Mugwumps just a quick question regarding GI grounding it, are you telling me if hall had firmly planted his full hand on the ball grounding it without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, you would be happy to say no try because GI had grounded it in goal?

Well for a start off there was a perfectly capable NZ ref who was bizzarly refereeing and match that NZ were playing in

1. The RLIFs are as per the RFL's on this point (ie as stated above several times).
2. Agreed.

The fact is that to score a try in rugby league you used to have to make real, firm contact with the top of the ball. The way (a) and (c) are written in the Laws my opinion is that was what was intended as regards (b) when the Laws were originally formulated. Recent years have seen a silly interpretation of the rules to suit scandal and controversy on TV but that is just an interpretation. Where is the official interpretation published (other than the Laws) to decide whether your opinion may carry more weight than mine or the refs or anyone elses?).

Mugwump are you after Smokey TA's bore you into submission award? Is your ego that big that you need to feel like a champ posting against people you see as intellectually inferior to you?
Can't say I've missed your condescending posts, I kind of wish you would leave us simpletons alone to argue amongst ourselves.

The truth is regardless of who is right and who is wrong the result stands so it's a pointless victory regardless, let's just all agree Mugwump is right otherwise we'll have to suffer his insufferable spit balls all the way up from Mensa towers.

Ad Hominem attack aside now

Guess I'll join your argumentum ad populum
At best the ref was inept and at worst corrupt.

Neutral refs should be written into the international rules to stop this from happening again, even if the ref is garbage, he'll be garbage for both teams.

England need to put in 80 minute performances not 60, the game should have been put to bed way before the 78th minute.
Although it is hard to gain momentum with a 2nd half penalty count that was baffling, late shots, high tackles and messing about at the ruck all going unpunished.

All opinions of course

Crying with laughter at you and enjoying the car crash far too much to stop. Some people say we shouldn't feed trolls but this is funny.



It's blatantly obvious what Inglis' intention was, sweeping the hands up like that kind of gives it away. I'm sure you'll pretend otherwise or play dumb but that doesn't change it.

Not that it actually matters because despite several reviews the VR deemed the ball live past this point, for whatever reason.

So the big point you're trying to make is utterly, completely pointless.

I wouldn't be happy. But before labeling the video ref a "cheat" I'd recall the numerous hair-breadth touches which have won and lost SL games since the beginning of VT.

"Margin calls" were supposed to finish. They haven't. Ergo, ditch the video ref completely.

A mind-reader as well as a fool. Congratulations.

And there it is.

Mind-reader indeed. I predicted your response.

Its a ridiculous argument, let's say there wasn't a video ref at that game, but they showed the replay and halls finger clearly on the ball which was on the ground, the first call would be, why have we scrapped video refs. The game needs to move forward not back

Incidents like Sunday's are exactly the reason we have video refs, not a reason to get rid of them

Exactly. The VR had all the tools necessary available for him. He got it wrong. Thats an argument for better (and neutral) video refs. Not an argument against giving them the best tools.

But he got it wrong even with the pictures in front of his eyes.
His agenda at that split moment was not to give the try, if he had it would of knocked the aussies out of the competition.
Cant be having that now can we, not in there own back garden.

I'm still waiting to hear why both referees chalked off the Inglis try. I'd like to think there isn't anyone stupid enough in here who thinks they were using it as a ruse to explain chalking off a last mminute English try they knew nothing of - but in this thread anything is possible.

I'd love for Roy to explain how Charnley not standing square constitutes as evidence of a dastardly Aussie wheeze to defraud England.

And I've not even begun with other decisions...

"The Game" is a shared concept - not a bus propelled "forward" by your hackneyed platitudes.

Perhaps you can cross reference the actual rules when you do, save us all a bit of time

I've already offered an explanation for that. The Inglis try was chalked off for obstruction at a time in the game when it was not a decision which would definitely decide the outcome. The Hall try WAS going to decide the outcome. Under the extra pressure of knowing his decision was going to decide the game at that time, Sutton chose to cheat. If you don't think there's a difference in the pressure Sutton was under between the Inglis obstruction and the Hall try decisions, then I can't help you. I don't think anyone can.

I have no idea why you're dribbling on about Charnley. I've never claimed that wasn't a penalty. I have claimed, and stand by that claim, that the penalties awarded to Australia for interference at the PTB were inconsistent with the penalties which were not awarded to England for similar offences. No referee is ever entirely consistent with every possible offence, but when a referee only pins one team for interference, each time when his own side are struggling to clear their half, but fails to give any penalties at all for interference to the opposition, despite similar or worse offences by his own side, then there is at best, unconscious bias and at worst, deliberate bias. I'd argue that it was precisely that bias towards his own country, towards the home fans, and towards the players who he knows professionally on a weekly basis, which is why the Aussies insisted on their own man in the first place. On-field Sutton did not apply a consistent approach to the PTB on the field. The Charnley penalty wasn't for interference at the PTB. It was for not standing square. You're becoming increasingly random here.

I am not sure why you are all taking up his valuable time ... he says he has better things to do.

Don't forget the definition of "trolling" on this site seems to be the act of disagreeing with the majority...

I'm still waiting to hear an example of another situation where the ref & video ref, employed by one side who was playing, related to each other, gave a blatantly wrong video ref decision in the last minute to disallow a match winning try?

Found one yet Mugwump?

Don't worry folks we've got Tony and Kevin Iro as ref/vid ref for our next game.
We'll be fine

50 odd pages...

You know - if I [iwere [/itrolling such would be some achievement after nearly 18 months out with no match practice. I mean, the opposition is strictly division three. But you've got to play the hand you're dealt I guess.

But I'm not trolling.

I [idid [/isay that. Didn't I?

Geez - sometimes even I get confused.

Anyhoo, I'll be back later. Tea time. And then I've got to finish a cracking book about James Angleton. Now THERE was a mind. Don't find too many James Angletons in here...

Seems more like billy-no-mates syndrome to me.
Going round calling folk fools at the drop of a hat.
Can't believe he treats his friends like that, if he has any left.

Well, his misguided ego certainly outweighs anything else he has to offer.

The pretentious intelligent weird billy no mates kid in the comprehensive school whose parents were in the Salvation army, no one bullied for fear he'd stab them, either ginger with short hair sweeped to the left or brown shoulder length hair...because that shows he's different, cool and as a love of nature, loves art because 'he truly understands it', has dinner parties in his later years and decorates his house with David Hockney prints.
Reads Nietzsche and Sun Tzu but thinks they're intellectually stunting, has books about lost amazon tribes and takes all his pictures in black and white because he's edgy. If he's a gamer only plays the vast fantasy rpg types because the rest are for kids.
Philosophy degree, maybe an only child or last of a large one.


Or he's a try hard.
If you are intelligent why feel the need to force that opinion of yourself...so add narcissism

Boring.

Now THERE was a mind.