If only.

It has given me a good laugh though reading through his drivel. It's not even a full moon either.

Mugwump what's your explaination for the pictures showing Inglis not touching the ball the same time as Hall?

What's your explaination that the two stills you provided show an upward movement in Inglis' arms?

Instead of diverting away from the questions YOU raised by now trying to tirade against Roy Haggerty you could actually answer instead of running to another angle of attack?

Well his fingers are pointing no less than ten degrees off perpendicular here.

Overlaying both images - if Hall exerted more pressure than Inglis it aint by much.



I can't quite lock a screenshot on a better image of Inglis. Best I can do is the blur between frames.

If you remember - I said [i"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."[/i



There is no upward movement in a still frame.

The point here is that Inglis is moving his hands upwards and therefore zero, zip, no, none, nada downward pressure.

Halls hand is moving downward meaning that when his finger reaches the ball it places downward force on the ball.

Understand?

Also, given that Inglis' fingers look to be clearly on the ball in the original frame and subsequently aren't - I'm less confident Hall managed to touch the ball.

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/misbahulhaqs-equalfastest-century-humiliates-australia-in-second-test-20141102-11fty7.htmlevery cloud and all that[/url

You don't get it, do you?

It doesn't matter whether Inglis grounded the ball or not. As you admitted, it was 'missed', so banging on about it is pointless.

They were looking at Hall's contact with the ball only. And Hall clearly grounds the ball.

Explain that one.

But Inglis' finger wasn't on the ball, that was proven. CLEARLY



Not in a single one, but from one still frame from another it can show an upward movement.

You do understand the concept of DOWNWARD PRESSURE don't you? Because you seem to be struggling between the fact that Hall's hand is coming DOWN and that Inglis' fingers happen to be outstretched whilst heading upwards.

Inglis' momentum is forwards and down. Not upward. His fingers touch the ball DOWN at perigee and then push it out.

It doesn't matter if he scoops the ball out . At that split second in time he's touching the ball down. Everything from that point is irrelevant because it's a drop out from therein.

I'm off to bed . .

This is absolutely bizarre.

Not in that frame. Yes? Which is what I said - yes?



Inglis has his fingers on the ball. The ball is down. He clearly is exerting some pressure on that ball. If not - how else does he then propel it out?

Don't tell me it's lateral because the second frame has him coming directly from above. Don't tell me it's from underneath because he's not a mole.

Lol. Just lol. I think Mugwump has a promising career ahead at Fox News. An ability to totally ignore the facts is a valuable asset.

There's no grand conspiracy here. It was a margin call. I've seen countless given for and against Saints. I remember Cunningham getting more of a finger on the ball at Murrayfield and we got nothing. I remember Terry Newton coming nowhere nearer than a mile at Knowsley Road and getting four points.

Are we saying all those decisions were corrupt, too?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXA5KbcNzuo Here's a replay Mugwump. There's no doubt he touches it, but scooping it up with his palms facing upwards, there's no way that any downwards pressure was being applied in order to ground it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXA5KbcNzuo Here's a replay Mugwump. There's no doubt he touches it, but scooping it up with his palms facing upwards, there's no way that any downwards pressure was being applied in order to ground it.

No, but it's quite clear from your next comment that you're either trolling, stupid, or on crack cocaine.



The explaination of why you don't think it can be lateral is f**king ridicolous given the first still YOU posted, do you think his hands went up and then back down again to exert DOWNWARD pressure? Is your only explaination as to why a humans hands can go UPWARDS is because they're part-mole?

For the love of God look up the definition of the word downward before you make yourself look more stupid.

And the ball is on the floor.

It's ugly. I admit that. But I've seen uglier groundings (in defence and attack).

But let's get back to Roy's evidence. We seek it here. We seek it there. That damned illusive evidence.

Maybe Alex Jones knows where the secret Aussie bung tape lies?

How else does he then propel it out ? priceless

That must be the reason why the reff gave a goal line drop out eh.................







Oh wait a minute, I'll get your coat for you.

We're still seeking your evidence of the downward pressure from Inglis required to ground the ball.

Two umpires and neither from Australia? What are the cricketing authorities thinking of??? Shambles!

And in any case, it's irrelevant. The decision was that Inglis didn't ground it, and that Ryan Hall did touch the ball, when the ball was on the ground, but it wasn't a try because he was wearing a red and white shirt.

Muggers, you can try and make this about me all you want, but you're unhinged on this thread. You took a devil's advocate position which was actually impossible to defend, and you identified yourself with it personally too much, so that now you're just digging further and further into a mad hole of your own making.

Video Ref Sutton is a blatant, out and out cheat who made a deliberately wrong call in order to save his home team. He's a disgrace to the profession, and not only do I stand by every word of that, but I'll happily repeat it as often as you like to anyone you like, not least because all the other refs I know agree wholeheartedly. You are absolutely on your own here. That decision was bent. An impartial referee would give that try every single time, and referees have to be impartial - that's the point. Sutton doesn't deserve to call himself a referee. He broke the code. He's a cheat.

On-field ref Sutton demonstrated an entirely one-sided application of the PTB rules which favoured his home team. He is a disgrace because it was his duty to apply those rules fairly and equally, and he didn't. Not as blatant a case of cheating as his disgusting brother, but certainly a shockingly bad display of partiality which, even if unconscious, should disqualify him from refereeing future internationals.

Clear enough ?

You need to give this a rest, you're starting to lose the credit you've built up over the years for generally rational postings.

I don't think thats possible now whatever tripe he comes up with.

Nope, I'm saying your grand argument that Inglis grounded the ball is entirely irrelevant because it was never considered. As you have admitted. The ball was still live when Hall touched it.

So, avoiding any talk of Inglis grounding the ball, tell me why the Hall contact wasn't awarded as a try?

Lots of skirting round the issue, no straight answers. Why? Because you have no argument.

I think you've been hacked. The old Mugchump was better than this.

I'll make it very simple for the multitude of slower types still clinging to this robbery notion.

Inglis is attempting to push the ball out. His body momentum is forwards and downward. His hands, admittedly, are set to scoop out the ball.

Before he manages to exert forward pressure at least two of his fingers contact the ball whilst it is on the floor. From this purchase he ejects the ball and Hall jumps over the top.

But the point is - [ihe touches the ball down first[/i. Is it deliberate? Probably not. But he touches the ball down. Yes, it's fingertip stuff. But a fingertip is enough.