It was 100% a try. There is no doubt or 50/50 call. His finger touches the ball and doesn't leave it as it hits the ground. Try.

I agree with Gotcha over not particularly liking the current rules on a try but under the rules it's 100% a try.

If Jennings try was a try then Halls was.

Until Australia's insularity, insecurity & selfishness is removed from the situation then international RL will never prosper. If that means removing them from the situation altogether then so be it. They can rejoin when they agree to play by neutral, impartial interpretations and with neutral, impartial referees who aren't influenced by the Australian Rugby League.

If it had been at the other end it would have been given. BUT off the back of the way England came out to play in the second half we can not complain. Best chance to beat the Aussies in years blown away by a lack of application in the first 25 mins of the 2nd half. Gutted

It was a try no doubt, those have been given all year for many years here and in NRL. Blatant Aussies cheating.

It doesnt say anywhere in the laws of the game when scoring a try anything about "control of the ball". The term is a myth which people like Stevo have created.

Ofcourse if an attacking player carries a ball over the oppo try line he has to control the ball whilst placing downward pressure as that is the only way a try can be scored.

If a ball is kicked across the line or lay prone In the ingoal area and you excerpt downward pressure with one finger then you are never in control of that ball making your point invalid. Hall was never in control of the ball however he did excerpt an element of downward pressure thus scoring a try.

So are we really debating that the pressure he did apply didnt meet the required lbs of pressure needed to ground the ball? He touched the ball in an effort to place downward pressure to attempt to score a try. The fact it was his little finger meant Bernie struggled to see this.

Hall got as much downward pressure on his as Jennings did in the first half when the ball slid out of the side of his hand in the act of grounding.

Both had simultaneous contact between hand, ball and ground.

Inglis didn't ground the ball, he shovelled it backwards with no downward pressure.

Worse than the decision was the rationale used to try and justify it afterwards, that the contact was in the act of the ball bouncing up off the floor. That's just making stuff up to try and cover for the fact you know you've screwed up.

Hall has fingers on the ball when it's on the ground. No prior knock on by Hall. Try. Inglis did not ground the ball - if he did, it's a drop out not a 20 metre tap but he didn't ground it. Try

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel better. That was a try all day.



Hope we can go on and win it now, against the Aussies in the final.

Yep. I'll keep telling myself it's not a try. Easier to take that way

The pictures above show its a try, i don't really see how you can argue against that evidence TBH.

I know Hall didn't react like he had got it and this is the main argument from the Aussie side of it but thats irrelevant really, the VR is there to make the right calls and here they have clearly failed again.

What irks me more than anything is that if it was role reversal it would have been given for sure.

Notice the relief on the home fans faces when it was disallowed

Exactly his whole counter argument about Hall not reacting like he scored is desperate. Tom Briscoe thought he scored vs Hudds with a similar grounding. danny Brough thought his DG in the cup vs Saints went through the posts. Countless other people act like they score when they haven't. It doesn't happen as much but on occasions I've seen players get up not looking convinced and it does turn out to be a try.

Does anybody really think had Hall got up jumping up and down celebrating that it would've changed the VR's mind? That Sheens and Smith use Hall's reaction as their sole 'proof' that it must be a no try shows that they know it was really as they never mention the grounding, just Hall's lack of celebration.

Also, if you watched the NZ game last week.Kevin Proctor got the ball on the line but didn't celebrate and everyone including commentators wondered why the game was stopped and bentham had gone to the screen.And the evidence showed he got it on the line so the try was given.

We blew what was our best chance, in a long time, of beating a very average Aussie team. After an overall good first half performance we lost our ambition in the second half and appeared to be content to defend our 8 point lead. We allowed Australia to gain momentum and failed to counter their changed tactics after halftime.

Our right side looked weak in defense with missed tackles from Joel Tomkins, Watkins and Hodgson and a crucial error from Charnley. Watkins took his try well but like Charnley otherwise failed to impress in attack. Clark twice took wrong options but we looked better when he was on the field.

Australia were lucky to escape penalties as they repeatedly floored Matty Smith well after he had made a kick with the main culprit being his namesake. This IMO put M. Smith off his kicking game which was poor in the second half and just played into Inglis's hands.

On the positive side Hall was outstanding with Sarginson not far behind him and our props dominated particularly in the first 40.

I would like to see a Charnley dropped for next week and also a change in our second row.

Agreed. Charnley looks more of a threat to England than he does to the opposition. Burgess was arguably the best winger in the competition last season, and certainly the best winger at Wigan.

Joe Burgess should have played this tournament from day one, he has been red hot this year.Charnley has not been anything like the past few seasons this year and although not doing too much wrong so far, he is dealt with easily.

I would even consider going Hardaker on the wing.Would provide two walls of protection for Tomkins on the bombs(seems all the rage at the minute) with him and Hall comfortable.

I like Charnely but today he lacked his usual pace and he jump way too early and not very high for two bombs, I don't reckon he's fully fit.

Still reckon J.Burgess is a bit green defensively and we've had enough issues that side (he usually plays the other side for Wigan) to throw him in. I'd go for Hardaker on the wing. Not played there for a while but he's one of those guys you feel can easily slot into other roles, and we all know his dealing with kicks is good and whilst they haven't formed a centre/wing partnership for Leeds I would guess they'd be some kind of gelling there with Watkins.

The other thing Hardaker gives you is physicality coming away from your own line. Carries the ball well, has good footwork and deceptive strength that you won't necessarily get with Burgess.

Nicely summed up.

It was a try. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just lying to themselves.

I thought it was a try but we shouldn't have been in that position needing it to win. Once again it's like the team bent over to the Aussie reputation.

Our second row has been poor in the 2 games. Tomkins and Farrell have offered little and I'd like to see them dropped, but can't see McNamara having the balls to do it. O'Loughlin also showed he's a penalty machine. The Wigan tough house tactics aren't suited to international rugby

Yes. The ball was on the ground and the hand (Or finger) was on the ball.

The problem on Sunday is with how Australia handle the video ref.
The ref decided it was a no try and the video ref was just asked how to restart play. The control over the decision making is held on the field, in the super league the video ref's have more influence and the ability to override.

Not sure if it was on the 'live' coverage but on the highlights last night Ryan Hall was saying part of the reason he didn't 'act' as though he thought it was a try because he would be 'owning up' that he definitely got the last touch and therefore that the Aussies would get the ball back if the referee decided he didn't think it was a try before sending it up.

Though the argument in the studio was if he had 'acted up' more, might it have made the ref rule it WAS a try and therefore being agreed upon as a try by the video ref.

In some ways it comes down to what others have said - that in ERL the video ref has more power to decide whatever they want to, rather than having to 'toe the line' with the on-field decision as it seems to be in ARL.

If I understand the difference and the discussion correctly (!)

In response to the OP it was undoubtedly a try. We should never have got in that position though. As a number of people predicted the second rows offer nothing going forward, they will offer even less against the more physical Kiwis. O’L added nothing to the attack, whether he is fit enough is debatable. Matty Smith has adopted the Paul Deacon model of doing absolutely nothing with ball in hand to avoid being found wanting. His kicking is average to boot. Charnley has been very disappointing, I’d put Burgess in there.

Like a few others, I don't particularly like the way the rules work in making that sort of brushing with the fingers a try. But that's the way they're usually given, so we should, according to the rules, have had the try.

Overall, I think we let the Aussies off the hook far too easily. They were there to be finished off after the break, and I think we lacked the belief to go and do it. Disappointing.

On a positive note, we were far better in our ball retention, and also much better defensively. Sarginson was a revelation. I rated him for Wigan this year, but I thought he was not ready for test level yet. Wrong.

The only changes we could make are on the wing, where I still don't think Charnley is fully fit and sharp yet (could bring Hardaker for broken field running and defence, or the electric pace of Joe Burgess) and maybe weigh up bringing in Whitehead, sacrificing some defensive fragility for more attacking threat. But I've been pleasantly surprised by Farrell.

I guess Ratchford for Smith is the only other change, but we're short of kicking options then and territory is key against the Kiwis. Smith is underwhelming with ball in hand, but we don't really have any organisers and kickers who aren't.

The Ryan Hall 'no try' wasnt the turning point. England's lack of ability to hammer home a stronger lead was.

Think the 2nd row will change next week. Farrell will be banned and Joel Tomkins has to make way.