No one is saying England were without fault but of course what appears to be a try with 60 secs on th clock is going to be the talking point.

We could've done better, so could Aus they messed up opportunities that could've seen them more than 4 ahead before the end.

Could we have scored more if we didn't go into our she'll? Possibly.....we could've also knocked on in our own half or thrown an interception trying to play more attacking stuff and that cost us. Now that is all guessing and 'what ifs' about what could've happened.

What did actually happen though quite clearly is the Hall try incident......and most think it was a try. Dare I suggest that those who say it wasn't a try (or at less are trying to downplay it) are only doing so so that they can just roll out their lazy misery filled "England are s**t, we'll never beat the Aussies, same old story"???

Congratulations. After TWENTY HOURS you've managed to clarify the point.

The video ref had minutes.

But let's not allow time, pressure and possible rule variance get in the way of a good conspiracy theory eh?



Especially when it neatly throws a rug over far more deserving targets.

I'm a current ref.

The video referee call was bent. Absolutely no question. I'm waiting to hear one other referee who can come up with an alternative explanation.

The on-field referee gave several decisions to his own team for interference which he did not give to his opponents. There was a lack of consistency which resulted in an entirely one-sided penalty count which could not be explained by events on the field. I know you don't like to lose an argument, which is why you've flogged to death the diseased nag marked "honest Video ref". But try watching the second half again, and time the English tackles deemed too slow by the referee who then awarded penalties to the Australians. Then look at any random sets of six where the English had the ball, and time the Australian tackles. See if you can make out the difference.

Now there's never been a match where the referee picks up on EVERY possible case of slowing the PTB or flopping. But when one side is penalised and the other is not - at all - despite plentiful examples on both sides, then you are looking - at the very least - at a referee who is unconsciously favouring one side.

If it had just been that, I'd have been willing to be p1ssed off at a poor refereeing display which saw uneven application of judgement calls, but not called out cheating. But the video refereeing decision leaves no wriggle room for doubt - that was cheating, plain and simple.

And as others have said : if you whine and moan that you have to have your own home referees, and then the home referees referee the home team in a way which penalises the away team, then you have something which looks like a pig, stinks like a pig and emits a hell of a lot of .

There would have been unbelievable pressure on the kick.

Yeah, St. George would've probably sacked him

If the video ref and the referee were bagging for Australia - why ping the Inglis shepherd?

Makes no sense.

Is that your comeback? Sorry, so how soon after the incident to prove you wrong is acceptable?

How about you explain to us all again how Inglis' finger is "CLEARLY on the ball"?



Most British RL fans call it a try, I've seen many Aussies on social media acknowledging it should have been a try. Almost every TV pundict - English and Australian - called it as a try. Former and current officials call it a try.

But you know better.




Because the obstruction was a little too obvious even for the Ockers to overlook. Makes perfect sense.

T - R - Y

Yes, but when your team scores a try, you have the right to attempt a conversion. Generally, that's how we practice rugby league in this country. In Australia, the rule is apparently "when your team scores a try, which might result in the home side being evicted from the competition, then you don't have the right to attempt a conversion, because we'll cheat to deny you the try in the first place".

That game should have been decided by Widdop's character, reaction to intense pressure, and kicking ability. Instead it was decided by a crooked piece of pretending to be a referee who isn't fit to referee an under 9s seven-a-side game.

Great comparison, a goal that happened 48 years ago compared to a no try that happened around 14 hours ago. If the Germans aren't talking about that nearly half a century later we shouldn't mention this half a day later.

Anymore pearls of genius?

Honestly, I can't be bothered with this place any more. I had thought coming back might be a good idea but when I see the supposed "brains" of RLFANS accusing a fellow referee and video referee (whose backgrounds they are ignorant of) of corruption not just on one call but throughout a match (despite the fact that both had called back an Australian try on video) I realise this place isn't worth my time.

I have far more important things to be bothered with so this will be my last post - forever.

Adieu.

Geoff.

You've really spat the dummy out over this one havent you.

Cheerio.

Now THAT is an impressive dummy spit response to a self inflicted dumb position.

Bravo sir.

TRANSLATION

My 'Inglis was clearly touching the ball' theory was comprehensively disproved but instead of saying "ok fair do's" I'll run off with a drama queen strop about the mindset of English RL fans.

Has there been an official announcement of the video ref's reasoning yet? If not, when, if ever, can we expect it?

Hey....just pointing out that it is a very English pastime, reminiscing on "what should have been"....30 years of hurt and all that ....although I don't believe that this one's got the legs of CJ's voluntary tackle

I think it's family steak night tonight, so the referee and video referee are tied up. I don't think they have phone reception at their dad's house.

Why haven't england said anything official yet? We need to put pressure on the selection process for officials

I've questioned this on England RL's Facebook feed. Senior management should not let this drop. Let the coach and players prepare for NZ but management should keep up the pressure and embarrass the game in Australia for the rest of the tournament. Need to stop this Aussie officials nonsense as they have been proved time and again to be no good.

Tad dramatic squire? Andrew Johns and Peter Stirling both called it a try. Sometimes it's okay to admit you are wrong.

Agreed.

role reversal here and im quite sure the Aussies would be threatening to pull the plug on the tour unless heads roll.

We should get the Queen to tweet that they are all corrupt barstewards and she never liked them anyway and that they can't play in the next Commonwealth Games.

The Pope, Simon Cowell and The Dalai Lama could call it a try, but it won't change the fact that it wasn't given.

Silverwood tweeted "try" this morning.