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

[Evil Homer]

Can the people arguing about the "downward pressure" nonsense explain to me how it is you apply "downward pressure" to an abject from it's side? I'd have thought the pressure needed to be coming from at least somewhere near the top.

In any case, even if the video ref was feeling particularly charitable and decided for some reason to award a finger brushing the side of a ball on its way out as "downward pressure" you'd have to agree those sorts of decisions (because they do happen from time to time) don't really deserve to be awarded as a try.

Hand clearly on top of the ball. Nobody cares if you think it 'deserves' a try or not, the rules are the rules.

Fingers bent back after applying downward pressure:

You can debate whether you think the video ref intentionally screwed England or not but don't pretend that this wasn't a fair grounding, there is enough conclusive evidence at this point that it was.

 

[LordLeague]

Best I could get but clearly shows fingers being bent backwards after touching the ball. Also ball fully flat on contact.

Oh dear!.... and to think the VR had this exact same footage. As completely crazy as this would have been, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TRY.

 

[strong_latte]

Hand clearly on top of the ball.

Nobody cares if you think it 'deserves' a try or not, the rules are the rules.

You can debate whether you think the video ref intentionally screwed England or not but don't pretend that this wasn't a fair grounding, there is enough conclusive evidence at this point that it was.

Mate, it wasn't a fair grounding and don't pretend you haven't seen plenty of decisions that looked more certain tries get awarded "no try". The Thaiday Origin drop and regather was awarded no-try and that was WAY clearer than this.

Seriously, it was line ball and if you think it's clear cut and that better groundings have failed to get awarded you're kidding yourself. Again - the point is how you interpret "downward PRESSURE" and in this case there didn't appear to be enough of the downward or the pressure part of the equation.

One thing I will say is how about f**king Inglis? I never get to support him - I'm a Roosters and Blues fan - apart from when he's playing for the Kangaroos, and when he does play for us, he suddenly becomes mortal and makes unforced errors like that?!

 

[Nothern]

Exactly those decisions do happen, because it was a try!!!

As I said before, neutral refs please. They may not be "as good" as other refs but surely better to be poor for both teams and not leaving a whiff of favouritism.

Would have been hugely interesting if the decision had to be made at other end.

And I still feel it matters not if a player celebrates or doesn't.

 

[strong_latte]

Exactly those decisions do happen, because it was a try!!!

As I said before, neutral refs please. They may not be "as good" as other refs but surely better to be poor for both teams and not leaving a whiff of favouritism.

Would have been hugely interesting if the decision had to be made at other end.

And I still feel it matters not if a player celebrates or doesn't.

Mate, it was the video ref so it was out of the "non neutral" on field ref's hand.

 

[deluded pom?]

The downward pressure argument is irrelevant because that isn't why the ref's brother didn't give the try. He claims the ball wasn't on the ground and on it's way up when Hall touches it when clearly that's BS.

 

[deluded pom?]

Mate, it was the video ref so it was out of the "non neutral" on field ref's hand.

You do know who the VR was don't you? Or are you being deliberately thick?

 

[Nothern]

I know it was the video ref.

Decisions like these just make the case for a full set of neutral officials all the stronger.

My wife doesn't follow League, after a brief explanation of what went on her response was "How did they let an Australian make the decision?" I am pretty sure that's what others think about our game.

 

[Evil Homer]

Mate, it was the video ref so it was out of the "non neutral" on field ref's hand.

The video ref was also an Aussie. Like I said in the other thread, even though it was a clear indisputable try I could accept a poor decision from a neutral ref. The fact that it was an Aussie video ref effectively winning the game for Australia with what looks like a blatant wrong call is the problem here, especially as this tournament was supposed to have neutral refs until Australia insisted on appointing their own officials for this match.

 

[strong_latte]

The downward pressure argument is irrelevant because that isn't why the ref's brother didn't give the try. He claims the ball wasn't on the ground and on it's way up when Hall touches it when clearly that's BS.

So the downward pressure argument is irrelevant because he is arguing the ball is on its way up from the bounce. Can you explain how that makes sense? Players who "bounce" the ball whilst losing control of it and just retaining finger tips on it have had tries taken off them all year for that very reason - because the ball isn't being forced.

Also, look at the angled picture above - that is pretty f**king supportive of the ref's decision.

 

[Nothern]

Homer, couldn't agree more.

 

[babyg]

Did England get any penalties that second. Some calls I was scratching my head why.

 

[Evil Homer]

^ 5-0 penalty count to Australia in the second half.

So the downward pressure argument is irrelevant because he is arguing the ball is on its way up from the bounce. Can you explain how that makes sense? Players who "bounce" the ball whilst losing control of it and just retaining finger tips on it have had tries taken off them all year for that very reason - because the ball isn't being forced.

Also, look at the angled picture above - that is pretty f**king supportive of the ref's decision.

The ball is flat on the ground with his fingers on top of it. It isn't even debatable. I know you're probably embarrassed that this is what it has come to for Australia, but there is just no way of defending what happened. And the thing is that every non-Australian called it the second the match officials were announced.

 

[strong_latte]

The video ref was also an Aussie. Like I said in the other thread, even though it was a clear indisputable try I could accept a poor decision from a neutral ref. The fact that it was an Aussie video ref effectively winning the game for Australia with what looks like a blatant wrong call is the problem here, especially as this tournament was supposed to have neutral refs until Australia insisted on appointing their own officials for this match.

Do you really believe that was a clear cut try? I've seen clearer decisions in games played in the midst of heavy fog - if you honestly think that was a clear cut decision I reckon you're kidding yourself. Either that or you just don't watch the sport outside of internationals. Because if you did you'd have seen countless decisions like this all year every year.

Again, was this clearer than the Thaiday no-try in Origin in your opinion?

 

[strong_latte]

^ 5-0 penalty count to Australia in the second half.
The ball is flat on the ground with his fingers on top of it. It isn't even debatable. I know you're probably embarrassed that this is what it has come to for Australia, but there is just no way of defending what happened. And the thing is that every non-Australian called it the second the match officials were announced.

You mean in this shot? The one where the fingers aren't touching the ball and it's on an upward tradjectory?

 

[deluded pom?]

I thought all the refs were neutral this year? Who do we think we are, no wonder everybody else hates us.

You said it mate, you said it.

 

[deluded pom?]

Do you really believe that was a clear cut try? I've seen clearer decisions in games played in the midst of heavy fog - if you honestly think that was a clear cut decision I reckon you're kidding yourself. Either that or you just don't watch the sport outside of internationals. Because if you did you'd have seen countless decisions like this all year every year.

Again, was this clearer than the Thaiday no-try in Origin in your opinion?

So two wrongs make a right?

 

[strong_latte]

So two wrongs make a right?

No, so some calls are just bloody unclear and whichever way you rule them people are going to be pissed.

Seriously boys - this is about as f**king line ball as calls get. You're all just pissed because you wanted England to get up.

 

[Evil Homer]

You mean in this shot? The one where the fingers aren't touching the ball and it's on an upward tradjectory?

Yeah, you should probably post the previous frame too.

Unless you think Hall is double-joined and his fingers are just bent backwards like that by magic.

Come on mate, this is getting ridiculous. The fact that other tries have been wrongly disallowed in the past doesn't mean that this wasn't a try. And the fact that the decision came from an Aussie video ref to hand Australia the win in the last minute of a crucial game of a tournament that was supposed to have neutral refs just turns the whole thing into a joke.

 

[deluded pom?]

So the downward pressure argument is irrelevant because he is arguing the ball is on its way up from the bounce. Can you explain how that makes sense? Players who "bounce" the ball whilst losing control of it and just retaining finger tips on it have had tries taken off them all year for that very reason - because the ball isn't being forced.

Also, look at the angled picture above - that is pretty f**king supportive of the ref's decision.

It's irrelevant because that's not why the try wasn't given in the VR's opinion. You can look at that picture all you like but even if Hall isn't touching the ball then why did the VR give a twenty tap restart? Because he said Hall DID touch the ball. I'm typing this slowly because it's obvious you're a bit geniused.