The VR had to offer some sort of explanation and the best he could invent was the pure fabrication that the ball came up and hit Hall's finger whilst it was "on the rise".

There is not an Australian in the world who would privately not laugh at that as just plain ridiculous.

But, it amounts to a confirmation that the VR fully accepts Hall's finger did get down on the ball. There is NO image that shows that happening when the ball was "on the rise". There is a conclusive side-on image proving that this contact happened at a point where the ball was emphatically and indisputably on the deck.

The VR was under pressure to come up with something, anything, not to knock Australia out of the comp, and he did so. Now he has done so, the Aussies don;'t care, as they can quietly smile, and troll, and make the usual disingenuous comments for which they're famous.

I was firmly of the view that officials should be neutral NOT because I thought they'd cheat, but because the officials ought to be seen to be independent. In the event, and watching the ref ignoring Aussie headshots, ignoring a number of late hits on the kicker, ignoring Aussie offences (was it NIL pens against Aus in the second half? I.e. they did NOTHING wrong? At all?) and producing a string of highly dubious pens against England, the conclusion is either the ref deliberately favoured Australia, just like the VR did, or else the ref is an incompetent. We are told he was chosen because he is "the best" referee and Australia wanted "the best", so what does that leave?

Jeez it's hard work this. Im not arguing over an opinion as they are like a55holes ie everyone has one.

This is more about plain facts. The question was DID you see Halls hand (or little finger to make it easier for you) touch the ball when the said ball was on the ground ? I accept that you can't see it from all angles but is/was there ANY angle where you did see this.

It's quite simple really you did or you didn't see. If you didn't then SpeCsavers will be expecting you.
It's nothing to do with one aspect denying the other the views where it isn't clear one way or another are just that .....Not clear views.

Exactly. No proof whatsoever the ball was lifting off the ground to make Hall's finger bend up. That is such a ridiculous made up reason not to give it.

I really don't understand these 'NRL' lovers, McNamara haters, and other club haters who would rather still point blame at other areas of England's performance.

The one and only certainty of why we lost was because the VR decided to make up an excuse why a perfectly valid try should be disallowed. Everything else is noise and if's and buts and petty small
minded individuals.

The rules state it should have been given and whilst i'm no fan of the very end of someones little finger brushing the side of the ball being classed as 'downward pressure' rules are rules whether you like them or not. Morally it probably shouldn't be awarded but under the current laws it was a try, end of story. We got nothing from the officials in the second half although with the fact that we stopped doing what had been so successful in the first half we didn't help ourselves. Ask the more questions in the second we win that game anyway.

It shows that if we put it together for the full 80 then beating the Kiwis next week is more than do-able. The its quite possibly the Aussies again in the final and beating them there would be all the more sweet!

The only reason it's disallowed is that the Aussie refs knew they were hired by Australia specifically to protect them. If they then allow England to win, their careers in the NRL would be affected by it.

I'm 100% certain that that try would not have been given under any circumstances. Had Hall slammed it down with his palm, they would have said he was offside or that he fouled Inglis. Had there been nothing possibly wrong there they would have gone back and found a non-perfect play the ball and given it for that.

What annoys me most about it that we just take it. Where is the RFL kicking up a massive fuss about it? Where are they demanding answers and an explanation? Why are they not asking for officials to be stood down from international duty and refusing to play any further games without neutral referees? We'll never beat Australia, but only because we'll never be allowed to.

God knows what would've happened if we scored a concrete fully undisputable try that even the Aussie refs couldn't find a reason to disallow that made it 16-16 and Widdop had a kick to knock Australia out. Widdop might as well have started talking to SL clubs straight after the final hooter if he landed the kick.

Spot on. The refs have a career and financial incentive to give decisions that favour their employer.

Quote ="adelaide-giant.no9"www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/kangaroos-1612-win-over-england-saves-australias-four-nations-hopes-20141102-11frv5.html'" Quote ="Cam Smith"Australian captian Cameron Smith said: "I think they were trying to bluff the referee, a lot of teams do that". '" This ranks along side... www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/n ... 6864540282 Quote ="Cam Smith"“I don't want to see that happen to anyone in our game but, if he doesn't duck his head, it doesn't happen,” '" Err no Cameroon we didn't jump up and down because we a not a bunch of cheats and Alex's neck is broken because your thug team mates dropped him on his head. What ever his Granddad got sent to Australia for it must have been bad!

Quote ="adelaide-giant.no9"www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/kangaroos-1612-win-over-england-saves-australias-four-nations-hopes-20141102-11frv5.html'" Quote ="Cam Smith"Australian captian Cameron Smith said: "I think they were trying to bluff the referee, a lot of teams do that". '" This ranks along side... www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/n ... 6864540282 Quote ="Cam Smith"“I don't want to see that happen to anyone in our game but, if he doesn't duck his head, it doesn't happen,” '" Err no Cameroon we didn't jump up and down because we a not a bunch of cheats and Alex's neck is broken because your thug team mates dropped him on his head. What ever his Granddad got sent to Australia for it must have been bad!

I remember saying after the 2004 test match when Ganson sent off Morley that an Aussie wouldn't have done that to Australia, well now that proves it!

Fancy missing that.

Bloody useless bent Aussie refs.

BOOOOOOO!

Corruption.

We wuz robbed.

Etc.

Should just be set in stone with no room for manoeuvre for the future...

Eng vs Aus = NZ Ref
Eng vs NZ = Aus Ref
Aus vs NZ = Eng Ref

They might not like it but after today and the NZ ref's performance in the 2011 Eng/Aus game at Wembley I can't say their ref's impressed me any more or looked any better than our own and that's saying something because ours aren't cracking. And if Perenara and Sutton were deemed the two best choices for this weekends games then why isn't it......

Perenara - Aus/Eng
Sutton - NZ/Samoa

Why was that line-up not used? For all the talk over the years of England letting the sport down with failings at International level, especially missing out on last year's WC Final......the Aussies are slyly doing more damage to it year upon year with their "we want things all our own way" attitude.

If the reason they didn't give the try is because the referees would fear for their careers after this, bending the rules so Australia make a final - something that happens regularly, then we should scrap all internationals right now. Such corruption would be absurd.

Fortunately I don't believe this. I'm all for neutral referees, but seeing as the Aussies don't give a about the international game I doubt it would "ruin their careers".

I too doubt that it would ruin there careers......but it wouldn't help their careers either. I doubt they'd get the gig the next time the four nations were played.

I dont quite understand how a try can be disallowed because the player did not jump up and down like a lunatic?

Does that mean you can crack someone, but an innocent looking face, then get away with it?

A better idea

6 french officials from Elite 1

Sorted

Agreed.

Perhaps England could provide the lead with a genuine campaign for neutral referees?

Their usual effort to get one of their own refs selected instead doesn't appear to be a very successful strategy.

Why then do Australia insist on (And get) Australian referees whenever they feel slightly worried about a game?

There are so many stupid quirks about this weekend. The referees were neutral last week. Australia lost. If they lost again they were out. So the referees were no longer neutral. Not only were they not neutral, they were related, which was absolutely ridiculous and a clear conflict of interests.

The reasoning given to the players was that the ball was moving upwards, that there was effectively no downward pressure because of this. The video evidence they showed over and over again and which is all over the internet shows conclusively that the ball was well sunk into the grass with absolutely no hint of it being on the rise. It was a ridiculously poor decision if it was a genuine decision and the reasoning given suggests they knew that.

If that incident happened in Origin or the NRL, it's given as a try. Plenty of evidence for that on the internet too. England need to kick up a fuss about it.

Set in stone until either England or Australia whinge about the performance of the Kiwi referee who is accused of being incompetent and out of his depth at international level.

Cue immediate abandonment of neutral refereeing policy as a matter of urgency.


[uTranslation[/u: We want an English ref.

Normal service resumed.

We could just claim one of them is from Wales.

So a French Elite 1 ref

Sorted

If the same incident had happened in the NRL or in State of Origin then it's a definite try, and the media over there would be talking about how it was a miraculous try to manage to put it down from that position.

Hardly sorted.

Same would apply.

French ref deemed incompetent and out of his depth by England or Australia or both.

Cue immediate abandonment of policy on neutral referees.

International RL wouldn't be the absolute joke it is today if it wasn't for the English and the Australians.

Oh goody, William needs attention



A NZ ref will do btw, we'll bemoan poor calls (nature of sport). In fact I'd rather have one, I reckon an English ref would be too worried about being accused of favouring England that he'd give the opposition more just to look impartial.

Incompetant or out of depth is better than biased or scared/corrupt

I am so used to seeing two video refs on Sky games.
Is there only one in internationals?
If so ...why?