The refereeing was poor throughout, and for the majority of the game I think the refereeing hindered neither side. But the no-try against England and the ruling on the Tony Williams high shot were poor.

However, I think anyone saying the referee was a reason for our loss would be wrong. I don't buy what the BBC commentators were saying throughout, it was obvious that Australia were the better side, for one reason - They took and were threatening with every opportunity they had.

England were fantastic all over the field, except for the most important and crucial area - Australias 20m zone. We played fantastic and were threatening, but as soon as we got into their 20 we bottled it.

You can put forward some ifs and buts on what the scoreline would have been if the referee got every call correctly but ultimately I don't think it's valid excuse or reason. Every time we took the ball into Australias 20 we bottled it, ESPECIALLY when we had fresh sets in their end of the field.

We lacked sadly in composure. Trying to force tries too much, as Jiffy alluded to in the half time break. It's a shame because outside of that one small area of the field we played extremely well, arguably better than Australia. But we didn't capitalise on any of our good work.

Go look at our tries, I think except for one, they all came from sets that started in our own half of the field(please correct me if I'm wrong).

That was our problem. If we played the clinical, free flowing football that we played coming out of our own half, within Australias 20, we could have put 10 tries on them.

Tonight we were the Rugby League equivalent of a virgin. Did all the hard work, finally got a girl in bed but when presented with the opportunity we stumbled about for half a minute and had an explosion of the head

The double movement shouldnt have even been a question, Briscoe should have scored anyway.

Yeah, I actually meant for England, maybe I should have explained, but for anybody with half a brain cell it was blatantly obvious that I was actually meaning for England.

TBF though, Herbert and Sykes are far worse.

And I don't mean to be negative because we played great on about 90% of the field. But as soon as we got to the final hurdle we seemed to trip up over our own feet

Say what you mean then! Surely someone like you, with far more than half a brain cell, can do that.

But he didn't, and Briscoe couldnt even walk in with the line at his mercy. Fair enough the ref got the call wrong, but it should have been scored if it wasnt for his fannying about. Not mentally strong enough to make the correct decision at the time.

Stop putting words into your own mouth.
If he'd have backed himself, he'd have scored in the corner.

Simple.

I must admit when I saw it live I thought he'd ruined the chance and was swearing at him. Not sure what he was doing, but it was a try. I guess hindsight is good but how many fans thought it was a try in real time? I certainly didn't.

Then again I have been drinking

I thought you might have realised, seen as though it's actually a thread about England.

he did, regardless whether he should have gone straight for the line or not, it was a terrible decision from the referee that change the game into a 10 point swing in australias' favour

Wrong decision from Briscoe, he should have gone for the line. Then there was the humongous cock up from Sinfield and Yeaman in the first half and Widdop in the second.

Wrong decision or not he still scored the try, and the ref chose not to award it.

I do agree that Briscoe should have just put his head down and dived for the corner. But that has nothing to with mental toughness. Besides he scored the try, it.was incompetant reffing that cost him it. I also like how you say "when will we learn he isnt good enough." when hes 21 years old. Theres tonnes of kids older than him been classed as future talents who havnt even made their club debut yet.

It's a double mistake from the referee, in days of old I could have lived with it but to not go to the video is terrible. It would have taken one look in slow motion for Smith to give it.

I'm still worried - Despite being confident we'll beat NZ, now - that the team aren't comfortable playing in their opponents 20.

While in a theoretical final against Australia we would play well and match them statistically, we don't seem to have the confidence or composure playing a few metres from their line. We should have dominated Australia today with the opportunities we had, to such an extent that any refereeing decisions would have been irrelevant.

Anyway, we'll be much better for this game and I expect a solid performance and win against the Kiwis.

(I thought we would be trounced this series, for the record)

Of course it does. If you make the wrong decision it's because you are not strong enough to make the correct one under pressure. Charnely wouldn't have pis$sed about before the line.

What I want to know is couldn't he have simply ignored his earlier call?

There was a game in the NRL this year where a referee called no try, I believe a Wests Tigers game, and then changed his mind and went to the video ref, awarding the try.

I know on paper you shouldn't do that, but I'm surprised the referee didn't.

You know the ref ed up too. He looked like he was gonna cry for the rest of the game.

Charnley wouldnt have continously driven forwards back when carrying the ball or won penalties by getting quickly to his feet either.

I also thought Briscoe was poor throughout the game and looked out of place. One of the few players I thought had an ordinary game. Will have to see a replay though

i suggest you do watch the game again, his ball return is one of the best in superleague, compared to the reed/hall partnership, briscoe and yeaman were under used once again

I suggest you try watching the game without Hull FC glasses on. Briscoe was mediocre and Yeaman was pants.

The whole team played well, only thing that let us down was goal kicking and the ref. Stop bickering!!

Really? That was one of my main criticisms of him! Thought his ball return was sub-standard and lacking in any sort of confidence of enthusiasm.

I will watch again when sober, but from what I saw after a few drinks his kick returns were woeful and hugely lethargic and ineffective. Granted I might be in the minority. I noticed the commentators hooting and hollering when he ran to the line and made about 5 meters by crabbing across field

While I was sat at my TV swearing at him for being

How was Williams high shot on Westwood any different to Edwards on Clyde or Morley on Kearns?

Should have been sent off and unless we reach the final it will be Wales and NZ who benefit from his suspension which is sod all use to England.

Chase was ineffective again, missed a few vital tackles, turned the ball over to Australia from a naive decision to go for touch on a 20mtr drop out resulting in a try for Austala.

Threw a stupid intercept result, try to Australia.

Referee gave some poor and one eyed decisions agains England, well done Tim Sheens, starting with a harsh penalty early doors on Weswood, penalising Westwood again for a fair tackle on Thaiday, Briscoes no try/try, Yeaman tackled/not tackled etc..

McNamaras pi55 poor decision to exclude Carvell was another factor.

We shouldn't have needed to have relied on Sinfield converting the kicks and the referee not being . We had ample opportunity to score 40 points from tries alone. But every time we got into the Aus 20m zone we made an error and handed over possession.

You can't put that inefficiency on the ref or Sinfield. We should have won IN SPITE of those 2 things.