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

[Evil Homer]

By the rules it cant possibly be a try. No downward pressure as shown by any replay that is in motion. One end of the ball bounces against his little pinky. If he had pressure, the other end would have risen. But the ball continued on its way despite his pinky brushing it.

The evidence is insufficent to overturn the onfield referee. Hall gave himself up by not claiming a try, and so did his team by preparing to receive a drop out.

He had no downward pressure, therefore it cant be a try. His finger being bent is the result of the ball bouncing upward into his pinky. Sure similar tries have been awarded, but plenty of times they have been disallowed aswell. The onfield call had to stand.

Anytime its in motion its a clear no try. A single frame just proves he knocked it on. If any pom at all had thought it was a try, it may have been sent up as one and had insufficient evidence to be overturned.

The ball is on the ground with his fingers on top of it. It's not bouncing, there is no separation and his finger is bending back from the downward pressure being put on the ball. Where the ball goes afterwards is irrelevant. By the letter of the law it's a try.

Trying to defend cheating means you're as good as a cheat yourself. Do yourself a favor and accept that this was the wrong call.

 

[mxlegend99]

Imagine the situations are reversed and the Aussies score a try the same way. Everyone would be blowing up that it was no try and the video referee got it wrong. I would be happy he f**ked up, but would know it didn't deserve a try as he had no downward pressure.

His earlier decisions prove he can make impartial calls. Or else the poms have a try disallowed for obstruction, and another allowed ruling there was no obstruction. One video referee call goes against the team and its correct, but suddenly its a conspiracy. Sound like the Cowboys when there was a clear knock on in the leadup to their try aswell.

 

[mxlegend99]

The ball is on the ground with his fingers on top of it. It's not bouncing, there is no separation and his finger is bending back from the downward pressure being put on the ball. Where the ball goes afterwards is irrelevant. By the letter of the law it's a try.

Trying to defend cheating means you're as good as a cheat yourself. Do yourself a favor and accept that this was the wrong call.

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.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I only saw the 2nd half, and can't be bothered reading through this thread but has anything been made of the fact that pretty much every 2nd to 3rd tackle an Australian player would play the ball off the mark by 2-3 metres?

 

[bluey]

England's poor performance doesn't change the fact that Australia cheated to win.

If that was a try then so was Ingis first( you get one from obstruction yet ours was disallowed), you guys cannot have it all your own way

 

[bluey]

I only saw the 2nd half, and can't be bothered reading through this thread but has anything been made of the fact that pretty much every 2nd to 3rd tackle an Australian player would play the ball off the mark by 2-3 metres?

Both sides were guilty of that poor refereeing

 

[franklin2323]

:lol::lol: At the butthurt poms. Clark bombed 3 tries. Burgess dropped it 20 out on the 1st tackle. The game should of been wrapped up before a suspect try at the end.

Sure they are given most weeks but they shouldn't be. Correct call for no try. I do think GI grounded it so a drop out should of been the call

 

[McNulty]

Can you lot stop bitching about the Try/no try for a sec and give me a run down on how the aussie debutantes played? esp klemmer and sione. Cheers

 

[Evil Homer]

If that was a try then so was Ingis first( you get one from obstruction yet ours was disallowed), you guys cannot have it all your own way

Who is 'you', I'm not an England fan. Saying that it was ok to disallow the Hall try because Aussie had a try correctly chalked off for obstruction earlier in the match is just f**king stupidity.

 

[LeedsStorm]

If that was a try then so was Ingis first( you get one from obstruction yet ours was disallowed), you guys cannot have it all your own way

That's a bit rich coming from an Australian fan!

The result is there in the books, can't change that. The game was entertaining and England will feel they deserved more from the game.

Having slept on it, can't help but think, in the context of other sports in which the international scene thrives, what an absolute joke our sport is.

It's the biggest international game for years and two Australian brothers are appointed to make the biggest decisions of the game. A joke. England were on the wrong end of a lop sided penalty count largely due to holding down penalties. Why? This wrestling nonsense is not something they have to predominantly focus on - its an element of the game brought in by an australian interpretation of the rules. The Hall no try has a much greater chance of being given in SL, because the ref is asked to look at the evidence before him, not provide evidence to refute the ref's original decision. Why do we even have different rules in the first place? Because the NRL do what they want without consulting anyone. A joke.

No wonder the likes of Burgess, Williams, Teo and if rumours are to be believed, Tomkins choose Union over league because of the international set up

 

[franklin2323]

Did you not watch NZ v Samoa? Perenara is terrible so I can't see the referee change would of helped.

 

[LeedsStorm]

Clark bombed 3 tries. Burgess dropped it 20 out on the 1st tackle. The game should of been wrapped up before a suspect try at the end.

Agree regarding the first point. Slightly more composure and the game is out of reach for Australia.

Second point - that was right in front of us and it looked like a blatant ball steal. Arguably a bigger call, in the context of the result, than the hall no try

 

[franklin2323]

Agree regarding the first point. Slightly more composure and the game is out of reach for Australia.

Second point - that was right in front of us and it looked like a blatant ball steal. Arguably a bigger call, in the context of the result, than the hall no try

Widdop dropped one in the 1st half that was called play on. Next tackle Hall scores. So they go both ways. After the Tomkins break was the worst had a guy unmarked takes the tackle. 18-4 We don't win

 

[Evil Homer]

Did you not watch NZ v Samoa? Perenara is terrible so I can't see the referee change would of helped.

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.

 

[RoosTah]

It's a poor attempt at clutching at straws and trying to defend an indefensible bit of cheating. Sad how gutless so many Aussies have shown themselves to be.

Wow you boys are still in an absolute tizz over this blatant no try that not even the supposed scorer had any conviction was a try.

Face it boys, it wasn't a try and frankly it shouldn't even be a debate - getting your pinky to the side of a ball that is bouncing up is so far from downward pressure it's not funny.

 

[LeedsStorm]

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.

Completely agree mate. Regardless of the result. It's a joke

 

[RoosTah]

No wonder the likes of Burgess, Williams, Teo and if rumours are to be believed, Tomkins choose Union over league because of the international set up

As a Union fan I just feel the need to say :lol::lol::lol::lol: at that notion.

Seriously, I love Rugby, but if there's one thing League has over the sport is that the refereeing decisions are FAR less contentious in League. Sure, you get neutral refs but that doesn't mean shit because they all have long established biases against certain sides - just ask any Australian fan how they feel when pretty well any South African ref is in charge of a game we're in - they penalise us at every scrum and breakdown and general let the opposition get away with murder if they're from Europe or NZ.

FFS anyone who thinks refereeing in Union isn't a dog's breakfast just doesn't watch the game.

 

[LeedsStorm]

As a Union fan I just feel the need to say :lol::lol::lol::lol: at that notion.

Seriously, I love Rugby, but if there's one thing League has over the sport is that the refereeing decisions are FAR less contentious in League. Sure, you get neutral refs but that doesn't mean shit because they all have long established biases against certain sides - just ask any Australian fan how they feel when pretty well any South African ref is in charge of a game we're in - they penalise us at every scrum and breakdown and general let the opposition get away with murder if they're from Europe or NZ.

FFS anyone who thinks refereeing in Union isn't a dog's breakfast just doesn't watch the game.

Think you might have misunderstood.

Wasn't implying players are leaving league for a better standard of referring. That's geniused. I was implying they are leaving because the international scene is run by amateurs - the appointment of non neutral refs is an example.

 

[RoosTah]

Think you might have misunderstood.

Wasn't implying players are leaving league for a better standard of referring. That's geniused. I was implying they are leaving because the international scene is run by amateurs - the appointment of non neutral refs is an example.

Again mate, non-neutral refs get appointed in Rugby too, and quite often. I mean FFS for several years at Super Rugby level it's been pretty well all local refs for a while now. What people don't get about Union is that the "neutral" ref thing is really a bit of a joke, because the nationality of the ref isn't how they get selected, it's what Union they're registered under. So you can have Kiwi refs who've been registered in Australia reffing big All Blacks v NZ matches because he's technically "neutral". Seriously, Union is better organised at the international level, but it's not at the refereeing level - it's how the promote the game.

 

[Twatface Magee]

I found a 'vine' and converted that...

The ball continues along the same trajectory.
Hall's finger doesn't even affect the bounce.
Even there had been downward pressure this would not be the case.

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.