Not sure how they burn internet witches but you might be about to find our......

If that's aimed at me...he opened the door with the insults, granted it's childish but he's an admin, he can remove me if he so wishes.

Hall's hand is moving down to the ground. It's impossible for there not to be downward pressure.

That post of yours is way too rational.

Consider yourself excommunicated by the Moonie Massive.

No Sir. Mugwump. It's really infantile behaviour. Moreso as it's from someone criticising other people's behaviour!!!

Admin. Sorry. Even worse then.

@England_RL: The referee for Saturday's match against @NZRL_Kiwis will be Phil Bentham with Henry Perenara as the video referee. #4Nations

I don't see why we can't just have a neutral ref?

It is a reasonable description of the moment that Halls finger contacts the ball. But it actually highlights why the decision was so wrong. Pretty much every rolling ball (due to the shape of the ball) will likely result in part of the ball going up and part going down. There is nothing in the rules that gets close to stating that the pressure of Halls finger has to be great than that of the ball rising. It is an entirely invented criteria. He may as well have actually disallowed because Hall didn't celebrate. Yes it would be true, but it isn't part of the criteria for a try.

To me it was no try BUT the apparent rationale given at the time smacked of looking for an excuse not to give it. That's what needs to be questioned and investigated - was that decision made fairly (even if they got it right by default)?

You do realise that is because the camera is moving forward, not the ball...?

Hall's finger/s never leave contact with the ball, so it is irrelevant whether the ball is rising at any stage. At the time I thought it was a try but at no stage did I think the VR would have the balls to give it. When he gave no try I was completely unmoved, but the injustice is burning more & more as time goes by & I keep thinking about it. I have spent a fortune following tours down under, I was in Melbourne in 92 when GB dicked the Aussies. The furore in the press against the ref the following week was unbelievable. Sufficient to say we were slaughtered by the ref in the decider at Brisbane.

Well said.

All undone by the fact that Halls hand is travelling in a downward motion and at some considerable speed which means he's meeting the upward motion of that end of the ball with a downward force. TRY

"Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure""

I didn't realise that there was a pressure measurement as part of the video ref process. Can someone show me the button on the Sky screen? They do talk some rubbish.

But then seeing who said it and his however many ineffective years at Red Hall, its hardly surprising.

So can anyone explain why [i"bluffing to get the drop out"[/i could be prioritized above [i"bluffing to GET THE TRY AND WIN THE PHUCKING GAME!"[/i in a professional player's mind?

Can anyone [uTHAT DUMB[/u be [i"the best winger in the world"?[/i

So, by suggesting there wasnt enough downward pressure, he is actually confirming there was 'some' downward pressure? In my world, some always is more than none so, by rights, its a try??

It's a very desperate attempt to cover up for the fact that Australia and NZ conspired to have to have home refs ref their games and a botched last minute call by an Australian referee in Australia gave Australia an undeserved win. Admitting it would mean we HAD to go to neutral refs so the PR has gone in to overdrive

Yeah, this angered me. Is he really that ignorant?

I too missed that bit in the laws where a unit of pressure was provided, plus a minimum value that must be met.

Found an example of a similar incident yet? You know, one where the ref's brother makes a last minute decision that's wrong to disallow a match winning try and where the ref & video ref are directly employed by the side who benefits from that decision?

Plus he tried to touch down as it was rolling dead. He can't have thought he got decent contact.

To counteract the ex-Aussie refs' opinions, Stuart Cummins is reported as saying it was a try (today's Times)! So, we have our own "expert" to say it was. That'll show those Aussies.

As I hinted at back, we need official clarification of how the Law pertaining to grounding a ball on the floor should be interpreted. Seems wholly inconsistent in its current interpretation. If necessary the Law should be redrafted for clarity. One of the main problems with rugby as a sport is the big influence referees can have. There are enough subjective calls to make without having a lack of clarity on such a simple matter as what constitutes grounding.

If we hadn't bombed two golden opportunities the last try would not have been an issue, the Aussies also had a dubious try disallowed which seems to have been overlooked here

Nothing dubious about the disallowed Inglis try - blatant obstruction on Smith.

We did bomb those opportunities true. But that is irrelevant.

There was nothing dubious about Inglis try being disallowed, it was a textbook example of obstruction and was refereed entirely consistently with how that offence had been refereed for a few years now.

It's not my favourite rule but Inglis ran behind his man and then went through a gap if not created certainly exacerbated by the dummy runner not only being in the defensive line but impacting the defender. If that type of try isn't ruled out, I don't know why we would have an obstruction rule in place