Ask him. I'm not a mind-reader. What I'm saying is wholesale corruption isn't supported by evidence other than the usual sour grapes on a margin call decision.

So you're saying Inglis did touch it down but didn't mean to?

Really? I though "unhinged" people made statements like:

[i"Video Ref Sutton is a blatant, out and out cheat"[/i

And you can retrospectively make this about Sutton as much as you like. But I'll keep reminding you of your unhinged claim that both he and the on-the-field referee conspired [ithroughout the game [/ito give Australia a win.

Curious how everyone is flying to take a pop at me. Yet you get away with slandering two men and I'm "unhinged" for being the only person to take you to task.

Says something about tribal mentality, I'd say.

It's only a margin call if there is doubt.

So which bit do you doubt about whether Hall's finger was on the ball when it was on the ground ?

Because unless you think the ball wasn't on the ground, or Hall's finger didn't make contact, then there is no doubt. And if there's no doubt, it's not a margin call.

So tell us, which bit of Hall's finger being on a grounded ball did you doubt ?

"Margin call"?? The call was that the Hall did touch it (hence Aus re-start) but that the ball was "on the rise".

THAT was the call. There ain't no "margin" about it, the reason was given and the reason was pure cheating invention. When Hall touched it down the ball was a comprehensively down on the deck as any ball in the history of the universe.

So the call was always indisputably bollox, as nobody - not you, not anyone on the planet - can both be truthful and say that they believe the ball was on the rise by the time Hall touched it.

I'm not Greg Inglis' mind-reader, either.

Do you think if Australia had been in England position the VR would have disallowed the try?

Is there any evidence he was attempting to touch it down or was he attempting to knock it dead? It's a question with a rather obvious answer and one that is vital to your argument.

I am too, hoping and praying that Mugwump isn't a high school Physics teacher otherwise this nation's next generation are f**ked.

This is getting funnier. But a little painful.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Think about it and let it sink in. I'll make it very simple:

The ball was deemed live after Inglis touched it and the video ref was not, at any point, looking at whether Inglis grounded it.

He was ONLY EVER looking at Hall's contact with the ball.

Therefore, whether Inglis grounded it is utterly irrelevant. The only issue that matters is whether Hall grounded the ball.

As such, your entire argument is moot and your picture editing skills are wasted.

I reckon you'll regret this in the morning.

I'm done answering every question put at me.

Now is the time for you to provide something beyond flawed deduction to slander two men. Even if the video ref is bent (which is so crazy I find it hard to type) - what gems can you offer supporting yours claims about the on-the-field ref?

At least I've gone back and reviewed the video. Made still copies. A bit of photoshopping.

So far you've provided NOTHING.

But I forgot, Roy, [i"doesn't have to"[/i back up slandering two fellow referees. It's the classic argument from authority. And twice as worthless.

It's only slander if it's untrue.

Video ref Sutton is a cheat. He can challenge me in court if he fancies. It'd be a very easy case. I'd show the video, explain the rules, and then ask him to justify how he didn't award a try when a ball he deemed live was on the ground with a finger on it. I reckon he might be paying costs too.

I'm not going to let this deteriorate into a nit-picking exercise in sophistry by analysing the meaning of every word I have written, but you seem to think I'm backing down from this claim. I'm not : Video referee Sutton is a cheat who deliberately chose not to apply the rules to benefit his home team. On-field referee Sutton applied the PTB rules partially, penalising only one side to the great benefit of his home team. The fact that these two were chosen by the home side in contravention of normal good practice, to officiate at a game where the home side had to win to avoid exiting the competition, and then contributed in their respective ways to determining the outcome of the game, stinks of the very worst kind of sporting corruption, on a par with cricket and football's match-fixing scandals.

Is that clear enough ?

Go on, tell us again how Inglis tried to ground the ball by scooping it upwards, and how this is relevant to Sutton's decision to disapply the rules for Hall's try. It's a great story. Maybe you should take up the whistle yourself. Or maybe not.

I'm afraid it is you that is behind the pace. If you'd read my original post (referred to recently) you might have saved yourself the typing.

I commented on three frames. One of which clearly showed Greg Inglis' finger on the ball. I said it was strange no one made this point. Subsequent frames showed that Inglis wasn't touching the ball (even though it took a lot longer than the video ref had time to spend). I then moved on and pointed out that Inglis appeared to ground the ball much earlier (followed by the usual howls of criticism which, had it been their team, I doubt I would have faced) and then commented that because my firm faith in the first post had been shaken subsequently I was no longer certain that Hall grounded anyway.

Do keep up.

No, you're not done answering. You CAN'T answer. There's a difference there.

All your Inglis stuff is a smokescreen. All your attempt to make a mountain out of my statements about the cheat Sutton and the biased Sutton is just further displacement chaff. Because this is exactly what it comes down to :

Which bit of Hall's try are you going to deny ?

Did his finger not touch the ball ?

Was the ball not on the ground ?

That's it. That's all there is. Sutton deemed the ball live when Hall touched it, and he deemed Hall touched it. So the only possible way of denying that try is to say that Hall did not touch it when it was in contact with the ground. Given that this thread already contains multiple stills of Hall's finger in contact with the ball on the ground, and given that this was also very clear on replays that Sutton watched at the time, then there is only one possible conclusion : he's a cheat. It was not a margin call. It was a cheating call. That was 100% a try.

Your efforts to pretend this decision didn't matter, or that somehow Sutton had a brainfart and didn't deliberately disallow a legal try in order to save his home country from being evicted from the tournament, are risible. I doubt you believe that yourself. I have no idea why you continue with this bizarre charade.

I'm going to bed. I can only assume Mugchump is drunk. I'll leave you all with this little gem I've just cobbled together, to rub in the fact the cheating Sutton brothers have robbed England and international RL of an amazing moment of history that would have benefited the entire RL community, even Australia. Bear in mind this is exactly the same view Mr Bernard Sutton had. If anyone wants to use this for Twitter, etc here's the link: oi58.tinypic.com/2udyhs0.jpg

I'm going to bed. I can only assume Mugchump is drunk. I'll leave you all with this little gem I've just cobbled together, to rub in the fact the cheating Sutton brothers have robbed England and international RL of an amazing moment of history that would have benefited the entire RL community, even Australia. Bear in mind this is exactly the same view Mr Bernard Sutton had. If anyone wants to use this for Twitter, etc here's the link: oi58.tinypic.com/2udyhs0.jpg

Same old same old. Then DA'DAH!



The backflip I was waiting for.

You are perfectly well aware of the meaning of your own words. You called the referee - not the video referee - a cheat. You said England were the better side and only his bent calls prevented an England win.

Leaving aside the fact that you thought England outplayed Australia (laughable) - your slander of ref is supported by WHAT EVIDENCE?

This is the third time. I can ask four. Five. Ten times. Indeed, I'll take pleasure from it.

So because I didn't post my pic for a while you think the VR wasn't aware Inglis didn't touch the ball at the same time as Hall? Deary me. The second revealing angle was reviewed at the time, I saw it live as did many others.

And now you pretend that because your initial Aussie-apologist argument was blown out of the water, you now doubt Hall's contact? And finally you can't for some reason understand that your final desperate argument - whether Inglis grounded it first - is actually irrelevant because the ball was deemed live after that point?

You've lost the plot, and your touch. Goodnight Mugchump.

You're right. I can't answer. And yet my position is far more intellectually honest than your absolute knowledge of another man's mind. But don't let prejudice get in the way of honesty, Roy.



Absolute garbage. It's you putting up the smokescreen. I'm the one pointing to more reasons for this defeat than an all-explaining all-expanding blanket of corruption made by someone who should know better.

Again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE.

So, is there any evidence Inglis was attempting to ground the ball? If there isn't then whether he actually grounds it or not is irrelevant.

Just so I get this straight for later. The prevailing theory is that the video referee deliberately called back an Australian try so that he could then call back the game winning English try [iwhich ... he ... could ... have ... no ... prior... knowledge ... of?[/i

BWAHAHAHAH!

This is Area 51 stuff.

It's much harder to believe he was unintentionally trying to ground it. Especially when intentionally grounding it does the job just fine.

It's far, far easier to believe he was trying to knock the ball dead. Which do you think he was trying to do? Knock the ball dead or ground it?

Don't forget this is key to your argument.

And you are certain the video referee has access to exactly the same footage? I'm not.



"Aussie apologist", eh? I called it as I saw it. That frame looked pretty conclusive. From a different angle it didn't. Which should lead any unbiased observer to wonder about Hall's also.



It's a good job a bent ref never saw it then, correct? Or maybe he wasn't bent at all.



I'm glad you remember me because I can barely remember you.

My guess is I didn't miss anything.

I believe he was trying to knock the ball dead and touched it down first. He probably didn't know he'd touched down.

I'd love to say it was an obvious no try - but by the ropey standard of VR since its inception it can easily fall in the "I've seen them given either way" category.

every cloud and all that part 2