I thought mugchump would have woke up with an almighty hangover this morning. Then I thought, "I wonder if an Admin of this site gets some sort of a reward for the post he generates" ? He certainly has got us all active because of his stupidly outrageous rantings.
Another thought is that mugchump has been hacked by a pubescent schoolgirl without even a modicum knowledge of the rules, any other reasoning for his drivel is beyond comprehension.

That's the point - it can't. There is a reason why several different "explanations" have emitted from Australian sources, including "Not enough celebration", "didn't look like a try at full speed", "not enough downward pressure" and "touched a rising ball". It's because there are no reasonable grounds for disallowing it. If there were a clear reason to disallow it, you can bet your backside that they'd all be singing the same song by now. Instead, several different sources, from commentators, players, Sheens, to the referees themselves, came up with their own reasons, all of which amounted to "If it had been given, we'd be out of the competition". THAT is why it was disallowed.

There's no point looking for reasonable explanations for unreasonable events.

means (a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands or
(b) Exerting downwar
d pressure on the ball with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the ground or
(c) Dr
opping on the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist

Based on the laws of the game (see above) I don't think it was a try BUT the fact that it seemingly could have been disallowed due to touching a RISING ball must be gross incompetence / corruption. That is the question that the England management MUST seek a PUBLIC explanation of. If that was not the VR's reasoning, why did his brother say it on the field?

That is what clearly happened, it was a try.

Have you been on the pop with Mugwump?

This thread is comedy gold. It was a try. It wasn't given due to inept [some would say corrupt officiating. But this isn't what cost us the game.

See where Hall's fingers touch the ball while it's on the ground? That counts as downward pressure.



I agree, we should be demanding an explanation.

Just to be clear, I say corrupt because there isn't a referee I've ever met or spoken to who would disallow that try. It's not something any of us could even argue about. The rules are very clear, and that is a try. So given that there is no interpretation available which allows it to be disallowed, then it has to have been disallowed because of a reason [iwhich is not in the rulebook[/i. That's cheating. There is no other explanation possible, and the embarrassed and incoherent bluster emanating from Australian apologists is as clear an indication as you'll ever get that they know they've been caught red-handed with their fingers in the cookie jar this time.

Also, it did cost us the game. If it had happened in the first half, I'd agree with you, because there'd have been time to organise a response and move on. But it happened in the last minute. There was no time. That decision cost us the game, and kept Australia in the tournament. It was bent.

The part of the ball that Hall touches is rising but, the other end of the ball is clearly on the ground as it "rolls" forwards.
It's an absolute disgrace but we have to move on and Macnamara and co need to use the unjust call to motivate them for next week.

The main lesson to learn is to put the game to bed by continuing to put them under pressure and to win the game.

Clearly a try imo. The ball obviously wasn't bouncing up when Hall touched it. There was no celebration from Hall, probably because he didn't even realise he had scored. But a ball being grounded unintentionally is still grounded.

Personally I don't think those should be given as tries. A finger brushing the ball isn't enough in my opinion. But as the rules are currently, it has to be a try.

Hand? I understand the modern interpretation but that would never have been given 30 years ago and, I feel, on a valid interpretation of the current law.

Last time I checked my fingers were on my hand. . . .

OK - so IF that's the definition of a rising ball the decision was correct.

And you can clearly see Hall's hand moving downwards onto the ball then on to the floor = Downward pressure!

Can't be any more obvious.

I've seen people argue that it isn't a try because you can't see it clearly in real time only slow motion! FFS!

But you yourself have just distinguished between your hand and your fingers!

Has Mugwump disappeared to find an example of 2 related employees of one side giving a similar decision?
He said there were numerous over the years so i assumed they were easy to recall.

Come on Mugwump. There must be loads to pick out aren't there?

Downward pressure? Slipping down the side with no control of the ball? If someone went over the line with the ball in hand but ended up having to touch it down like that as it was slipping out would that be a try?

The ball rising isn't a reason to disallow a try. That's just nonsense made up to justify the decision.

The rules however don't

Your mean like the Jennings try that was given earlier in the game?

Rules are different for a loose ball

Where in your earlier definition does it mention 'control of the ball'?

- the ball is on the ground
- hall puts downward pressure on the ball as it is on the ground

Simple!

He was never in 'control' of the ball and didn't need to be.

This is getting ridiculous now.

The Laws of the game ought to be more precise.

They are. You just didn't know them.