Totally justified, he was very poor defensively today.

Look at the way the Kiwis use a size advantage when they play Australia. Our defence was good but we should have been smashing them on the advantage line. Far too often we just wrapped them up instead of putting a man over the top with a shoulder.

How many times did the Australians have the ball jarred free?

But to award GLDO they would have to say Inglis grounded it intentionally before Hall touched it. Which Inglis didn't do. They would have then had to say that Hall didn't touch it after Inglis batted it away. Which Hall quite clearly did. But instead they've awarded a 20m RS, which means Hall knocked on in goal. But there's no separation between Hall touching the ball with his little finger and the ball on the ground which means Hall grounded it.

Whichever way this is analysed its a try. The lack of neutrality, pressure of such a big call, timeframe, result of the game etc means the correct decision could never have been made by one person.

You can't ignore what actually happened in favour of some vague sense of what is 'deserved'.

The more I read "Lord God Jose Mourinho" posts the more I think fisherman. And he's caught a few.

Hall doesn't have any downward pressure on the ball. His little finger grazes the ball as the ball is touching the ground. I don't think Hall even knew he'd touched the ball and there didn't seem to be any deviation of the ball from his hand.

I don't really like the interpretation we have over the grounding of the ball now. The first Aussie try, he was losing possession of that ball when he absolutely shouldn't have been. Because his fingertips or some part of his hand were still in contact with the ball it's given as a try, but that was shocking play from a pro to be losing the ball when under no pressure.

I feel the crux of the matter is how the video ref is used in Australia. As Cameron Smith said, if the actual ref doesn't give 'what he believes to be a try' signal before it goes to the video ref, then it has rarely been overturned this year. There is a disparity in the fact the referee was apparently saying the ball was coming back up which it wasn't. You get decisions in sport that will make or break you. It is called the luck of the draw but for me if that would have been a super league game, with our way of handling video ref tries, it would have been a try. An interesting photo on this article: www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 1frdi.html

I feel the crux of the matter is how the video ref is used in Australia. As Cameron Smith said, if the actual ref doesn't give 'what he believes to be a try' signal before it goes to the video ref, then it has rarely been overturned this year. There is a disparity in the fact the referee was apparently saying the ball was coming back up which it wasn't. You get decisions in sport that will make or break you. It is called the luck of the draw but for me if that would have been a super league game, with our way of handling video ref tries, it would have been a try. An interesting photo on this article: www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 1frdi.html

Quote ="mikeshort"I feel the crux of the matter is how the video ref is used in Australia. As Cameron Smith said, if the actual ref doesn't give 'what he believes to be a try' signal before it goes to the video ref, then it has rarely been overturned this year. There is a disparity in the fact the referee was apparently saying the ball was coming back up which it wasn't. You get decisions in sport that will make or break you. It is called the luck of the draw but for me if that would have been a super league game, with our way of handling video ref tries, it would have been a try. An interesting photo on this article: www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 1frdi.html'" What Cameron Smith said was rubbish. A veiled attempt to justify the decision. I've watched NRL all year and regularly seen the VR give opposite decision to the onfield ref after he has said "no try". Anyway, if we're playing international laws, why are they giving the NRL "no try" "try" decision before referring it upstairs and who decided they should? Another Australian preference in the lottery that is international RL!

Quote ="mikeshort"I feel the crux of the matter is how the video ref is used in Australia. As Cameron Smith said, if the actual ref doesn't give 'what he believes to be a try' signal before it goes to the video ref, then it has rarely been overturned this year. There is a disparity in the fact the referee was apparently saying the ball was coming back up which it wasn't. You get decisions in sport that will make or break you. It is called the luck of the draw but for me if that would have been a super league game, with our way of handling video ref tries, it would have been a try. An interesting photo on this article: www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby-l ... 1frdi.html'" What Cameron Smith said was rubbish. A veiled attempt to justify the decision. I've watched NRL all year and regularly seen the VR give opposite decision to the onfield ref after he has said "no try". Anyway, if we're playing international laws, why are they giving the NRL "no try" "try" decision before referring it upstairs and who decided they should? Another Australian preference in the lottery that is international RL!

I can't remember if Inglis actually touched the ball when it was on the ground or not. I do think his intention was to knock the ball out of play, he just messed that up. There is a chance IMO that he actually had a lot more downward pressure on the ball than Hall did, but like I say I can't remember if he did touch the ball when it was on the ground.

On the VR decision of try or knock on I've said I'd have given a try. It clearly wasn't a knock on. But equally IMO there wasn't actually downward pressure from Hall. But as I said I didn't think the VR call was whether to give a try or not to England, it was basically a call to steal the GLDO from us.

Whichever way you look at it we just lost to the worst aussie side in over 30 years

I don't care how good or bad the Aussies are. The Australian picked refs won them the game. The Australian domination of International RL administration is both corrupt and hugely damaging to the sport everywhere except Melbourne, Queensland & NSW.

I'm a Rhinos fan. I like Ryan Hall a lot. I wanted England to win.

If Ryan sticks out his hand and grounds the ball then England win the game courtesy of an Ingis gift. But sadly Ryan didn't do that. Ryan's hand is just stuck out blindly in the vague direction of the ball. We were inches away from winning the game, but it would have been an absolute fluke of a victory.

Despite what everyone is saying on here, there simply was no downward pressure on the ball from Ryan. At best Ryan's finger just happened to brush the ball just as it bounced on the ground.

If only......

Sam Burgess and James Roby had been able to play.
Or Daryl Clark had been brought on earlier say 10 minutes into second half.
We had neutral referees who made sound professional judgement about the clear evidence in front of them...

I want another crack at these Aussies in the final. I'm sick to the back teeth of losing to them, and we're more than capable of beating them.

From the BBC:

England winger Ryan Hall: "I knew I had got something on the ball but I was not sure whether I had grounded it. I did not want to say anything because I wanted us to get the ball back from the restart.

It would have been an absolute fluke of a victory. Halls finger did just happen to brush the ball as it bounced on the ground. Where you are wrong is that is downward pressure.

Nonsense, his finger bends backwards. Try it yourself and see how much pressure you have to apply for that to happen.

I don't see the difference between the Jenson try and the Hall no try, both only had tiny amounts of pressure on the ball

I thought we were excellent to day but our back row didn't create anything not generate any offload, Widdop is an outstanding half back, if our back row run some lines then he would pick a pass for them
We also have two exceptional wingers in Charnley and Hall and neither for them got a decent pass from our centres

The above negatives aside we have come on in leaps and bounds, we were excellent today and I'm very proud to support them, we just need to keep going and we will beat the Aussies

I completely agree and feel that really they should be having neutral refs in an international game. ie if possible New Zealand refs for Eng v Aus and English refs for Aus v NZ etc. I stick by what I say if that would have been in England, super league then it would have been a try. Does this highlight the fact that effectively we were playing Australian rules in an international game - yes I believe it does. Another example of the greatest sport not having an official body that has unified rules throughout the world.

I am not a sore loser and have been to many, many aussie defeats but this now highlights a problem in international games really. Well done lads and great to see two Leeds players score. However, I didn't like some of Watkins' defence. Ryan Hall the man of the match for England. Great play by all players really and Sarginson was the architect of Hall's play, - true class that pass and step. Time to look forward.

This could potentially be the last time we play them for 2 years now. Too little too late I'm afraid.

Forget the Hall incident at the end, at 12-4 we had plenty of opportunities to put on extra points and really take a hold of the game.

Unfortunately it was the same old story though - stupid stupid penalties and individual errors put the Aussies in scoring positions, and like always, they were much more clinical than us when given the chance.

Big Samuel Burgess will probably return to rugby league in time for the 2017 World Cup. By that time Darryl Clarke will probably have learned how to pass the ball to supporting players when there is a three on two advantage to his attacking side. By then Joseph Burgess will have developed at the Sydney Roosters into the second best winger in the world (behind Ryan Hall). By then England will have found another world class centre to compete with Jack Reed and Daniel Sarginson for the two England centre positions. By then the Burgess twins and Christopher Hill will be in their prime, and 32 year old James Graham will still be giving everything.

In 2017 England will still have a chance for redemption through victory over Australia.

Meh. F*ck em. If they want to cheat their way to "victories" let them play by themselves. I honestly don't care if we lose to them. It's like if Ultimate Warrior had lost to British Bulldog. Why would anyone care about a manufactured event.

Explain to me how it's possible to touch the ball while it's on the ground without any downward pressure.

Calling it a 'graze' doesn't make it less of a contact.

All very well but Australia will never be more there for the taking than they were today and we passed up the best chance to humuliate them in decades.

The past tells us these chances dont come often.Australia will also be far stronger come 2017.