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

[Apey]

Lols at this his finger bent back so that means downward pressure nonsense. More like it bent back from the upward force of the ball bouncing, which is exactly what's happening in those frames that keep being posted.

 

[Canard]

Make less sense have you seen how much his finger is bent it has to be on the ground to bend it that much.. The ball bouncing of the ground could itself not bend it that much...

So much stupidity in this thread now.. I was hoping for a no try but clearly it is a try...

You can argue reasons for it being a try.

But you can't say "clearly" it was a try.

Look, I have more sympathy for dodgy calls than most NRL fans, and a part of me wanted England to win, because its good for game (despite what Magpie4Ever and other Union fans say).

But this wasn't as big a deal as some are making out.

 

[THE CHAMP]

try.
I've had enough of some of the embarassing shit getting posted by some roos fans.

 

[Canard]

try.
I've had enough of some of the embarassing shit getting posted by some roos fans.

Boo f**king hoo.

Its a forum mate, discussion should be encouraged not bullied.

 

[Evil Homer]

You can argue reasons for it being a try.

But you can't say "clearly" it was a try.

Look, I have more sympathy for dodgy calls than most NRL fans, and a part of me wanted England to win, because its good for game (despite what Magpie4Ever and other Union fans say).

But this wasn't as big a deal as some are making out.

The big deal was the fact that it was an Aussie video ref making the call. TBH I probably wouldn't have even thought to comment if the decision was made by a neutral ref, in that case you could just put it down as one of those things, England were unlucky, blah blah blah. The issue here is that the ARL have caused this controversy by insisting on appointing their own Australian referees even though neutral refs were agreed on by all nations at the start of the tournament. I'm 100% convinced that the video ref botched the call because he's an Aussie and didn't want to be the one to put Australia out of the tournament, and that just isn't a position he should have been in.

 

[no name]

So if the VR was non-Australian that's a no try, but because the VR is Australian it should be a try?

That's some f**ked up logic right there.

 

[Evil Homer]

Huh? :? Try reading my post a little slower next time.

 

[Canard]

The big deal was the fact that it was an Aussie video ref making the call. TBH I probably wouldn't have even thought to comment if the decision was made by a neutral ref, in that case you could just put it down as one of those things, England were unlucky, blah blah blah. The issue here is that the ARL have caused this controversy by insisting on appointing their own Australian referees even though neutral refs were agreed on by all nations at the start of the tournament. I'm 100% convinced that the video ref botched the call because he's an Aussie and didn't want to be the one to put Australia out of the tournament, and that just isn't a position he should have been in.

I agree with your point, I think it should have been neutral refs. Just to rule out the perception of bias. Shit I even reckon refs who were ex-players shouldn't be referring games there old clubs/countries are involved.

I can't fathom why the refereeing teams weren't swapped around this weekend.

The last part I think is a stretch, it wasn't that "controversial" a call.

Unfortunately, like players the pool to choose from isn't great.

Also is it 100% confirmed that the ARLC appointed the referee and England had no say in the decision?

 

[Evil Homer]

Also is it 100% confirmed that the ARLC appointed the referee and England had no say in the decision?

Referee was appointed by a panel of an Australian, a Kiwi and an Englishman. Apparently the English bloke spent four hours trying to argue that a neutral ref was necessary but was outvoted by the Aussie and the Kiwi, who both appointed their own refs for their matches.

 

[Matterhorn]

Lets just say tables are turned - all opposite.

England leading with a minute or so to go. Ball rolls into the in goal as before. England try to knock the ball away but GI dives over the top.

Sent upstairs for a decision - oh hang on wait a sec.

This cant be, GI may of got something on this. Video ref reviewing it a 100 times.

What's the decision? We'll never know.

The point is if Australia are coming from behind in a must win game that means if they lose they are out - the decision would be viewed very differently.

And imagine if it was given. The "Great Escape" would be talked about for years making kangaroo highlight reels, like the Meninga try before it.

All speculation but worth mentioning....

 

[Canard]

Lets just say tables are turned - all opposite.

England leading with a minute or so to go. Ball rolls into the in goal as before. England try to knock the ball away but GI dives over the top.

Sent upstairs for a decision - oh hang on wait a sec.

This cant be, GI may of got something on this. Video ref reviewing it a 100 times.

What's the decision? We'll never know.

The point is if Australia are coming from behind in a must win game that means if they lose they are out - the decision would be viewed very differently.

And imagine if it was given. The "Great Escape" would be talked about for years making kangaroo highlight reels, like the Meninga try before it.

All speculation but worth mentioning....

Your 100% right that there would be Australian fans bitching and moaning about the call.

That doesn't make the decision any different though, it just shows that perception is everything.

 

[mxlegend99]

You cant overrule the onfield referee without sufficient evidence. No frame proves downward pressure. All any frame shows is his fingertip brushing the ball. You couldnt possibly have less pressure forcing the ball down short of missing it entirely.

Yes his finger bends, as the ball is bouncing from the ground and his lack of pressure fails to change the bounce. The vudeo referee got it right and explained why. Just look at the frames and tell mehow they prpve downward pressure when the end he has a finger tip on continues to rise and bend his finger back as it does so. He didnt get enough of a grip or pressure on the ball to ground it, he brushed it as it was on the ground.With no pressure at all. Those frames prove this to be the case, and at the very least offer enough doubt to stick with the onfield decision.

I guarantee had Australia been in that situation, people would blow up massively had the try been awarded despite no proof of downward pressure and the onfield decision being no try.

In motion its obvious his touch has zero effect on the ball. Hou could a pinkie brushing the end of a ball for a hundredth of a second effect the ball? Thays why his pinkie bends and the ball keeps bouncing on its path.

 

[magpie4ever]

You can argue reasons for it being a try.

But you can't say "clearly" it was a try.

Look, I have more sympathy for dodgy calls than most NRL fans, and a part of me wanted England to win, because its good for game (despite what Magpie4Ever and other Union fans say).

But this wasn't as big a deal as some are making out.

WFT, you Benjamin Franklin (aka: dog traitor) - get out of my country.

Tony, Tony, metadata this bastard.

Evil Homer, you need to get out of your 2d TV world and into the real 3d world. No try, I say and I'm always right. You know it is true.

 

[Canard]

WFT, you Benjamin Franklin (aka: dog traitor) - get out of my country.

Tony, Tony, metadata this bastard.

Evil Homer, you need to get out of your 2d TV world and into the real 3d world. No try, I say and I'm always right. You know it is true.

Do you mean Benedict Arnold? Or are you saying that anyone who fought for the Americans against the English was a traitor?

The ironing is delicious is so.

 

[magpie4ever]

Do you mean Benedict Arnold? Or are you saying that anyone who fought for the Americans against the English was a traitor?

The ironing is delicious is so.

That's the dude, you know his type well.;-)

And stop eating your ironing, it will clog you up. Oh, the irony of the ironing comment.

 

[alien]

imagine if it was awarded a "t-r-y". the poms would be calling it "the finger of god". we'd never hear the end of it, kinda like now. rugby league hasnt had a scandal like this about a finger since the days of hopoate.

 

[alien]

 

[undertaker]

This post is more specifically addressed to the likes of ppl like Slothfield, Fitzsimmons etc. who continually bag international RL. Ok, the crowds may not be as large as the ones Union get for internationals and the crowd growth potential may not be as large as the one that turned out in Chicago to see the All Blacks, but this year's tournament has been far more exciting the the Rugby Union four nations, and it bodes well for the 2016 four nations in the Northern Hemisphere as well as the potential to expand it to a five nations (the other team being the winner of the European Cup to join the winner of the Pacific Cup and the big 3).

The good thing so far about this year's four nations is that going into the last round of matches in the qualifying phase, all 4 teams are still in contention to either qualify or miss out on the final. Being on 4 competition points, NZ have the best chance of making the final. A win, draw or loss by LESS THAN 9pts against England will be enough to make the final. A loss by 9pts or more will mean England overtakes NZ on F/A and Australia can eliminate NZ from finals contention with at least a 25pt win against Samoa (in the best case scenario for NZ where England wins by 9pts, requiring Australia to win by the maximum number of points needed to overtake them).

For England, a win by 9pts or more gets them into the final. A loss opens the door for Australia and Samoa, and a draw opens the door for Australia. A win by 8pts or less means Australia will have to win by 17-24pts against Samoa to eliminate England from finals contention.

For Australia though, the most difficult route for them to qualify will be if England beats the Kiwis by 9pts. In that case, Australia will have to beat Samoa by at least 25pts to make the final and given Samoa's form this tournament, that outcome is definitely no guarantee (even though an Australian win is most likely though).

For Samoa, they need NZ to beat England to have any chance. If England wins or draws, Samoa is out of contention to make the final. The most difficult route for Samoa to qualify will be if England loses by 1pt, in which case Samoa will need to beat Australia by at least 9pts to make the final.

In summary, I'm really looking forward to this weeks' matches. All teams have something to play for this time around, compared to the previous 4 nations tournaments where the 4th team - PNG and Wales were just making up the numbers. Samoa have been vast improvement on the 2010 PNG and 2011 Wales campaigns and with more matches and game time to try and improve combinations and capitalise on missed opportunities, Samoa remains the biggest threat to the big 3, and the best chance of all the countries outside of the big 3 to make the 2017 RLWC final. Regarding the four nations tournament though, the bottom line is that the result and margin from Saturday's NZ vs England match will be crucial on who makes the final.

 

[dogz08]

at least they support their team no matter what..

 

[Bovrick]

Snippic

We wish, the papers will have barely mentioned the match.