Well, yes, because he reviewed it at the time. Which is where I, and everyone else, first saw it. The exact same replay where they check Hall is onside, to be exact.




Not really, when Hall's fingers can CLEARLY (note how I copy your capitalisation) be seen contacting the ball. Carry on apologising.


As I said earlier, incompetent or corrupt.


Ooh you're legend, you are. Lots of posts, little of value.

Here's your 'grounding' (not that it matters, because, for the umpteenth time, the officials considered the ball to be live after this point). He bats the ball backwards, after which it impacts the ground. Inglis' hands are clearly travelling upwards at the point of contact. Is it grounded? Only with your green & gold (or Mugchump) glasses on. Not that it matters, once again.

Have you actually read your own posts mate? Please, for your own sake, give it up.

Does this Mugwump chap even realise the rules were changed such that a defending player can't accidentally ground the ball in goal?

If he doesn't even know the rules, he's spending an awful lot of time calling other people names which he should be spending reading a rule book.

And another thing.

The Aussie ref should have allowed play-on when the England pack won the ball 'against the head' in that 2nd half scrum.

Fantastic push; fantastic option; fantastic play. The Aussie pack disintegrated he said. That's the whole point of getting an unexpected push on. The ball emerged correctly behind the England second row. Wrong to give the Aussies a second go at it.

Gutterfax, please don't spoil things by referring to the real world...

I said he probably grounded it accidentally. I didn't say it would be interpreted as such.

And again, I'm not the one labelling two referees corrupt on no grounds other than which would label every SL ref corrupt also in the context of Lord knows how many bad video calls I've seen.

Reading this morning's trade press and Stuart Cummings says it was a try.

Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing ?



In complete contrast, however, his editor (Danny Lockwood) says it was not a try.

Good lord - I've just woke and you're STILL whining about crooked refs.

Look - I realise losing [uOUR BEST OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLY EVER[/u to stick one over the Aussies is a bitter pill and it's easy to blame the entire Australian refereeing team in a big fat dummy spit (which would call into question EVERY SINGLE bad video ref in SL - making those guys corrupt too?)

But we lost. Deal with it.

Definitely no try for me then

And this is relevant because?

My thoughts entirely

I was under the impression that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD & on SOCIAL MEDIA (where herd mentality is REALLY important) thought it was a try.

Turns out opinion isn't uniform at all. British fans think it was a try. Aussie fans offer a range of opinions (from Inglis grounded it, to Hall, to neither).

SMH didn't make a big deal about it. The Australian didn't.

At the end of the day - there's an old boxing adage about hometown refs which says you have to take the fight out of their hands.

England didn't do this. And we only have ourselves to blame.

After reading most of the posts on hear lets hope 1 we win on Saturday or we will have another 30 odd pages of doom come on England lets beat them well

20 pages were responses to Mugwumps guff about GI 'gounding it'.

The referee had deemed the ball 'Live'

It is over the try line

It is in contact with the ground

Ryan Hall puts a finger on top of it

TRY

=#FF0000FROM THAT POINT FORWARD EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT!

There is no section in the rule book that allows for any other interpretation of what's written above.

There is no determination with regard to the Newtons of force required to effect downward pressure

Within the Universe in which we exist the laws of physics determine that when an object is in contact with another object it experts a force or pressure no matter how small, it is present.

There is no allowance for descretion or interpretation of the balls trajectory, if it is in contact with the ground - which it was, if an attacking player places any part (including a little finger) of the hand or arm on the ball - which Ryan Hall does
Then the rules state that a try must be awarded.

The Video referee need not begin a process of determination to reach a conclusion, the video clearly shows the ball in contact with the ground and Halls finger on top of the ball, the rules dictate that a try MUST be awarded.

It wasn't

WHY?

Its incidents like this that make me wish we didn't rely so much on technology.
The ref said no try which we all would have accepted.
Inglis knocked the ball out which would have led to a drop out and England would have had another go at scoring

So you've gone through pages of complete and utter rubbish to agree with everybody else that the ball was still live after Inglis touched it? I think you need some help.


No, you're the one who for pages on this thread has desperately tried to pretend the decision was correct, even making things up to try and back up that bizarre position. Clearly you didn't know the rules and were trying to say Inglis grounded it before Hall so it should've been no try anyway.

If it were one bad decision by a neutral referee with another neutral video ref both reffing to neutral interpretations then you might have a point. But that's not what happened is it.

This is equivalent to the Gansongate Mk 2 (Hull version) in terms of blatantly wrong video ref decisions but then try adding in the other factors and it gets far more important. Suppose Ganson was from Hull and a Hull FC fan.
Then suppose Hull KR had gained an 8 point lead at half time.
Then suppose Ganson gave only 1 penalty to Hull KR in the 2nd half despite Hull FC holding down numerous times.
Then suppose Ganson gave Hull FC numerous penalties to get them out of trouble in that 2nd half. Then suppose Hull KR knock on in their oppositions half and a scrum is set. Then suppose Hull KR push and win the scrum but the scrum is reset for no reason within the rules.

Then add in the atrocious, blatantly wrong video ref decision to deny them (Hull KR) a last minute try.
Then suppose the video ref was also from Hull and was also a Hull FC fan.
Then suppose the video ref was also Steve Ganson's brother.
Then suppose Hull FC had effectively appointed the ref and the video ref themselves.
Then suppose "neutral" refs were available but not used.
Then suppose "neutral" refs had been used in every round until that point.
Then suppose Steve Ganson & his brother were actually employed by Hull FC.

Then tell us how it's exactly the same as any other decision by a video ref. Go on, everyone was already laughing at you but this just adds to it.

To be honest I feel pretty good about myself this morning. Had I quit in the face of The Herd's [uoutrageous and baseless accusations of corruption[/u I wouldn't be performing the job The Almighty has given me the tools to so adequately make a mockery of.

It's a new day, the sun is shining and Autumn's myriad hues of red, amber and yellow are resplendent.

Time to buckle up the plate armour, hoist the broadsword and fight the good fight against the usual horde of mental midgets.

.

Again, I'm not the one claiming BOTH the video referee and the primary referee are "bent".

You keep dodging this outrageous statement by an experienced referee and yet feel utterly compelled to take me to task solely for what I believe is a "margin call" no different to the kinds of decisions I've witnessed since the very beginning of VT.

Talk about selective reasoning. Some might make accusations of mental illness.

Still flogging that dead nag ?

Any more utterly irrelevant observations this morning ? How about the argument that Hall did a really smelly wet fart as he competed for the ball, putting Inglis off, thus requiring Sutton to disallow the try on the grounds of ungentlemanly conduct ? Or, perhaps Sutton was inconveniently thrown into one of an infinite number of alternative universes, but one in which Hall did not contact the ball on the ground, and unfortunately he was catapulted back into our own space-time continuum in the milliseconds between seeing his alternative universe's replays and pressing the button in ours ? Or maybe you are privy to the knowledge that the IRL secretly amended the rules prior to the game to state that a try cannot be grounded under any circumstances in the last 120 seconds of an international match, and so Sutton was simply applying the rules correctly ?

The video referee was faced with a clear try in the last minute of an international. Granting that try would - most likely - result in his home country being evicted from the competition. He had no grounds to disallow it, yet he did so anyway. There is no other conclusion which can be reasonably drawn save that, under pressure, he abandoned impartiality and integrity and opted for cheating in favour of his own team. He's a cheat, a fraud, a disgrace. I'm sure if he knows he can explain it differently, then he'll be along to sue me shortly. He's a cheat.

Found any referees yet who can justify his decision ?

Classy

No, believe it or not I'm taking YOU to task over things YOU have posted. And you consistently refuse to answer them.
Can you point me in the direction of another decision like this then please? Just a controversial, blatantly wrong last minute decision to deny a team a win where the on-field ref is the brother of the video ref and both are directly employed by one side will do. You can ignore the other factors for now. Just find me one of those. If not then do you agree to book yourself into a secure facility?

If anyone feels so inclined - they might provide a FULL transcript of what the AUSTRALIAN commentators actually said about the incident.

And the first thing you do is check RLFans! Nothing's changed, you're still being proven entirely wrong at every turn, avoiding questions and resorting to senseless prattle.

It's been shown Inglis didn't ground the ball as you claimed, it's been shown Hall did. It's been shown you don't even know the rules.

How can you explain the decision to disallow the try? It comes down to outrageous incompetence, or corruption (subconscious or otherwise). Neither is acceptable. Mysteriously, you're convinced you know which it is.

Jesus wept, haven't you guys sussed yet? Mugwump is just a troll, nothing more.