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

[miguel de cervantes]

I think there is only one solution here. Teams playing Australia should demand neutral referees and refuse to play without them. Hopefully this incident is the one that sets the rule in stone.

If England don't come out this week and ask why this wasn't the case and why it shouldn't be the case then it will never change and Australia will keep getting away with it. Why doesn't anyone have a set of balls?

 

[strong_latte]

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 just turns the whole thing into a joke.

Who says they've been wrong? They call them "50-50 calls" for a reason. Again - this was line ball and that before picture doesn't do you any favours... it still looks 50-50 at best, and that's at SUPER slow mo, which is always more flattering. At normal speed it never looks close to a try.

 

[Evil Homer]

I think there is only one solution here. Teams playing Australia should demand neutral referees and refuse to play without them. Hopefully this incident is the one that sets the rule in stone.

If England don't come out this week and ask why this wasn't the case and why it shouldn't be the case then it will never change.

They should have refused to play full stop when the Aussies changed the rules mid-tournament and demanded their own refs, sadly McNamara is a coward who will happily bend over and get f**ked by the Aussies, I'll be amazed if he even makes any sort of complaint.

 

[strong_latte]

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.

Bahahaha well now it's clear you're getting upset. You're name is very apt champ. Oh, and typing slowly isn't like talking slowly - it doesn't actually effect the speed with which I read the final product. In fact it's really more indicative of your own level of ineptness that you would think it would.

But anyway, as for the decision I'm done arguing with you sooks. it was line ball and you lost - like you have to us for a solid 50 years now. It's just a little harder for you boys because this time you got so close and you were playing our most injury depleted team in a couple generations.

But the game is over. Suck it up princess and move on ;-) .

 

[Evil Homer]

Who says they've been wrong? They call them "50-50 calls" for a reason. Again - this was line ball and that before picture doesn't do you any favours... it still looks 50-50 at best, and that's at SUPER slow mo, which is always more flattering. At normal speed it never looks close to a try.

Who gives a f**k what it looks like at normal speed? The slow-mo shows it was a clear try and that is literally all that matters. Some of these excuses are embarrassing. Have some integrity even if your national team don't.

 

[donny donny]

At normal speed it never looks close to a try.

Good job video refs have slow motion replays then.

 

[Bazal]

Ok. Lets assume Hall did get downward pressure. No one has yet answered the previously posed question....why does Inglis touching the ball on the ground with his fingertips not count as downward pressure and thus negate whatever hall does anyway? Exact same level of contact.

 

[Chook Norris]

Who says they've been wrong? They call them "50-50 calls" for a reason. Again - this was line ball and that before picture doesn't do you any favours... it still looks 50-50 at best, and that's at SUPER slow mo, which is always more flattering. At normal speed it never looks close to a try.

Plenty hate it that video refs can slow things down frame by frame, and they argue for video decisions to be made in normal motion.. yet in this instance people seem happy to go by the frame by frame interpretation. In normal motion, you'd be crazy to give that a try. You can seriously not say there is downward pressure. Even in slow motion it is highly highly dubious that there is downward pressure

 

[Evil Homer]

Ok. Lets assume Hall did get downward pressure. No one has yet answered the previously posed question....why does Inglis touching the ball on the ground with his fingertips not count as downward pressure and thus negate whatever hall does anyway? Exact same level of contact.

The ball needs to be intentionally grounded by a defender to diffuse the play.

 

[donny donny]

Inglis clearly pushed the ball forwards rather than grounding it.

 

[maccattack]

If youre happy to say Hall grounded the ball, why not use the same standard of grounding on Inglis? He grounded it first, with more fingers and more oressure then Hall or Jennings.

I dont think so.

 

[deluded pom?]

Bahahaha well now it's clear you're getting upset. You're name is very apt champ. Oh, and typing slowly isn't like talking slowly - it doesn't actually effect the speed with which I read the final product. In fact it's really more indicative of your own level of ineptness that you would think it would.

That's priceless. Laughing my fecking head off that you felt the need to explain that. Truly geniused.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

If you apply the same downward pressure argument to Hall, you have to apply it to Inglis half a second earlier. He forced the ball in goal in this case.

Also, I've watched the slow-mo replays that have appeared on Youtube - I just don't believe there is downward pressure. Showing still photos like the posts above is a psychological-optical illusion. Watching the slow-mo you see one end of the ball bouncing up that brushes his fingers, pushing them back, whilst the other end of the ball remains on the ground. For me this does not constitue downward pressure and these sort of tries should not be awarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0N7z3gdPtQE#t=2374

 

[Bazal]

The ball needs to be intentionally grounded by a defender to diffuse the play.

Is this rule different at International level to NRL level. Because at NRL level that is false. The ball need only be grounded, intent doesn't enter into it.

 

[RoosTah]

Ok. Lets assume Hall did get downward pressure. No one has yet answered the previously posed question....why does Inglis touching the ball on the ground with his fingertips not count as downward pressure and thus negate whatever hall does anyway? Exact same level of contact.

You can't mention that because then all the people complaining about conspiracies wouldn't have any ammunition.

Gotta say - great game though. Very intense all round and I reckon that as a spectacle that was better than Origin II this year (which whilst satisfying was very boring for an Origin).

We really need to make more of these Australia v England clashes - that was brilliant stuff! Just shame that the bloody Melbournians couldn't fill the ground out.

 

[RoosTah]

Plenty hate it that video refs can slow things down frame by frame, and they argue for video decisions to be made in normal motion.. yet in this instance people seem happy to go by the frame by frame interpretation. In normal motion, you'd be crazy to give that a try. You can seriously not say there is downward pressure. Even in slow motion it is highly highly dubious that there is downward pressure

Agreed. Slo-mo is necessary, but in cases where they're looking for a single frame to confirm whether a finger has touched a ball it becomes almost counter productive. There was no way in heck that was a try and people on here saying it was are just deluding themselves.

 

[Evil Homer]

Is this rule different at International level to NRL level. Because at NRL level that is false. The ball need only be grounded, intent doesn't enter into it.

The game is restarted with a drop-out by a defendingplayer from the centre of his goal line if:
(a)A defending player last touches the ball before it goes over the dead ball line or into touch in-goal.
(b)A defending player accidentally infringes in the in-goal area.
(c)A defending player intentionally touches down in the in-goal area.
(d)A defending player in possession is tackled in the in-goal area.

http://www.rlif.com/~media/docs/Rugby%20League%20International%20Laws%20of%20the%20Game%20-%20Sept%202013.pdf

I wouldn't be surprised if this is also the case in the NRL but it just isn't interpreted properly, it's not often you see players accidentally grounding the ball TBH.

 

[El Diablo]

no try

 

[Evil Homer]

no try

For what reason?

 

[El Diablo]

I think there is only one solution here. Teams playing Australia should demand neutral referees and refuse to play without them. Hopefully this incident is the one that sets the rule in stone.

If England don't come out this week and ask why this wasn't the case and why it shouldn't be the case then it will never change and Australia will keep getting away with it. Why doesn't anyone have a set of balls?

Samoa should have refused Perenara then