4nations | Australia v England | aami park | sun 2nd nov

[franklin2323]

The point is that at least Perenara's mistakes can be put down to incompetence, appointing Austalian refs just opens up a can of worms with regards to any decisions that favor Australia, especially when this sort of thing inevitably happens every single time. And the thing is that there was no need to have an Aussie ref, neutral refs were agreed on at the start of the tournament, Australia have just forced through their own appointments and then these refs have directly screwed England out of the win, it's a shocking state of affairs really.

Again though scroll through any game day thread on here. You will see pretty much every game people hate the refereeing. Unlike other sports the referee pool isn't big enough to choose on nationally.

 

[Evil Homer]

Again though scroll through any game day thread on here. You will see pretty much every game people hate the refereeing. Unlike other sports the referee pool isn't big enough to choose on nationally.

Yeah, it is, there was a Kiwi ref readily available for this game but the Aussies just didn't go with him and insisted on their own officials. I'd take terrible refereeing over biased refereeing any day of the week.

 

[LeedsStorm]

Oh and all this rubbish about an Aussie ref.....
You are aware that referee appointments are made by the Four Nations board right?
A board that consists of 1 Aussie, a Kiwi and a Pom.

Exactly. Jon Sharpe might as well come home. He's just going to get outvoted every time

 

[RoosTah]

Anyway, the incessant whinging about what was in reality a very fair decision aside, I reckon that match was a bloody brilliant advertisement for international rugby league and think it's a travesty they couldn't sell it out.

England were great for large chunks of the game against the Kangaroos, who looked off the pace for much of the first half. I really want to see more made of these England v Aus games and really wish the seasons in both hemispheres could have a month shaved off them so we could accommodate internationals better.

 

[macnaz]

He has no downward pressure, those frames prove it. :lol: The ball bounes upward (as the referee explained it was rising) and his finger bends as a result. No pressure from him pushing the ball into the grass, or else it would have bounced the other end up first.

You would be claiming it was a no try had Austtalia scored it and it been awarded.

I can only see a ball on the ground with a finger on it ?

 

[franklin2323]

Yeah, it is, there was a Kiwi ref readily available for this game but the Aussies just didn't go with him and insisted on their own officials. I'd take terrible refereeing over biased refereeing any day of the week.

That Same kiwi that referees in the NRL every week? That would referee the same style.

Ideally you would have 4 referees all from neutral countries but we are a while off that in RL

 

[Evil Homer]

That Same kiwi that referees in the NRL every week? That would referee the same style.

Ideally you would have 4 referees all from neutral countries but we are a while off that in RL

Yeah but like I said, the actual style and decisions that the referee makes aren't really important, it's just the potential for it to appear biased. Even if you think it was a no-try or an honest mistake or whatever, there's no denying that an Aussie video ref controversially handing Australia a win in the last seconds of a crucial match to stop them from being knocked out of a tournament is not a good look for the sport.

Ideally both the NRL and Super League would put more effort into developing a broader base of referees from different countries. Of course it wouldn't really make any difference because the Aussies have shown that they will just force the appointment of their own refs anyway even with a neutral ref available.

Exactly. Jon Sharpe might as well come home. He's just going to get outvoted every time

I'm hearing that Sharp spent 4 hours trying to convince the Aussies and Kiwis that a neutral ref was essential, but was still outvoted.

 

[LeedsStorm]

That Same kiwi that referees in the NRL every week? That would referee the same style.

Ideally you would have 4 referees all from neutral countries but we are a while off that in RL

See your point, but were there any complete howling referee performances in the recent world cup? All neutral refs in that comp.

It just comes down to (lack of) interest in the international game. Late 2000s there was meant to be a position made within the RLIF, supported by NRL and RFL that would be in charge of development of international refs and appointments for international games. Never happened. Too many Blue or Maroon tinted glasses around.

Which is tragic really. These games should be the pinnacle

 

[maccattack]

Anyone got footage of the try awarded to Jennings?

That to me was a dubious call.

Lets say that wasnt awarded.

Lets also say Aus get penalised for the late tackles on the England kicker. The whole context of the game has now changed. England might have scored off those penalties.

Then no one would be saying they should have wrapped the game up earlier.

England robbed.

I support the Kangaroos as much as any Aussie but I also love the game. I hate to see its integrity bought into question and thats what has happened here.

 

[Scubby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3cTdl__84c

 

[Evil Homer]

Anyone got footage of the try awarded to Jennings?

That to me was a dubious call.

Close call but I think it was a try, it would've been extremely harsh to disallow that and I said so at the time TBH.

 

[RL The greatest game]

Lets put a different angle on it.
Do my fellow posters think the VR would have given the try if Australia had been in England position?

 

[Canard]

Anyone got footage of the try awarded to Jennings?

That to me was a dubious call.

Lets say that wasnt awarded.

Lets also say Aus get penalised for the late tackles on the England kicker. The whole context of the game has now changed. England might have scored off those penalties.

Then no one would be saying they should have wrapped the game up earlier.

England robbed.

I support the Kangaroos as much as any Aussie but I also love the game. I hate to see its integrity bought into question and thats what has happened here.

England might not have scored if that Inglis penalty on taking the player out wasn't given either.

Its swings and roundabouts.

 

[RoosTah]

Anyone got footage of the try awarded to Jennings?

That to me was a dubious call.

Lets say that wasnt awarded.

Lets also say Aus get penalised for the late tackles on the England kicker. The whole context of the game has now changed. England might have scored off those penalties.

Then no one would be saying they should have wrapped the game up earlier.

England robbed.

I support the Kangaroos as much as any Aussie but I also love the game. I hate to see its integrity bought into question and thats what has happened here.

FFS mate, the way some of you guys are carrying on here you'd think this was akin to a Rugby League "hand of god" and it's just not.

There were two contentious calls and the Jennings case was far clearer than the Hall case in terms of touching the ball down.

Let's also remember that the English got away with a blatant trip that would generally be a send-off and ultimately shouldn't have had to rely on a couple line-ball calls to win a game against such an under-strength outfit.

I mean jesus boys, build a bridge and get the f**k over it - this was a great game and the decisions are only getting you blue in the face because you wanted the result to go the other way. I mean heck, I was semi hoping England would get up, but I really didn't see anything like the controversy you lot are making this out to be.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Lets put a different angle on it.
Do my fellow posters think the VR would have given the try if Australia had been in England position?

Nope. No one in their right mind would consider that a try

 

[RoosTah]

Lets put a different angle on it.
Do my fellow posters think the VR would have given the try if Australia had been in England position?

No. His pinky finger brushed the side of the f**king ball as it's bouncing up. I've seen a million better qualified tries disallowed in the NRL and honestly don't get how you can think it should have been awarded.

It reminds me a little of a Roosters match earlier in the year when Tupou badly lost control of the ball as he was placing it, but it never lost "contact" with two of his fingers over the top - the ref disallowed it and Fittler was on the sideline saying that whilst by the letter of the law you could make a case either way he was happy with the call, because cases like that where the play is barely touching the ball didn't deserve a try.

 

[maccattack]

Close call but I think it was a try, it would've been extremely harsh to disallow that and I said so at the time TBH.

Fair enough. Im happy with that. Wasnt convinced at the time but now i see it.

Still, the late tackles should have been penalised. I wonder if the ref was intimidated.

Roostah. There is conjecture and people have a right to argue. You seem to think that people should "move on" just because you say so. Are you really that arrogant?

 

[Evil Homer]

No. His pinky finger brushed the side of the f**king ball as it's bouncing up. I've seen a million better qualified tries disallowed in the NRL and honestly don't get how you can think it should have been awarded.

It reminds me a little of a Roosters match earlier in the year when Tupou badly lost control of the ball as he was placing it, but it never lost "contact" with two of his fingers over the top - the ref disallowed it and Fittler was on the sideline saying that whilst by the letter of the law you could make a case either way he was happy with the call, because cases like that where the play is barely touching the ball didn't deserve a try.

Was the call in that case made by a video ref who supported the team that the Roosters were playing against?

Anyway, was is a try because he touched the ball down. It doesn't matter if he didn't touch it down all that much, even if he touched it down for a fraction of a second with the tiniest part of his fingertips it's still a try as long as there is downward pressure, they are the rules of the game and you can't just pick and choose when to apply them, especially in a major international match.

 

[franklin2323]

It reminds me a little of a Roosters match earlier in the year when Tupou badly lost control of the ball as he was placing it, but it never lost "contact" with two of his fingers over the top - the ref disallowed it and Fittler was on the sideline saying that whilst by the letter of the law you could make a case either way he was happy with the call, because cases like that where the play is barely touching the ball didn't deserve a try.

Barba against I think Bulldogs was given a try for a very similar situation as Hall. I think neither should be a try but the law says he did enough to be given a try. In that same ruling GI grounded it. Drop out should of been the correct call.

 

[Evil Homer]

Barba against I think Bulldogs was given a try for a very similar situation as Hall. I think neither should be a try but the law says he did enough to be given a try. In that same ruling GI grounded it. Drop out should of been the correct call.

Under international rules a defender needs to intentionally ground the ball to diffuse it in-goal, so what Inglis did was irrelevant.