The officiating in the australia vs England match.

[dibviking]

at the end of the day we got dry bum raped by the comb over ref and his strap on friend the video ref and still only got beat by 20 points! that is an unreal effort so im not sure why everyone is sayin we would never win when if the decisions where correct and it was a closer scoreline going into the last stages with england needing to win and the ozzies knockin on all over the place could we have nicked it? who knows, because we never got the chance to have a go.

 

[roughyedspud]

http://www.newstime.co.za/column/NigelOwen/Rugby_League_Needs_Neutral_Referees/17/2518/

a bloody south african RU journalist wrote that.......


now why can he see it and australians can't?

 

[Big Pete]

:lol: Seriously some of the sooking in here is unbelievable. You had one definite no-try go against you, the rest were contentious and by the rules are tries.

Blame your inept backline and the stupid selection of O''Laughlin at five eigth before you start blaming the refs.

And this is coming from somebody who thinks Archer sucks.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I rarely comment on refereeing, and although Archer didn't cost England the match, virtually every 50/50 call went against them. England we're never going to win, but its a shame now that most of the English will look at that match and blame the ref rather then themselves.

 

[Evil Homer]

http://www.newstime.co.za/column/NigelOwen/Rugby_League_Needs_Neutral_Referees/17/2518/

a bloody south african RU journalist wrote that.......


now why can he see it and australians can't?

f**king disgrace isn't it.

 

[deluded pom?]

I rarely comment on refereeing, and although Archer didn't cost England the match, virtually every 50/50 call went against them. England we're never going to win, but its a shame now that most of the English will look at that match and blame the ref rather then themselves.

Not many English fans expected us to win TEZZA. We know we have massive problems in getting the international team to perform against Australia on a regular basis. the reasons for this are many but even if we aren't good enough I'd at least like to have the chance to compete on a level playing field. Why don't the Kiwis ever pull any of these stunts? It's a bit like Mike Tyson fighting Frank Bruno and insisting Bruno has one arm tied behind his back. Bruno wouldn't beat Tyson in a month of Sundays in a fair fight so his chances with one arm are nil.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Not many English fans expected us to win TEZZA. We know we have massive problems in getting the international team to perform against Australia on a regular basis. the reasons for this are many but even if we aren't good enough I'd at least like to have the chance to compete on a level playing field. Why don't the Kiwis ever pull any of these stunts? It's a bit like Mike Tyson fighting Frank Bruno and insisting Bruno has one arm tied behind his back. Bruno wouldn't beat Tyson in a month of Sundays in a fair fight so his chances with one arm are nil.

A bit emotional there I think. Your problems aren't that bad. Depth is an issue and mental fitness is lacking from lack of intensity, but England are still in the top 3 nations in the world and I believe that you are actually making ground on Australia and New Zealand. France are the ones I fear for now a bit now that they have missed out on the 4Nations next year. Hopefully they will have a great World Cup and get lucky with a second SL team admitted.

I see more positives then negatives for England. Lets just say that they are going in a better direction then the NSWRL.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

http://www.newstime.co.za/column/NigelOwen/Rugby_League_Needs_Neutral_Referees/17/2518/

a bloody south african RU journalist wrote that.......
now why can he see it and australians can't?

Bring back Julien Rascaneres.

 

[simmo1]

So basically Pete there's only you, simostorm and simmo on five pages who think Poms are sooks after this "match". Says it all really. At least this time we have something to genuinely whinge about. I'm in the same boat as dbviking. My interest in any match involving Australia has just been battered to death. The ones I feel sorry for are the supporters who flew 11,000 miles to see a game that we didn't even get the chance to compete in. Money down the drain.

You guys have a right to feel hard done by, but there is no way that there was conclusive evidence that the Pommy bloke got the ball down.

Also the logic of subtracting the points scored by questionable decisions from Australias total, and then adding points to Englands, to come up with a final score is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Joker's Wild]

The Lunt try would not have been given in the NRL, ESL or the local Brissy 3rd grade comp. He fell short of the line and no angle showed the ball touch it at any stage.

Archer is a dope and has fugged up that many NRL games I am surprised he got the gig but if you look back objectively over the game, the English had their chances and blew them. Burgess dropped the ball 2 or 3 times in his own half ffs.

Whinge about some of the call if you want, the Lewis forward pass was particularly bad, but you cannot honestly say they cost you the game.

 

[Big Pete]

Precisely JW.

I can understand being a little annoyed with the referee in which case you have my sympathy but to come out and say he's the only reason and that the only thing keeping Australia up the top are the referee's is a bunch of horse crap.

 

[Springs]

There is no conclusive evidence that Tate got the ball down, or that Cronk didn't touch the ball. There is conclusive evidence that the Lewis pass was forward 2 metres and that was still awarded. None of those tries would have been given in my local reserve grade comp.
It didn't cost England the game, but it cost them any chance of winning. Before the missed Myles strip they were 11/11 and on top. There's no knowing what might have happened.

 

[adamkungl]

The Lunt try wasn't a try...but nor were 3 of Australia's.

 

[Big Pete]

2 of them were according to the rule book.

 

[Springs]

Show me where the rule book says:
'If a player knocks on before his team-mate grounds the ball, then it will be awarded a try'
Or:
'If a player has his foot on the touch in-goal line and loses the ball in the in goal area, with no downward pressure forced onto it, it will be awarded a try'

 

[Big Pete]

Show me conclusive evidence to suggest Cronk 100% knocked the ball on and then that it 100% went forward.

Try BotD any day of the week.

Again show me evidence of his foot being on the line, and no downward pressure? Did you see how high the ball bounced? Tate had downward pressure, he just didn't have control which under the rules is okay as there was no separation.

Both were correct rulings.

 

[adamkungl]

if Tate somehow scored despite being out and dropping it then Lunt was just as close...neither were tries.

 

[adamkungl]

Also, until someone can prove otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that the international rules have none of the NRL's nonsense interpretations of separation where you can have a fingertip on the side of the ball and score a try. Tate bounced it. No try.

Here are the international rules:
http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/files/ARL International Laws of the Game 2010.pdf

 

[Big Pete]

Not enough evidence there to suggest he had any part of the foot on the line, also since he still had a finger on the ball when it hit the ground it's a try.

 

[Springs]

There is no proof that he had a finger on the ball, both the shots were either behind or infront of him. If we want to get really technical then I can say this:
The ball clearly bounced, from one shot to the other you can see the ball travelling downwards faster than his hand. Also, if Tate had a finger on the ball the second it touched the ground, then in that moment there was no downward pressure from his finger, as the ball is travelling downwards faster than his hand.
That is being really pedantic and ridiculous and is not how Rugby League should be officiated.
However, give that video to any league fan and 99% of them will say 'no try, he lost the ball!'

Under the current rules, if you put a ball on the ground, place your fingers at the very bottom of the ball and roll it forward a centimetre, it would be called a try.