What I want to know is did the VR say Hall put his fingers on the rising ball (as the ref said)? If he did how did he come to that conclusion unless he was standing on his head whilst drunk? If that was his rationale why did he conclude it, when we all saw that was manifestly not the case from the same pictures? If that wasn't the VR's reasoning why did the ref say it? This needs explaining for the credibility and integrity of the sport.

Disappointing to lose the match, but the guys could have sealed the game by half time.
Rather than dwell on all the negatives, I'm hoping England can return to the intensify of the world cup semi final last year.
So many good things about this England team/squad just hope they can be developed into world beaters starting next week.
How about every England Fan on this forum considers sending the England squad a message of support and encouragement during the week in the lead up to the next match via email or social media etc.
Get behind the Lads with your support!!!

Australian captian Cameron Smith said: "I think they were trying to bluff the referee, a lot of teams do that". I didn't realise they had panto season in Australia! P.S the spelling mistake is a direct copy from the article..... www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1frv5.html

Australian captian Cameron Smith said: "I think they were trying to bluff the referee, a lot of teams do that". I didn't realise they had panto season in Australia! P.S the spelling mistake is a direct copy from the article..... www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1frv5.html

Just to show I'm just as bloody minded as the next man.



His fingers are on the ball. It's down. Before Hall.

But the ref said Hall touched it and restarted accordingly. So, there was no question of whether GI touched it down first (irrespective of whether or not he did). What needs questioning is why the ref said Hall touched (down?) a rising ball (when it was not rising) if the VR didn't say that.

Don't leave, we're all having fun really.



I take your point but Inglis is scooping upwards to bat the ball out. Even if it brushes the turf - which, admittedly it appears to - there's no downwards pressure.

Hall's fingers are on the top half of the ball while it's on the turf, that's downward pressure by any definition.

So you agree the video ref made a crappy decision that removed any chance of an England victory

His fingers are on the ball. The ball is touching the floor.

He wasn't coming at the ball laterally. He wasn't coming at the ball from below.

His movement is forward and downward. Not perpendicular to the floor. But certainly not parallel.

Downward pressure of any description means no try.

So why did the ref not award a drop-out?

No it's not, his movement is horizontal and upward as he tries to shovel the ball dead.

Nice attempt but no cigar!

England have always done that.

They just aren't very successful at getting the refs they want.

GI was scooping it out, from UNDERNEATH the ball. How on earth can you get downwards pressure from scooping a ball from the under side of it? You've lost it pal.

Same way as the ref said Hall touched down a RISING ball !?

Two fingers exerting perpendicular pressure to the floor.

Case closed.

The two photos you've posted only serve to prove that his hands are moving forward and upward.

*tip* saying "case closed" doesn't win you the argument neither does it actually 'close the case'

Honest answer, yes ! I'm triply outraged about this. First as an England supporter, second as a passionate supporter of international rugby league, and third as a referee. I've spent so much time and energy over the years arguing that refs are never actually deliberately biased, and that to err is human etc. Then this comes along on the very highest stage of our game, and it's as bang-to-rights an example of deliberate and calculated cheating as you will ever see.

I repeat, there is absolutely no way that a referee can make the decision he made. The only way he can call it as he did is (a) he presses the wrong button accidentally, (b) he suffers a psychotic episode at the precise moment his decision is required; or (c) he deliberately chooses to ignore the rules in order to secure a win for his home country team. There are no other explanations possible. And it wasn't (a) or (b).

What he did today felt like a personal attack on all referees, and on the game itself. It's that bad. I don't understand why the RFL, the England management, Uncle Tom Cobley and all aren't kicking up an enormous stink. It's awful.

This is turning into a complete meltdown.

GI's arms were moving UPWARDS in an effort to scoop the ball out of play. At no point was there any downwards pressure.

I've read a lot of opinion on here and other websites/social media about the game, and you're the only one I've seen come out with this garbage.

He can't exert upward pressure from above the ball, fool.

And the case generally is closed when you have photographic evidence of one or more FINGERS ON A BALL WHICH IS DOWN.

Unless, of course, you are in the majority here thinking there's some grand over-arching Australian conspiracy to defraud England of a victory they simply didn't deserve on the second half performance.

You have to be trolling now?

That photo is at the end of his attempted 'flap' at the ball. Watch it! Watch what he tries to do and you'll realise the motion his arms are making. There is simply no downward pressure, nor is Inglis attempting to ground the ball.

Greg Inglis was trying to shove the ball. His motion was forwards and down when he contacted the ball. He TOUCHED the ball ON THE FLOOR with more fingers than Hall ever did.

Yes, he propelled the ball forward. But that is irrelevant because he touched the ball down BEFORE he shoved it out.

But the truth is Inglis could have dropped a palm on it and English fans would still claim a robbery.

*tip* resorting to name calling often signals that you've lost the argument but are too stupid to admit it*

Inglis is attempting to shovel the ball over the dead ball line, his hands are moving horizontally and upwards in a shovelling motion.

The reason his hands end up above the ball is because he misses the ball which is why it remains within reaching distance of Ryan Halls finger.

The length of this thread compared with the minimal fraction of time this incident occupied is precisely why we consistently lose to Australia.

If we spent half as much time discussing why England went missing for 35 minutes in the second half the game would be much the better.

No, not case closed. If the video referee had believed that Inglis had grounded the ball, then the resulting call was a drop-out. Instead, the decision was that the ball was still live when Hall touched it. So it doesn't matter in the slightest what Inglis did in relation to whether this decision was blatant cheating. Because as far as the video referee was concerned, Hall touched a live ball, and he looked at several replays clearly showing Hall's finger on top of the ball when it was on the ground, and deliberately chose to ignore the rules of the game.

So even though you seem to be the only person in the whole world who thinks Inglis grounded the ball (including the bent video ref), it's utterly irrelevant to the issue here, which is that the video referee knew that ball was live, saw that Hall had scored a try, and deliberately disallowed it for the benefit of his own team. He didn't disallow it because of an Inglis grounding. He just disallowed it and made up some transparently ridiculous about "a rising ball". It was cheating.

That's case closed.

You said you were walking away. In the short-term, that's a good idea, because you've argued yourself up a dead-end on this and with every post you're seeming less and less rational. In the longer term, when passions have cooled, I hope you come back, because you're normally good value and sensible.

My concern is not whether or not it actually should have been a try but how the video ref reached the decision he seems to have done per his brother's explanation when the video evidence shows something transparently different. The England management needs to demand a public explanation of the decision and what the on field ref said. Once that's been given they should publicly point out the apparent inconsistency with the evidence.

To be fair I've seen worse decisions, that I believe to be simply terrible refereeing. Gansongate 2013 springs to mind as a Hull KR fan. A lot of Rovers fans thought that was suspicious, but I just couldn't see a motive. It was just cack.
That might be the case here, and tbf this was a good deal less cack. It was just a fingertip (which admittedly he saw, while observing the correct player ffs). What makes it toxic was that, in addition to being crucial it was made by Aussie officials the Aussies had insisted on. To call it corrupt is a step too far for me, but it certainly invites cynicism.