You can offer as many excuses as you like - Ryan Hall's fingers are no more or less perpendicular than Inglis'

The notion that Inglis is attacking the ball from underneath is laughable given that he touches the ball at apogee.

But you can't convince conspiracy theorists. They'll always find some barmpot excuse to support their claims.

Is there some reason why we can't do both?

Why should we ignore this blatant cheating by Australia?

No, the fact that there are still people willing to excuse this sort of outrageous corruption is why we consistently lose to Australia : because there are too many of us who will always believe that we are inferior, that we lose because they're somehow always better. That resigned acceptance of being defrauded is, in my view, craven self-defeating nonsense which is precisely why the Aussies get away with this sort of e time and time again.

Today, I believed we could win, the team believed they could win, and they damn well did enough to win and deserve it. Sod your 35 minutes in the second half. England were on top for at least 50 minutes of those 80, and even when the Aussies were on top (thanks to the entirely one-sided application of PTB interference rules by the on-field referee, I might add), they still defended well enough to restrict the Aussies to just two tries. They deserved that game, and they were cheated out of the result by an Australian official, appointed as a result of Australian pressure, acting corruptly to save the skins of an Australian team [iwhich deserved to lose[/i.

Now, which us is demonstrating the sort of spirit which might see us win in future - those who accept having our pockets picked and blaming ourselves for not holding tighter to our wallet, or those of us who want to go after the f@cking thief and kick his f@cking head in ?

Agree with Roy 100%.

There is absolutely no evidence not to give that try, and all the evidence seen leads to a try.

Many other contentios decisions have some element of doubt. Not this one. It has to be given.

You have to congratulate the Aussies for being neither offside or late in their ' tackles ' on the England kickers for the entire game, despite putting them to ground almost every kick

wow. Just wow.

I challenge you to find someone, from either hemisphere, who agrees with you that Inglis grounded the ball.

You accuse two fellow referees of not just costing England an important try but the entire game with decisions which you believe are entirely corrupt. I provide photographic evidence that Inglis could easily have been given the decision entirely whilst pointing out that Britain didn't perform in the second half.

Yet it's ME who is "irrational"?

Why don't YOU front up some EVIDENCE to support your claim which doesn't amount to sour grapes.

When you provide the documents, hidden tapes of both officials taking bungs etc. etc. I'll worry about my "rationality".

Until that point you remain a disgrace of a referee.

If Inglis hands are moving in an upward motion there is no possible way for him to exert downward pressure on the ball. Conversely Ryan a Halls hand comes down on the ball with some considerable speed or force which results in his finger being bent back as it exerts downward pressure on the ball.

There's no need for an Arlen Specter type magic bullet theory as its plain to see on the video.

*tip evoking the "Conspiracy Theory" allegation to dismiss an opposing argument is another sign of weakness in your own argument*

You might want to look at where Inglis' elbows are in conjunction with the 'b' on the advertising board behind him in picture 1 to picture 2 before coming up with claims that his hands and arms were going downwards.

What happened to your original claim that he was touching the ball at the same time as Hall? For all your whining you've been the most hell bent on proving their theory that it wasn't a try that you had to come up with another theory and different point of contact.

I'll try again.

Why was a drop-out not awarded?

I genuinely haven't. I've seen video refs making bad calls before, certainly. A lot of them have struggled with "benefit of the doubt to the attacking side", and I've seen plenty of tries disallowed because they couldn't see the ball being placed down, but also couldn't see the ball not being placed down - the rules are clear that if the ball can't be seen, but "could" be grounded, then you award the try. However, often video refs go the other way. That's rubbish, but it's poor officiating rather than deliberate bias, and they'll justify it by saying that they thought, on balance of probabilities, that the ball was more likely not grounded than grounded. However, that doesn't apply here, because we could see the ball, and the finger, clearly.

The Ganson decision was also a shocker, but on that occasion, it was a decision made without proper recourse to the necessary angles on the replay. That was a genuine f@ck-up, and again, poor officiating, but not deliberate bias. That doesn't apply here, because the referee did have all the angles he needed to decide on the try.

That's the difference here between mistake/incompetence and cheating. The former is unwitting and accidental. The latter requires a deliberate decision to be made to go against what the referee knows the rules to be when there is no doubt. That's what happened today - a deliberate decision to ignore the rules because the application of those rules would deny the referee's team a win. That is shameful. And I speak as someone who has a number of posts on record saying that neutral referees aren't necessary because in my view refs would never act in such a blatantly partial way. Yet here it is. Bernard Sutton made me a liar today. I thought all referees had integrity (if not competence). Turns out some of us are unprincipled cheating shysters.

If only that was the criteria which needed to be met to constitute grounding of the ball in your own in goal it would be relevant.

I couldn't care less if no one agrees. In the two photos Inglis has one (and then two) fingers on the ball and in both cases the ball is down. QED.

You can all cry and moan about "cheating Aussies" but sans any evidence it's just hot air.

Not only that but look at the angle of his elbows, they have clearly reduced as a result of him bending his elbows to scoop or shovel the ball up and forward.

The video ref missed it. Just like seemingly everyone.

Even if what you state is true, it still wouldn't be an intentional grounding of the ball, and still wasn't judged to be an intentional grounding of the ball by the VR.

Your whole argument is just that the VR chose to not to give the same wrong decision for a different incorrect reason. Im not sure that is as in your favour as you think.

I don't need to. You keep ignoring the facts here with your increasingly bizarre idea that Inglis grounded the ball. THAT ISN'T RELEVANT. Sutton ruled that the ball was still live when Hall touched it, he looked at footage which very clearly showed Hall's finger on top of the ball with the ball in contact with the ground. And then he pressed the "no try" button when the only possible decision if the ball was considered live at that point, was "try". What Inglis did or didn't do is utterly irrelevant.

The only EVIDENCE necessary here is the EVIDENCE which has been shown on this thread a dozen times : Hall's finger on top of a ball which is on the ground. If that ball is live, then that is a try, every single time. Sutton ruled that the ball was indeed live, but still denied the try.

So given that Sutton accepted the ball was live when Hall touched it, and given Hall's finger was clearly on the ball on the ground when the ball was live. And given that every bugger who knows anything about rugby league rules, including not a small number of Aussie players, accepts that it was a 100% certain try, then would you care to explain an alternative reason why Sutton disallowed it other than a deliberate decision to cheat ?

Well when tries and forced DG's get awarded as a result of exerting upwards pressure on the ball then Mugwump might finally have a point......until then he's just foolish.

An image inbetween Inglis' failed scoop and Hall touching it down. Clearly his palms still facing upwards.

You're not right about this, but let's assume, for your own sanity, that you are.

IT'S STILL NOT RELEVANT TO THE DECISION TO DENY HALL THE TRY!

Sutton didn't deny the try because Inglis grounded it. He denied it EVEN THOUGH HE ACCEPTED THE BALL WAS STILL LIVE.

You think you're making some sort of relevant point here, but you're not. The issue is not the other decisions which might have been made, it's the decision which was made, and Inglis's failed attempt to scoop the ball dead is utterly and completely irrelevant to Sutton's decision to deny Hall the try he scored.

If he missed it then he's looking solely at Hall's fingers. We can therefore disregard whether Inglis grounded the ball or not, because it was 'missed' and plays absolutely no bearing in the decision. Your entire argument is moot.

So, we agree the video ref is looking solely at whether Hall grounded the ball. If you assert Inglis grounded the ball, you must admit Hall did. The evidence is solid. And if that's the only contact being examined, why was a try not awarded?

Either way the video ref is incompetent or corrupt - whether deliberately or subconsciously. He denied England at best a try, at worst possession with seconds to go.

An Australian ref. A must-win game for Australia. An Australian video ref, the brother of the on-field ref. Hall's fingers ground the ball. No try awarded. The whole thing stinks.

Have they reversed the decision yet or do we need more posts in this thread?

Errr. you do. Corruption is a serious charge which warrants more than amateur night deductive reasoning

And let me remind you that you accused the referee of corruption throughout the game. You said that he'd caned Britain in the penalty count (whilst forgetting that the very same referee had pulled a try back for Inglis - which I admit I missed).

QUOTE

[i"Today, we were robbed - absolute highway robbery by a bent set of home officials."[/i

and

[i"Yet today, we were the better team for most of that match, and the Aussies were effectively gifted the second half through the onfield referee, and then outrageously given an undeserved victory by the corrupt video referee."[/i

I find it laughable that I AM "irrational" whilst you are claiming Britain "were the better team for most of that match" with grand conspiracies to defraud us honest poms aplenty.

Like I said - you are a disgrace.

Give me the name of your supervisor and I will send him a transcript of this thread. I'm sure he'd love to hear your illuminating comments about fellow referees.

Whereas your conspiracy theory is?

Unless you have evidence to support your claims of wholesale corruption I suggest you return to the cellar and don your tin foil hat.

Oh ... don't forget to fill the house with jars of water.

Conspiracy, corruption or just plain ineptitude (and seeing the state of NRL officials this year I'd go for the last one) england were robbed by a wrong decision at the end. The two soft laying on penalties and the scrum against the head decision effectively gave Australia their dominant 25 minute period. But ho hum, not like we haven't seen it before at club and country level by refs.