We want two Sky video refs in internationals!

Perhaps you could start a campaign?

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/nov/15/australia-england-referee-four-nationsMeanwhile, in the real world...[/url

Thanks for providing a link that provides nothing to the debate.

Duly noted and all that.

Clearly NZ refs will not do.

Feel free to flap your wings again though.

I can't believe the number of people moaning about this picture CLEARLY showing a British finger on the ball who haven't once commented on the fact that an Australian finger is also CLEARLY on the ball.

Blaming the video ref and the penalty count just excuses away the woeful performance of our halves in the second half.

They were utterly outclassed in terms of tactical thinking, organisation and cool.

Inglis is touching it, but that is irrelevant. His touch is lateral, he's moving it across the grass. No downward pressure. Hall is on top of the ball, pressing down towards the grass (Or terra-firma to quote Stevo). Clear TRY. The point made about it being given in any other competition is very valid too. Almost identical groundings have been ruled perfectly acceptable in Origin games (In front of much larger crowds and TV audiences), NRL games and Super League games.

Mr Sheens had a quiet word at HT reminding him who he works for and where his p45 will be heading on monday morning should he not book up his ideas.

It was 100% a try. The video ref was looking for any reason to disallow the “try”.The ball was rising, what utter b88lox. Bernadette Sutton needs to grow some b**ls. Quite correct Printer, if it wasn’t a try Cameron Smith would not have minced his words, he would have come out and said so straight away. Instead he tried to play it with a dead bat, “this time it went for us” or something similar.
This state of affairs is not without its precedent with regard to Aussie refs. Do you remember Sean Hampstead in the WCC when Leeds played Canterbury? The Bulldogs were in danger of being embarrassed until “Mr Bean” started to cane Leeds in the penalty count and even things up.
There definitely needs to be some semblance of neutrality with refereeing appointments.

Did I say that?
Two video refs provides some balance ...one is a dictatorship.
lol

No we are all aware of the past ref appointments, what I'm saying is that it should be set in stone beforehand......that's a bit different to a bit of a verbal "we'll appoint the "best" ref" during the week of the final.

If Aus won't sign up to the rules of a competition that a Aus/Eng HAS to be from a neutral country then they can get stuffed. We can just have Eng/ NZ 3 match series or an Eng/NZ/Samoa(other Pacific team)/Scotland(other European team) four nations. Would it take a blow by missing Australia.....of course but not at the risk of bending over for them. It might not bother Aus too much with regards to four nations comps but if it means they weren't allowed to play in the WC they'd soon sign up.

You've mentioned this before, but it wasn't relevant then either. If there is simultaneous contact with the ball, the try is awarded. Inglis's finger is thus irrelevant. And that's before we even bother to discuss whether he was seeking to deliberately ground the ball, or simply knock it dead. Clue : he very clearly was trying to knock it dead, not ground it, so touching the ball is doubly irrelevant when Hall grounds it.

So on both counts, this point which you've made several times, is irrelevant.

That. Was. A. Try.

Every single day of the week, indisputably, as per the rulebook, a try.

There's no value in being a controversialist about this. Tell you what, ask a dozen referees, and see how many agree with you that it wasn't a try. I'm one, so there's your first opinion : try.

You have to intentionally ground the ball as a defending player. Nobody with half a brain could argue that Inglis intentionally grounded the ball.

The only argument the Aussies have that it wasn't a try is Ryan Hall's reaction..or lack of.

Says it all.

Lateral pressure, downward pressure ... maybe it was upward? Or diagonal?

In that picture his finger is [uon the ball[/u ... [uon the floor[/u. Given some of the video ref decisions I've seen over the years it's a dead ball.

I disagree that an Australian finger is CLEARLY on the ball in those picks. It might well be, but even so, it doesn't look like downward pressure.

And while our halves performance maybe did contribute to 'us' needing to pinch it at the death and relying on a bit of good luck - the players showed that never say die attitude, got the rub of the green... and then a call that can most generously be described as dubious.

Blaming the halves just excuses the woeful performance of the match officials and the ridiculous decision to appoint them for this match in the first place.

For Mugwump

On the side shot it does look like Inglis finger is touching, but this shot shows a clear gap between his hand and ball

It was a try.
It wasn't given.
No amount of internet dummy spitting is going to change that.
Move on to Dunedin.

It's great when we get told to stop talking about an incident in a high profile game less than 24 hours after its happened.......especially from someone who wanted to talk about what the WC attendances would be long before and debate them well after the event.

Except it's not. You can keep pretending that Inglis somehow grounded it all day long, the fact is he didn't and even the biased, corrupt, Australian employed video ref ruled that Inglis didn't ground it.

But keep carrying on ignoring every photo presented to you, it's almost as embarrassing as the Australians.

Who said it was simultaneous? And you don't know what Inglis was attempting at that moment. That's the thing about great players - they react quicker than most. The point is - by the crap d standard of video refereeing I've seen since it was brought in from the beginning there is grounds for both cases.

I'm not going to concentrate on a margin call when GB were clearly inferior to Australia for a full 35 minutes in the second half.

I find it very sad that a referee is openly claiming corruption cost us this match when far more obvious and deserving culprits are in evidence.

You've lost your grip, Roy.

i was looking for this pic. knew i had seen it somewhere today.

Its an illusion from side on and this pic. clearly shows distance between GI and ball at time of put down.

Simultaneous frame?

That's the thing about video...

:yachpbgi
=#000000Footnote

The most stupid thing is, and one which has bypassed some of the usual suspects, an NZ referee WAS judged to be competent enough to referee the 4 nations. In fact they did referee the NZ v Samoa game.

Are we really arguing that an NZ referee is competent enough to referee an NZ v Samoa game but not an England v Oz game in the same competition? Doesn't that make the process look even worse?

Even the clusterfsk crazy standpoint that it can't be a neutral ref for England v Oz because no other nations have competent referees it doesn't explain why an English ref judged competent enough to be the neutral ref in an NZ v Oz game didn't then take the NZ v Samoa game.

Whatever the desperate justification for needing an OZ ref to ref Australia (or none-neutral ref who just happens to be Australian) it falls down pretty quickly when there was no need for a kiwi to ref the NZ match.

Regardless of whether or not the ockers and kiwis do deep down believe that their refs are capable of being entirely neutral in games their nations participate, and deep down they honestly believe their officiating reps only argue for entirely fair appointments and everything is done entirely with a true Corinthian spirit, only the supremely stupid would not realise that when we had the option of neutral regs, having NZ and OZ reps voting together for an Aussie ref to ref OZ and a Kiwi to ref NZ looks likes like a stitch up.

If a player from each team touches the ball simultaneously in goal, who gets the advantage?

If it's advantage attack then it is irrelevant whether Inglis touched the ball or not.

If it's advantage defence then the video ref still got it wrong/fixed it because he awarded the next set to the Aussies whereas it should have been a goal line drop out.