refs fucking up (and they will continue to do so, even if changes are made), with us all slapping each other on the back as rugby fans and telling each other and the world that we are better than other sports as we respect the referee?

In fairness, Finn and the Scottish players took it like champs on Saturday. I didn't see any of the tantrums that I reckon Jamie Ritchie would have likely have thrown had he been on the pitch. But the fans, the media and now the SRU are baying for Nic Berry's blood.

This isn't an isolated poke at Scottish fans by the way. I'm sure Irish, English, Welsh, Kiwis, Saffers etc., would all throw their toys out of the pram if what happened on Saturday happened to their sides. But its the hypocracy of "respecting referees" then feeding them to the lions when they fuck up that I don't like.

Well, I think there's a need to step back for a minute and consider that we don't actually know how it has been expressed in the SRU feedback on the refereeing. The headlines, as ever, will lean to the sensational, but there are only a couple of unattributed quotes that I've seen, which are

"The dialogue between the referee and the TMO made no sense"

and

"There is a need for lessons being learned so that it never happens again. This is not about Scottish Rugby being belligerent"

To me, those would not be out of place in a document that's saying the game looked a bit foolish in a very high profile game, how do we make sure something like this doesn't happen again?

Fans on social media are always going to howl, it's just the modern world. But if the SRU written response is aligned with the players response on Saturday, then I think it's a good response aligned with the values of the sport.

[Uncle fester]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky these days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

[sockwithaticket]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky that's days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

Absolutely. Similarly, I have no time for people who complain about the drop out when held up over the line as so often it's the result of forwards stubbornly and obviously battering away at the same small area rather than getting the ball wider to space and/or changing the point of attack.

[Blackmac]

I get the frustration.

But how as a sport do we marry that frustration with refs fucking up (and they will continue to do so, even if changes are made), with us all slapping each other on the back as rugby fans and telling each other and the world that we are better than other sports as we respect the referee?

In fairness, Finn and the Scottish players took it like champs on Saturday. I didn't see any of the tantrums that I reckon Jamie Ritchie would have likely have thrown had he been on the pitch. But the fans, the media and now the SRU are baying for Nic Berry's blood.

This isn't an isolated poke at Scottish fans by the way. I'm sure Irish, English, Welsh, Kiwis, Saffers etc., would all throw their toys out of the pram if what happened on Saturday happened to their sides. But its the hypocracy of "respecting referees" then feeding them to the lions when they fuck up that I don't like.

Well, I think there's a need to step back for a minute and consider that we don't actually know how it has been expressed in the SRU feedback on the refereeing. The headlines, as ever, will lean to the sensational, but there are only a couple of unattributed quotes that I've seen, which are

"The dialogue between the referee and the TMO made no sense"

and

"There is a need for lessons being learned so that it never happens again. This is not about Scottish Rugby being belligerent"

To me, those would not be out of place in a document that's saying the game looked a bit foolish in a very high profile game, how do we make sure something like this doesn't happen again?

Fans on social media are always going to howl, it's just the modern world. But if the SRU written response is aligned with the players response on Saturday, then I think it's a good response aligned with the values of the sport.

Agree. And as far as other fans saying it's sour grapes and get over it, I'm not aware of any information regarding either the TMO or Berry being subject to the death threats which seem to have been prevalent among disgruntled supporters of other nations who have suffered less controversial decisions.

[Tichtheid]

This is 21st century professional sport, if the stats and analysis showed the pick and go at the line wasn’t the best option then we wouldn’t see every professional team do it.

“Don’t leave yourself at the mercy of the decisions” is another way of saying “score more than the opposition”.

[topofthemoon]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky that's days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

One of the main issues with the process on Saturday was that the TMO didn't appear to be following the 'clear and obvious' guidance but seemed to think he required "definitive evidence".

Personal opinion but having seen what tries are given on field with just a glimpse of the ball on the deck, I would say the footage available to the TMO was at least equivalent to a lot of those decisions. Bear in mind that in the TMO Protocol, 'clear and obvious' is defined as 'unlikely to be refereed in any other way'.

Pick and go is still the lowest risk way to go when there's 15 in the defensive line strung across the pitch. But yes, once Scotland had condensed 14 of the French defenders to within 5-10m of the ruck, the ball simply had to go wide.

[SaintK]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I think the idea is if they acknowledge something was done wrong, they will act to improve it in the future. If they get to ignore it and hope it goes away, then there won't be any change. That's what happened off the back of the World Cup QF with Joubert's bad decision.

WR say no!

World Rugby has no plans to issue a public explanation of the decision not to award Scotland what would have been a winning try against France.
Scottish Rugby called on the governing body to acknowledge that a game-defining mistake was made in the last seconds of Saturday's Six Nations game.
But World Rugby will be sticking to its stance of not commenting publicly on specific officials' decisions and is not expected to issue any clarification to clear the situation up in the public domain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

[Yr Alban]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I think the idea is if they acknowledge something was done wrong, they will act to improve it in the future. If they get to ignore it and hope it goes away, then there won't be any change. That's what happened off the back of the World Cup QF with Joubert's bad decision.

WR say no!

World Rugby has no plans to issue a public explanation of the decision not to award Scotland what would have been a winning try against France.
Scottish Rugby called on the governing body to acknowledge that a game-defining mistake was made in the last seconds of Saturday's Six Nations game.
But World Rugby will be sticking to its stance of not commenting publicly on specific officials' decisions and is not expected to issue any clarification to clear the situation up in the public domain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’d say that this is only to be expected, as anything else would be an open invitation to challenge all borderline decisions - except that WR did comment publicly about the Joubert error that put us out of the RWC in 2015! Evidently that wasn’t always their stance!

[Uncle fester]

Not sure why the SRU are asking for an admission of error.

We all saw it and sympathise with Scottish fans. What is an apology going to achieve?

The culture of rugby and our supposed (non-existent these days) respect for referees is in trouble if World Rugby give in. The ref fucked up and its a shame for Scottish fans. Refs frequently fuck up in what is an impossible sport to referee due to a silly system of obscure laws. Unless the apology is going to lead to a wholesale restructure of the ruck, offsides, try scoring, TMOs, etc. (Which it won't), then it is a complete waste of time and will damage rugby's reputation.

I think the idea is if they acknowledge something was done wrong, they will act to improve it in the future. If they get to ignore it and hope it goes away, then there won't be any change. That's what happened off the back of the World Cup QF with Joubert's bad decision.

WR say no!

World Rugby has no plans to issue a public explanation of the decision not to award Scotland what would have been a winning try against France.
Scottish Rugby called on the governing body to acknowledge that a game-defining mistake was made in the last seconds of Saturday's Six Nations game.
But World Rugby will be sticking to its stance of not commenting publicly on specific officials' decisions and is not expected to issue any clarification to clear the situation up in the public domain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Somebody at work mentioned Scotland threatening to sue world rugby if their game against Japan didn't go ahead in 2019. Not a great trend there.

[Uncle fester]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky that's days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

One of the main issues with the process on Saturday was that the TMO didn't appear to be following the 'clear and obvious' guidance but seemed to think he required "definitive evidence".

Personal opinion but having seen what tries are given on field with just a glimpse of the ball on the deck, I would say the footage available to the TMO was at least equivalent to a lot of those decisions. Bear in mind that in the TMO Protocol, 'clear and obvious' is defined as 'unlikely to be refereed in any other way'.

Pick and go is still the lowest risk way to go when there's 15 in the defensive line strung across the pitch. But yes, once Scotland had condensed 14 of the French defenders to within 5-10m of the ruck, the ball simply had to go wide.

Clear and obvious footage would have the try line in it as a reference point.

[Yr Alban]

I think the idea is if they acknowledge something was done wrong, they will act to improve it in the future. If they get to ignore it and hope it goes away, then there won't be any change. That's what happened off the back of the World Cup QF with Joubert's bad decision.

WR say no!

World Rugby has no plans to issue a public explanation of the decision not to award Scotland what would have been a winning try against France.
Scottish Rugby called on the governing body to acknowledge that a game-defining mistake was made in the last seconds of Saturday's Six Nations game.
But World Rugby will be sticking to its stance of not commenting publicly on specific officials' decisions and is not expected to issue any clarification to clear the situation up in the public domain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Somebody at work mentioned Scotland threatening to sue world rugby if their game against Japan didn't go ahead in 2019. Not a great trend there.

Are you seriously suggesting that after literally years of planning and player development, and all of the financial investment involved, that any union in the world wouldn’t have dug their heels in at the idea of being eliminated without playing a crucial match? Literally anyone put in the position would have done exactly the same as the SRU. And we were punished for doing it.

[topofthemoon]

Somebody at work mentioned Scotland threatening to sue world rugby if their game against Japan didn't go ahead in 2019. Not a great trend there.

We've only some press reports that an 'apology' is being 'demanded'. This could be part of the normal request for feedback on refereeing decisions that goes in after every game. Wales Online have no reason to not stick the boot in on the SRU but they are reporting this as "Scotland are not demanding or expecting an apology or an admission that a mistake was made regarding Skinner's disallowed try."

The Chief Exec waded in and probably went over the score a bit in Japan but the fundamental point was a reasonable one. How could a global tournament of the scale of the RWC, that had been planned for years to take place in a part of the world that was at risk of typhoons, not have in place contingency plans to ensure that all fixtures were completed, either by delaying the game or moving it to an alternative stadium in a safe area?

[topofthemoon]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky that's days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

One of the main issues with the process on Saturday was that the TMO didn't appear to be following the 'clear and obvious' guidance but seemed to think he required "definitive evidence".

Personal opinion but having seen what tries are given on field with just a glimpse of the ball on the deck, I would say the footage available to the TMO was at least equivalent to a lot of those decisions. Bear in mind that in the TMO Protocol, 'clear and obvious' is defined as 'unlikely to be refereed in any other way'.

Pick and go is still the lowest risk way to go when there's 15 in the defensive line strung across the pitch. But yes, once Scotland had condensed 14 of the French defenders to within 5-10m of the ruck, the ball simply had to go wide.

Clear and obvious footage would have the try line in it as a reference point.

The TMO can aggregate information from various views, they don't need to see everything in one picture. The various wider angles, particularly the one that shows the ref crouched looking on, make it hard to see how there could be any risk that the ball has come back into the field of play.

[Uncle fester]

Somebody at work mentioned Scotland threatening to sue world rugby if their game against Japan didn't go ahead in 2019. Not a great trend there.

We've only some press reports that an 'apology' is being 'demanded'. This could be part of the normal request for feedback on refereeing decisions that goes in after every game. Wales Online have no reason to not stick the boot in on the SRU but they are reporting this as "Scotland are not demanding or expecting an apology or an admission that a mistake was made regarding Skinner's disallowed try."

The Chief Exec waded in and probably went over the score a bit in Japan but the fundamental point was a reasonable one. How could a global tournament of the scale of the RWC, that had been planned for years to take place in a part of the world that was at risk of typhoons, not have in place contingency plans to ensure that all fixtures were completed, either by delaying the game or moving it to an alternative stadium in a safe area?

Oh it was the Online Wail?
Never mind, as you were.

[Biffer]

I’ve been having another wee think about this. Bear with me

1. Ref said he thought the ball was held up as it was resting on a foot

2. So he said on field decision no try, TMO check.

3. TMO check showed that the on field view of it being held up by a foot was clearly not correct.

4. So it should then become a try/no try decision for the TMO as the on field team are unclear.

5. The TMO meaning of ‘clear and obvious’ is defined as ‘unlikely to be refereed in any other way

6. Had the ref been in a position where he had the view on the tv camera, I can’t believe he would have done anything other than give the try

So I think the problem is at step 4. I’m not sure if that’s an actual mistake from the on field team, a miscommunication by them, or a lack of clarity in the protocols that if the circumstances that led to the on field decision are proved wrong, it should then become a try / no try decision for the TMO. There may also have been doubt about the definition of clear and obvious; it’s not absolute proof of a legal standard, it’s just ‘unlikely to be refereed in any other way’.

[topofthemoon]

I’ve been having another wee think about this. Bear with me

1. Ref said he thought the ball was held up as it was resting on a foot

2. So he said on field decision no try, TMO check.

3. TMO check showed that the on field view of it being held up by a foot was clearly not correct.

4. So it should then become a try/no try decision for the TMO as the on field team are unclear.

5. The TMO meaning of ‘clear and obvious’ is defined as ‘unlikely to be refereed in any other way

6. Had the ref been in a position where he had the view on the tv camera, I can’t believe he would have done anything other than give the try

So I think the problem is at step 4. I’m not sure if that’s an actual mistake from the on field team, a miscommunication by them, or a lack of clarity in the protocols that if the circumstances that led to the on field decision are proved wrong, it should then become a try / no try decision for the TMO. There may also have been doubt about the definition of clear and obvious; it’s not absolute proof of a legal standard, it’s just ‘unlikely to be refereed in any other way’.

Problem was at step 1 the ref only said held up - he didn't mention the 'on the boot' part to his TMO.

Nor did he make it clear to his TMO that's what his held up decision was based on even as the replays of the ball coming off the boot were rolling on the big screen.

[Uncle fester]

Had the opportunity to talk to a TMO recently and they said that a ref like Wayne Barnes makes a big effort to build relationships with his TMO's. It pays off when shit his the fan. Seeing the interaction last weekend, it struck me that the guys could have done with a bit of that.

[Openside]

That TSAanalytics wanker is all over it but in his verbose rant, he forgets that the angle that appears to show the ball on the ground doesn't show the line and it's too far away to be clear if there's anything else between the ball and the ground.

Is it a clear and obvious grounding? No it isn't.

Lesson to be learned is not to leave yourself at the mercy of these decisions. Mashing at the line with the forwards is risky that's days and Scotland would probably have been better served by going wide.

Absolutely. Similarly, I have no time for people who complain about the drop out when held up over the line as so often it's the result of forwards stubbornly and obviously battering away at the same small area rather than getting the ball wider to space and/or changing the point of attack.

Completely agree with this, these days it’s in the defenders interests to almost drag the attacker over the line hold up and get a drop out rather than concede a 5 yard scrum.