'14 // 4N Wk 2 // Sun 4pm // AUS 16-12 ENG // AAMI

[BuffaloRules]

:lol: ..Just wow...at the level of whinging at what was a 30/70 call at best.

I don't think there is a 30/70 chance they are going to change the call now either...

 

[Evil Homer]

:lol: ..Just wow...at the level of whinging at what was a 30/70 call at best.

It's not a '30/70 call', there's no interpretation, here is a photo of the ball on the ground with Ryan Hall's hand on top of it:

 

[8Ball]

I don't think there is a 30/70 chance they are going to change the call now either...

It is amusing reading claims of a "fix" when the player in question didn't think he scored either and didn't celebrate. Perhaps he's in on it too...

 

[alien]

if he had downward pressure (in frame 2), then wouldnt right hand side of the ball have went up first in frame 3???

with all these different frames, it reminds me of the jfk conspiracy..

 

[TheDMC]

The pictures are in this thread a few pages back. For mine it was the correct call all round. Inglis forced the ball backwards into the ground, Hall brushed it but had no downward pressure. He didnt even know he touched it, and nobody in his team celebrated a try. They went back for the line dropout. Then replays showed he might have grounded it and suddenly theyre claiming it was a try. If he thought he had even possibly touched it, he would have gotten up celebrating a try. How much pressure could he have possibly had if he didnt even try to sell a try?

Thevsame argument that says Hall grounded iy, can be used to say Inglis did. As for his intent in grounding it, he can eadily say he tried to. Regardless of how it looks, his intention was obviously makung the ball dead and he could have been hedging his bets in grounding and pushing it dead, hence doing both poorly. Not that I think he was doing that, but single frames can be used to prove that and give enough doubt to stick with onfield decision.

So much wrongness in one post.

No downward pressure. Yes, downward prssure,Hand (finger) going down onto the ball onto the ground. Any contact, even a smidgen, will be exerting downward pressure, physically has to.
How much pressure? Irrelevant, its not about "how much"
He didn't know he touched it, and nobody in his team celebrated. Again, irrelevant.

 

[BuffaloRules]

It is amusing reading claims of a "fix" when the player in question didn't think he scored either and didn't celebrate. Perhaps he's in on it too...

And the coach McNamara who apparently is saying he was "unsure" whether it was a try.

How far does this conspiracy go I wonder?

Should the Australian Federal Police be making some enquiries into this?

 

[Chook Norris]

He has said he knew he touched it but wanted to get on with a quick DO, he obviously didnt think he had scored which is irrelevant.

Like others have said, he was more than likely just being honest :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

It's not a '30/70 call', there's no interpretation, here is a photo of the ball on the ground with Ryan Hall's hand on top of it:

your case rests on a blur and you now claim his hand is on top of it :lol:

no try

 

[blaza88z]

why are people talking about downward pressure, I thought you needed control

 

[8Ball]

It's not a '30/70 call', there's no interpretation, here is a photo of the ball on the ground with Ryan Hall's hand on top of it:

The on-field ref called it no-try in play, which was a perfectly reasonable call to make at full speed.

Slowed down and zoomed in to that exact frame you keep showing, you could generously say it possibly looks like a fingernail scraping from that frame (possibly). There were other frames I remember from watching that suggested he didn't ground it. And as mentioned, there was the Inglis fingernail scrape before that which also casts doubt on it being a try. Lots of evidence to bring into doubt the fact that its a try. Certainly enough doubt to not overturn the onfield decision (which was clearly fair in normal time). Hilarious to suggest from this that the fix was on...


Either way, it doesn't matter. You've already made up your mind.

 

[Evil Homer]

your case rests on a blur and you now claim his hand is on top of it :lol:

no try

Mate, his hand is on top of the ball and in the next frame it's pushing down and his finger is bending backwards, still on the ball. I'm not sure what the sharpness of the picture has to do with anything. It's a try, you can't just put your fingers in your ears and yell no try when it clearly is.

 

[Evil Homer]

The on-field ref called it no-try in play, which was a perfectly reasonable call to make at full speed.

Slowed down and zoomed in to that exact frame you keep showing, you could generously say it possibly looks like a fingernail scraping from that frame (possibly). There were other frames I remember from watching that suggested he didn't ground it. And as mentioned, there was the Inglis fingernail scrape before that which also casts doubt on it being a try. Lots of evidence to bring into doubt the fact that its a try. Certainly enough doubt to not overturn the onfield decision (which was clearly fair in normal time). Hilarious to suggest from this that the fix was on...


Either way, it doesn't matter. You've already made up your mind.

I've made up my mind that it was a try, because it was. Every single frame used by the video ref has been posted in this thread and they all show a try. Inglis did not intentionally ground the ball so none of that is relevant. The fact that they were slow-mo frames and not real time is not relevant. If you've ever watched RL you will know that that is how the video ref works, it slows the play down to ensure the correct call, except in this case the Aussie video ref ignored the correct call because he didn't want to cost his team the game. Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't have even been there in the first place because this tournament was supposed to have neutral refs, that is until Australia lost last week and were in danger of going out.

 

[8Ball]

Can someone please rest a fingernail on the side of a football (with no downward pressure) and take a picture of it just for lols..

 

[BuffaloRules]

But wouldn't he have been there anyway, even with "neutral refs"?

 

[El Diablo]

Mate, his hand is on top of the ball and in the next frame it's pushing down and his finger is bending backwards, still on the ball. I'm not sure what the sharpness of the picture has to do with anything. It's a try, you can't just put your fingers in your ears and yell no try when it clearly is.

 

[alien]

 

[8Ball]

I had another look at it cause it was causing so much fuss.. Fingernail stuff at best. People suggesting there was enough to overturn the onfield decision are kidding themselves.

 

[magpie4ever]

:lol: ..Just wow...at the level of whinging at what was a 30/70 call at best.

Because they are Pommies, it's part of their DNA. Couldn't have happened to a big mob of arseholes, gotta luv it.:lol:

TRY, TRY, TRY :lol: Yeah, read the result on the scoreboard.

 

[alien]

 

[magpie4ever]

Evil Homer needs to get out of his two dimensional world and realise there is a 3rd dimension (called depth).

The photos presented show f**k all (only height and length).