NZ and Australia will both vote to appoint Bentham for England -v- NZ.

It will then either:
a) invite England to accept the principal of non-neutral referees for all future international games, or
b) give England no choice but to vote for the Chuckle Brothers to take charge again, making them "our appointment" for the fixture.

However, it is in the interests of NZ and Australia to vote to maintain the status quo. England will be outvoted again and Bentham will be duly appointed to the England fixture.

The England management team need to get onto the front foot and put a statement out now saying that we will not participate in any game with a non-neutral referee.

or cheat. There is always that way to make a point. Have Bentham referee it entirely to SL rules and remind who pays his wages. Pretty sure the point would be made when England win by 40 points on the back of a 20-1 penalty count.

So ARE YOU SAYING that Inglis grounded the ball before Ryan Hall touched it down?

Found an example of another decision like this yet Mugwump? Decided whether Inglis was trying to ground the ball or trying to knock it dead yet?

Mugwump, did Greg Inglis according to the rules intentionally ground the ball?

No he didn't your argument is flawed, as has been stated there is more to a defending player grounding the ball other than hand on ball on ground, otherwise as again stated how would a player be able to pick the ball up in his own in goal area.

It's quite sad that one of the forum administrators would be so petty.

Nope, let's use the rules I've just copied and pasted from the rulebook posted on the NRL's site.

If Inglis did ground the ball then England should have had a drop out and another chance to score. Either way the officiating of that decision was terrible.

Quote ="Mugwump"Nope, let's use the rules I've just copied and pasted from the rulebook posted on the NRL's site. '" Can we use the ones which apply to grounding in goal instead because thats what we are talking about? Helpfully the NRL (aswell as the RFL because the RFL and RLIF rule book is actually the same, hence 1 referee, the NRL rule book is slightly different but not in this instance) is online here is what it says about grounding in goal. Grounding the ball in own in goal [iFor the ball to be deemed dead the player in possession must intentionally ground the ball in his own in-goal .[/i https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf Pretty succinct as well as conclusive. Your apology will be accepted with grace, as always I am happy to help those less educated

Quote ="Mugwump"Nope, let's use the rules I've just copied and pasted from the rulebook posted on the NRL's site. '" Can we use the ones which apply to grounding in goal instead because thats what we are talking about? Helpfully the NRL (aswell as the RFL because the RFL and RLIF rule book is actually the same, hence 1 referee, the NRL rule book is slightly different but not in this instance) is online here is what it says about grounding in goal. Grounding the ball in own in goal [iFor the ball to be deemed dead the player in possession must intentionally ground the ball in his own in-goal .[/i https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEdit ... tation.pdf Pretty succinct as well as conclusive. Your apology will be accepted with grace, as always I am happy to help those less educated

Australia were very very lucky to get the no try call.

But he's nearly filled all the stars on his badge (rather like MacDonalds) because he's generated 40+ pages of response in answer to his drivel.

He'll be getting another "Admin of the month" certificate to paper his padded cell soon. Im sure he spat his dummy out and said he won't post on this thread any more, but the lure of another banana from above will keep this circus chimp coming up with classic comedy.

I'm saying that in that photo Inglis has at least two fingers touching the ball whilst it is on the floor.

According to the rules I've just lifted from the NRL an Australian referee could decide he touched it down.

And there isn't a single poster on this site that hasn't seen a margin call of similar type given both for and against since SL first switched to VT. Which was my point at the very beginning. I no longer see any need to waste money on VT as the bad decisions (which were supposed to end) just keep coming and coming.

I can think of two instances which, at the very least, relied on no further pressure.

Do you think his intention was to ground it? Or bat it out of play?

You see, that's the funny thing about attempting to read the mind of a player - ESP has yet to work.

Neither you, nor I, nor the man in the moon know what Inglis was attempting. I can speculate. And so can you. But the thing that really matters is what the referee is speculating.

Inglis is a great player. And the thing that makes great players is their ability to think faster than the average bear.

Does my opinion change the result?

Keep crying.

So now you're saying that it was the correct decision, because Inglis grounded the ball in goal? (I don't think he did mind you - but let's go with it.)

That being the case - why didn't he restart with a goal line drop out?

I refer back to Roy Hegarty's earlier point; the reason he didn't was that the whole incident was officiated with a view to *not* awarding England anything that could give them an opportunity to snatch the game at the death and put Australia out of the comp. It was cheating. Still. Just like it was on page 1.

Mugwumps he clearly is attempting to push that ball over the sideline, and I'm sure Greg himself would admit that, your argument is nearly as ridiculous as dally pretending fingers aren't part of the hand

I see you're conveniently ignoring the upward motion of Inglis hands meaning it's anatomically and physically impossible for him to place downward pressure on the ball.

In contrast Ryan Hall's hand is coming down onto the top of the ball therefore effecting downward pressure on the ball.

And if the thing that really matters is what the referee is speculating then the correct decision is try because he judged (like everyone else in the world, oddly including you) that GI did not intend to ground it.

You have now not only been proven wrong on a factual basis. You have now managed to quite succinctly argue against your own point and disprove it quite conclusively.

Well done on that.

I think he's lost the plot.

OK 2 points.
1. The game wasn't played under NRL rules.
2. The VR didn't see any grounding of the ball by Inglis otherwise it would have been an Aussie kick out from underneath the posts.
It is my opinion that the match officials and the VR were under pressure to ensure an Aussie win.
It is my opinion as well that if the roles had been reversed the VR would have given the try.

The video-ref never gave it, end of debate!

Now for the Kiwis and hopefully when we have some three on two the daft T*** with the ball will PASS the bloody thing! Then we can stop whining about refs/video-refs because we'd have bloody WON!

It's not the end of debate, it would be if both the reg and the VR were neutral, they weren't and it needs addressing

I agree that we have a lack of top quality "neutral" officials, 'nowt we can do about it.

However TWICE we surged forward and had three on two and TWICE the ball was NOT passed! THAT is the REAL reason we lost, had we have passed and inevitably scored, the ref/video-refs neutrality would have been an irrelivent debate!