They are perfectly precise, they state hand, which your fingers are part of, its quite simple really.

The fact you are having to stoop to this shows how bad the decision to not award the try was, we've had everything from Hall didn't celebrate, to Inglis grounded it, to the fingers grounded it not the 'hand'.

Even the actual referee didn't come up with any of those, he just made something up which has less credibility than even those suggestions.

More noise - the latest of which is an argument about whether Ryan Hall's fingers are in fact part of his hand, or some entirely separate limbs that are physically disconnected from his hands; or whether the decision was *technically* correct, because the rules of the game don't specify every part of the body that makes up a hand in anatomically accurate detail.

The facts remain - it was clearly a try and the Aussie VR didn't give it; ergo, he cheated.

Yes

He had to put "downward pressure" on the ball whilst it was "on the ground" with his "hand or arm".

What constitutes downward pressure? Do the fingertips / sides of the fingers constitute "hand"? These matters are subjective and based on interpretation. The Laws are not precise and so it is open to the RLIF or match officials to interpret them. As to downward pressure I would suggest you ought to be touching the top of the ball to achieve that in any case. The fact that Super League choses its current interpretation is irrelevant.

Fingers are part of your hand, its really really simple.

What's done is done and I hope the players aren't wasting time dwelling on this as I want them to beat New Zealand and get to the final.

However, we need to use this to our advantage. The RLIF are clearly aware of the controversy this has caused given that everyone put on report has been let off -I'm not sure Farrell should have been personally. O'loughlin should have that was pathetic and wasn't even a penalty -. So I want to see people in the England camp making a right fuss about this. I want to see McNamara refusing to field a team unless we get a neutral ref. Then making comments like 'I'm sure the ref's just want to get the decisions right' or 'the ref is under a lot of pressure but they'll be totally impartial' etc. in the run up to next week and any further matches. To basically put pressure on the so they subconciously favour us. It's what Australia do/did and it worked this week.

Hopefully we get the same ref this week instead of Perineum or Batman. We can really breath down their necks then.

they aren't open to interpretation. They are binary questions that is they are yes/no questions not matters of degree.

The Laws are precise. You just seem unaware of them.

The Law states:

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

We are talking about (b) but in the context of (a) and (c), which seems to involve covering the ball from above, (b), in my opinion, should be construed as more than just a finger tip down the side of a rolling ball. I know that Super League interprets it loosely but I think that is incorrect. Based on the Laws as written I do believe there is a strong case for it being disallowed. What troubles me is the apparent reason given.

Really? Explain?

B explains it fully, it was a try based on the the laws of the game.

neither a or c have any bearing on it whatsoever.

I can only repeat to you. Under the rules the fingers are part of the hand. That isn't an SL interpretation it is a rule of the game and has been for a long term.

Even in your post you contradict yourself because I'm pretty confident that your finger even in your world where it isn't part of your hand must still be part of the body above the waist and below the neck. Even in nuts world where it fails under A and B it still meets the criteria of C.

The criteria to be a try a binary not a matter of degree. The ball doesn't need a certain amount of downward pressure, just some. Whether very little miniscule amounts of downwards pressure or all the downward pressure it counts the same.

There isn't interpretation in there. Whether the ball is touching the ground is the same for me, you and everyone else in the world. Even those being deliberately contrary. You can't suddenly decide that to you touching means something new. You can argue that's your interpretation of the word touching but as it is a binary question your interpretation would be Demonstrably wrong.

It will be confirmed in the next 36 hours that an Aussie will referee the Oz v Samoa game, and that a Kiwi will referee the NZ v England game. This will make sure that the organizing committee get their dream final of Oz v NZ.

Is this guy really arguing that the rules aren't clear because Australians may not know that the fingers are part of the hand?

It's like saying punching someone on the nose isn't punching them in the face because there's a difference between the nose and face. Incredible.

C does not cover it at all!

c doesn't have to, b covers it well enough.

I really didn't think we'd get to people arguing fingers aren't part of the hand.

So Inglis grounded the ball earlier.



Ergo, England had no right to expect a Hall try and the awarding of such would have been ... [ijust as bad a decision.[/i

Or do bad decisions against Australia not matter equally?

I'm sure they have no issues with YOU speaking FOR THEM rather than you allowing them to speak for themselves without external influence.

Classic argument from authority.

Are the fingers not the upper body or did they not drop on the ball?

Yes. An argument from authority, knowledge, experience and logic. You should try one of them.

There is no other explanation for the decision other than a deliberate decision not to apply the laws as every referee knows them.

And by the way, I cannot believe you're trying to reopen the laughable Inglis grounding the ball cobblers. Even that cheat Sutton didn't try to clutch at that straw.

that's all very nice, but however many times you say it, it is not going to become the definition of a grounded ball in goal. Inglis did touch it, and it did touch the ground. That doesn't make it a grounded ball. If it did a defensive player would never be able to pick up a live ball in the in goal.

I'll tell them you have openly slandered not just the video ref but the ENTIRE refereeing team on a public forum. And as you know - even if in some madcap alternate reality where your argument is true - the truth isn't considered absolute defence in this country (and Australia).

You keep harping on about the video ref - but you are clearly conscious (from your posts) that you dropped an enormous clanger tarring the ref with the same brush.

You've disgraced your profession. You should resign. Period.

Fingers touching the ball. Ball touching the floor.

Grounded.

We can probably use the real rules rather than the ones you make up. Otherwise we should at least be a little more fun and whimsical about it. Chimps in tuxedos always lighten an imaginary situation

Troll.