What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

4 Nations Game 4: Australia v England


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

Y2Eel

First Grade
Messages
8,176
They will stop posting it when you stop ignoring it.

Hall couldnt have scored if the ball was already grounded. You cant possibly argue Hall grounded it and Inglis didn't, not when youre looking at nearly identical evidence for both players.

:lol:

So either both players ground it, or neither do. Both are no try, its just a difference of a 20m restart or a dropout.

Incorrect like i just posted Inglis was trying to propel it dead..

Hall was grounding it so two different situations.
 

Swarzey

Bench
Messages
4,165
So wouldn't hat be a line dropout against Australia? Either way tu look at it England were robbed

Don't get me wrong, I believe it should have been a drop out and I believe England were robbed of another opportunity, but it didn't cost them the game and to say they were robbed of it is a bit too much.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,270
Apparently McNamara agrees with me.

On field ref awarded no try, and there wasnt conclusive evidence for the video ref to overturn it.

No conspiracy call from him?
 

Danish

Referee
Messages
31,835
They will stop posting it when you stop ignoring it.

Hall couldnt have scored if the ball was already grounded. You cant possibly argue Hall grounded it and Inglis didn't, not when youre looking at nearly identical evidence for both players.

:lol:

So either both players ground it, or neither do. Both are no try, its just a difference of a 20m restart or a dropout.


Inglis scooped the ball up off the ground. Where exactly do you think he grounded it? Pictures will do, as it's very easy to get pictures of Hall grounding it.

Whichever way you look at it, the wrong decision was made. Either it's a try, or a line dropout. There is no correct decision that would see australia get the ball.
 

Evil Homer

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,178
Inglis scooped the ball up off the ground. Where exactly do you think he grounded it? Pictures will do, as it's very easy to get pictures of Hall grounding it.

Whichever way you look at it, the wrong decision was made. Either it's a try, or a line dropout. There is no correct decision that would see australia get the ball.
He's using this pic as evidence:

B1a3u-4IYAAjgiJ.jpg


Despite the fact that the replay clearly shows Inglis scooping the ball with no downward pressure, that Inglis would need to be intentionally grounding the ball in order to diffuse the play, that the VR didn't even adjudicate on this decision which makes it totally irrelevant in the context of the no try, and that all this has been pointed out to that poster several times already.
 

no name

Coach
Messages
19,081

From frame 2 to 3, the ball is rising which says to me that he doesn't 'ground' it.

As I've said earlier I think the Poms have the right to feel hard done by given some of the tries that are awarded these days re grounding, but I don't think it is a try.
 

Danish

Referee
Messages
31,835
Don't get me wrong, I believe it should have been a drop out and I believe England were robbed of another opportunity, but it didn't cost them the game and to say they were robbed of it is a bit too much.

Well I could go back to our winning try coming off the back of a set that we shouldn't have had after George Burgess was blatantly stripped of the ball up the other end... Although I do like the poetic justice of a burgess NOT getting a strip penalty after how many times they just drop it cold for souths but get the call :lol:

Hall touched the ball on the ground. That is beyond dispute. Unless someone can produce evidence that inglis did the same (remembering grounding must have intent, since defenders can touch the ball in their in goal and not automatically concede a line drop out) then I'm calling it a robbing
 

no name

Coach
Messages
19,081
Well I could go back to our winning try coming off the back of a set that we shouldn't have had after George Burgess was blatantly stripped of the ball up the other end... Although I do like the poetic justice of a burgess NOT getting a strip penalty after how many times they just drop it cold for souths but get the call :lol:

Hall touched the ball on the ground. That is beyond dispute. Unless someone can produce evidence that inglis did the same (remembering grounding must have intent, since defenders can touch the ball in their in goal and not automatically concede a line drop out) then I'm calling it a robbing

Even though there was no downward pressure?
 

mxlegend99

Referee
Messages
23,005
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.

Not that it matters now. Everyone has seen all the same evidence and made up their own minds. Plus the decision cant be overturned now even if it was wrong. Samoa have been f**ked harder then any team so far. They could have had two wins with a few calls. I think thst Samoa and NZ are more deserving of being in the finals then the Poms or Aussies. Playing with much more heart and passion. Higher quality stuff too.
 

Y2Eel

First Grade
Messages
8,176
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.

Not that it matters now. Everyone has seen all the same evidence and made up their own minds. Plus the decision cant be overturned now even if it was wrong. Samoa have been f**ked harder then any team so far. They could have had two wins with a few calls. I think thst Samoa and NZ are more deserving of being in the finals then the Poms or Aussies. Playing with much more heart and passion. Higher quality stuff too.

His pinky bent like all hell when he touched the ball i say pressure..
 

Evil Homer

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,178
^ Another shot from about a second after he actually touched the ball down. Great work champ.
 

DURRRHURRR

Juniors
Messages
746
He didnt even know he touched it, and nobody in his team celebrated a try. They went back for the line dropout.

I just wonder if a confident celebration might have seen a different decision. For me it is a try , the pinky bent back as he touched the ball, the ball was on the ground at the time but it seemed the players were surprised he even touched it.

Also is it time we start looking at super slo-mo camera's to aid in these decisions
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,411
Apparently McNamara agrees with me.

On field ref awarded no try, and there wasnt conclusive evidence for the video ref to overturn it.

No conspiracy call from him?

when did they change the rlif rules to match the NRL's re deciding the try before it went up to VR? My understanding that it is still the VR's decision and benefit of the doubt still stands?
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,411
I just wonder if a confident celebration might have seen a different decision. For me it is a try , the pinky bent back as he touched the ball, the ball was on the ground at the time but it seemed the players were surprised he even touched it.

Also is it time we start looking at super slo-mo camera's to aid in these decisions

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.
 

BuffaloRules

Coach
Messages
14,270
when did they change the rlif rules to match the NRL's re deciding the try before it went up to VR? My understanding that it is still the VR's decision and benefit of the doubt still stands?

In not sure, but Im assuming McNamara would (should) know being the English coach and all.

And if its not required, then why are the refs giving their opinion at all?

It has been happening in the other games right?
 

8Ball

First Grade
Messages
5,132
:lol: ..Just wow...at the level of whinging at what was a 30/70 call at best.
 
Top