....would you have given it?

No

i think Halls reaction swung it, unfortunately, he didn,t think he had scored it, but having said that in ultra slow motion it looked a try, why did england stop playing after the break, aussies grew into the game after being there for the taking, so frustrating as this always seems to happen against them.

Why would I not?

Yes. Because it was a try and not because I'm English. I can't see an argument for it not been a try. It's a myth about having control of the ball, if the balls on the floor and you place a finger on it it's a try. You were never in control of the ball but you enacted downward pressure on the ball with your finger which forms part of your hand.

Inglis touches the ball dead before Hall touches it down, no try Aussie drop out.

Think he touched it as much as Hall did

Either give it or give us the ball back one or the other.

Come on. Even in SL you know that doesn't count as grounding. Inglis was palms up to bat the ball out upwards. No intention of grounding therefore no grounding by him.

It was a try the way they normally view them.

Would I consider it a try? No, but like I said the way they normally go, that was no different.

Inglis never grounded the ball, never in a million years.

No. No matter how many straws we clutch at, it wasn't a try.

My initial reaction seeing it on the slo mo was it was not a try. The photos of certain angles make it look like it is but for me Hall does not have control of the ball. But still is a 50/50 call though. Biggest problem is it was an Australian Video Ref and that is more shocking than any decision on the day.

It was also an Australian ref who referred it to the video ref when nobody, Hall included, was asking for it. And it was an Australian ref who let a massively forward pass from Widdop go the play before. I don't think they were bent at all, but it's true that having an Aussie ref leaves things open to all sorts of moaning after the game, and it would have been better to avoid the situation by having a Kiwi in charge. Though he wouldn't have given the try either.

from a kick he doesnt need to regather the ball, only to have downward pressure.
he had his fingers on the ball as it was on the ground. It should have been a try.

It was 100% a try. There is no doubt or 50/50 call. His finger touches the ball and doesn't leave it as it hits the ground. Try.

I agree with Gotcha over not particularly liking the current rules on a try but under the rules it's 100% a try.

If Jennings try was a try then Halls was.

Until Australia's insularity, insecurity & selfishness is removed from the situation then international RL will never prosper. If that means removing them from the situation altogether then so be it. They can rejoin when they agree to play by neutral, impartial interpretations and with neutral, impartial referees who aren't influenced by the Australian Rugby League.

If it had been at the other end it would have been given. BUT off the back of the way England came out to play in the second half we can not complain. Best chance to beat the Aussies in years blown away by a lack of application in the first 25 mins of the 2nd half. Gutted

It was a try no doubt, those have been given all year for many years here and in NRL. Blatant Aussies cheating.

It doesnt say anywhere in the laws of the game when scoring a try anything about "control of the ball". The term is a myth which people like Stevo have created.

Ofcourse if an attacking player carries a ball over the oppo try line he has to control the ball whilst placing downward pressure as that is the only way a try can be scored.

If a ball is kicked across the line or lay prone In the ingoal area and you excerpt downward pressure with one finger then you are never in control of that ball making your point invalid. Hall was never in control of the ball however he did excerpt an element of downward pressure thus scoring a try.

So are we really debating that the pressure he did apply didnt meet the required lbs of pressure needed to ground the ball? He touched the ball in an effort to place downward pressure to attempt to score a try. The fact it was his little finger meant Bernie struggled to see this.

Hall got as much downward pressure on his as Jennings did in the first half when the ball slid out of the side of his hand in the act of grounding.

Both had simultaneous contact between hand, ball and ground.

Inglis didn't ground the ball, he shovelled it backwards with no downward pressure.

Worse than the decision was the rationale used to try and justify it afterwards, that the contact was in the act of the ball bouncing up off the floor. That's just making stuff up to try and cover for the fact you know you've screwed up.

Hall has fingers on the ball when it's on the ground. No prior knock on by Hall. Try. Inglis did not ground the ball - if he did, it's a drop out not a 20 metre tap but he didn't ground it. Try

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel better. That was a try all day.



Hope we can go on and win it now, against the Aussies in the final.

Yep. I'll keep telling myself it's not a try. Easier to take that way

The pictures above show its a try, i don't really see how you can argue against that evidence TBH.

I know Hall didn't react like he had got it and this is the main argument from the Aussie side of it but thats irrelevant really, the VR is there to make the right calls and here they have clearly failed again.

What irks me more than anything is that if it was role reversal it would have been given for sure.

Notice the relief on the home fans faces when it was disallowed

Exactly his whole counter argument about Hall not reacting like he scored is desperate. Tom Briscoe thought he scored vs Hudds with a similar grounding. danny Brough thought his DG in the cup vs Saints went through the posts. Countless other people act like they score when they haven't. It doesn't happen as much but on occasions I've seen players get up not looking convinced and it does turn out to be a try.

Does anybody really think had Hall got up jumping up and down celebrating that it would've changed the VR's mind? That Sheens and Smith use Hall's reaction as their sole 'proof' that it must be a no try shows that they know it was really as they never mention the grounding, just Hall's lack of celebration.