Yes, very far fetched, because for starters the England-NZ game is already scheduled to be played a day before the Australia-Samoa game. As for the rest, it is just nonsense.

Brilliant.

My post has been described as nonsense by the guy who posts more nonsense than probably all other posters combined.

If someone had said before the game on Sunday that the Aus v England game would have an Aussie ref AND a Aussie VR, while the kiwi ref officiated the Kiwi game, while the English Ref sits on his . Just because the Aussies wanted it so.

And the Aussie VR turns down a cast iron try to stop the aussies losing the game, because he saw something that no one else reviewing the try has been able to see.

Now - I'd have said that was nonsense.

Of course we can make the final. It was always going to require 2 wins so nothing has changed. If people think it's a very tall order then what is the point in reaching the final anyway - we would have to play either Australia or New Zealand there?

I can see England getting stuffed by New Zealand and the Aussies losing in a close match to Samoa. That'll be an interesting twist on events...!

Samoa to get a second crack at the Kiwis!

In this scenario, the rules state that neither team qualifies for the final and Australia are awarded the trophy.

To be awarded by Gerard Sutton, of the Australian team, to Bernard Sutton, who will receive it on behalf of the Australian team.

These last posts are a little silly, not unlike the Russian-rigged votes in Donetsk and Luhansk.

It is all up to England to beat New Zealand, and then it is up to Samoa to hold Australia to a small margin of defeat, if not win.