We know, it was clearly evident many many pages ago when you tried talking like you actually understood the rules of RL.

Roll on next week I say, the petty back-biting on here has become bizarre.

I’ve seen all the rules produced, chapter & verse, also numerous videos & stills, but if that qualifies as a try, then the rule requires changing.

It looks to me that Hall is just cushioning his fall & happens to brush the ball.

To the letter of the law is it a try? – then yes.

In reverence to the game we all allegedly love, should it be a try – no way.

I believe the hysteria on here in mainly down to many supporter’s ticking off their “R.L Bucket List”

Grand Final √

Challenge Cup √

International Success – Waaaaaaaah.

I didn't think you would have been hungry with everyone feeding you.

OK - it seems to me that the decision to square what was said with the rules was that it was adjudged Hall applied no downward pressure nothwithstanding his touching the ball. Great significance was put on the fact that the fingers bent showing Hall touched the ball. The VR seems to have adjudged that bending of fingers was due to the upward roll of the ball, rather than downward pressure being applied by Hall. I have not studied the video evidence but does that interpretation fit the pictures?

I would first advise that you do indeed study the video evidence yourself first, then roll a rugby ball away from you if you have one and try to bend your fingers back like Hall were bent. Can't be done UNLESS THE BALL WAS GROUNDED AND DOWNWARD PRESSURE IS APPLIED.

Someone posted this somewhere earlier in a thread (sorry, can't remember who) but it shows clearly the position of the ball/finger. Try.

It was a try on Sunday and still is today.

So many pages now, I'm not going to check, but did Anybody explain how so many ' late hits ' on the kickers wasnt penalised?

Wasn't given then and nothing's changed there either......
LOCK IT!

Looks from those pics that Ryan knocked it on (pushed the ball forward).

Oh dear God.

Nurse, the pills !

Enough already.

Oh give it up Dally.

While we know Mugchump is having one of his episodes, you're just taking the proverbial.

Look at it relative to the "O" on the advert - it's pushed forward and so knocked on (ie as I said before no "control" in the touch down).

Video ref stays. There are more correct decisions than incorrect. Without video ref they wouldn't have even looked at the Hall try and may even have given a drop out, which although beneficial to us would have been the wrong call.

Some interesting views here: m.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nr ... 7111245197

Some interesting views here: m.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nr ... 7111245197

At last Absolute scientific proof from some 100% non biased "experts" www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/four-na ... 7111245197 Disclaimer - Do not read if you are capable of wazzing your laptop across the room, or snapping it with your bare hands EDIT - its essentially the same link that Albion has kindly posted above. Talk about using selective images.......

At last Absolute scientific proof from some 100% non biased "experts" www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/four-na ... 7111245197 Disclaimer - Do not read if you are capable of wazzing your laptop across the room, or snapping it with your bare hands EDIT - its essentially the same link that Albion has kindly posted above. Talk about using selective images.......

Why are we even debating it? Of course it was never going to be awarded, I would hope an English ref in that same situation would rule in England's favour. Home ground advantage and all that. Blame dumb ass england for agreeing to a non neutral ref.

[size=200
LOL[/size

Exactly, it's cringeworthy.

Would be nice to see the next 3 or 4 stils that follow it. Anyone that's seen the slow mo and various pictures around here and on TV, can tell you that's a still of Hall before he gets his finger to the ball because it clearly bends back when he makes contact and the ball is clearly buried in grass. Tbh it just shows how low they'll stoop.

The Convict paper above should of used those images but I suppose that's far too much to expect.

The middle picture of that set of three is the decisive one; it shows, inarguably, a try being scored.

If the brothers Sutton were intent on conspiring to keep England from booting their employer out of the comp, they'd have been better off adjudging that Inglis had grounded the ball, awarding the drop-out (which Cameron Smith would have dilly-dallied with for half the remaining time left on the clock, as is his wont) and the remaining few seconds would have ticked down - resulting in an Australian win with much less of a stink about it; there'd still be the unequal penalty count in the second half to rail against, but that's much less obvious cheating than disallowing a try that the whole world can see was actually scored - by however fine a margin. It certainly wouldn't have merited 50 pages, even with the Catcher in the Rye acting as an agent provocateur.

I don't mind losing - it happens - but I don't like cheating; blatant, obvious, unashamed cheating of this nature is especially infuriating. Tell that to the NRL's lawyers by the way - I'd be happy to join Roy Hegarty in the dock when they take out a class action against the posters of RL fans.

He did. The VR said he did. The only bit missing was the VR's invention that at the point the finger pressed down on the ball, the ball was rising i.e. not in contact with the ground. This was and is manifest rubbish, no reasonable person could even troll that the ball in image 2 or indeed 3 has left the ground.

The VR's decision was (so we heard the explanation) that the ball was in mid air (was "rising"icon_wink.gif. That is why it cannot be accepted as anything other than bent.

The essential point about the ball being on the ground is that the first touch of the finger exerting a downward pressure is what constitutes a try. What the ball does after that contact is irrelevant as the try has already been scored. It is the downward pressure on a ball which is on the ground, so incontrovertibly shown in image 2, that nobody can contrive to argue away. It's here for all to see, like the infamous image of Maradona's "Hand of god".

Oh dear.
The most amazing thing here is that you expect anything other from a nation who the vast majority of has a relative who was shipped out their for being crap at stealing.

They are still crap at stealing.......what's the punishment going to be this time?

Transportation back to England?

edit:
Not sure what the UK viewing figures were, but in Aussie, 498,000 bothered tuning in on FTA for the England game and another 75,000 in NZ. Why is it they don't care about internationals, but 8 times that Aussie figure will tune in on a Wednesday for SOO?

Kiwis got 153,000 for their game the day before on PAY TV......

I still don't understand how a MOD is allowed to be so rude, call people names and suggest they are mental or simply lesser in intelligence than them.

Still. A fair TRY wasn't given. Andrew Johns called it right and was then not heard on telly for a while.

I am someone who gets angry when I think about that decision, but I have to say that the image you posted supports the no try decision.

There is no doubt that Hall's little finger touched one end of the ball when it was on the ground. The moving image you show, however, suggests that Hall's end of the ball was rising up and pushing against his finger rather than Hall applying downward pressure on it. The other tip of the ball might have been in the turf but there is a reasonable view that the pressure was against the finger from the ball rather than the downward pressure being applied by Hall's finger.

Add into that the on-field ruling, that there was no try, I am seeing the decision as a reasonable one. Or at least understandable.