He was punished you clown. It was a penalty try. Do you understand what a "penalty" is? Just because you wanted him sent off so that England might have stood some slim chance of actually winning , despite not being the better side. That's what this is about, whinging that England lost even though they didn't deserve to win. Have a cry.

So if he tackled him legitimately , he would have scored , and England get 4 points and a conversion

He tackled him illegally , and England get 4 points and a conversion

So explain the punishment ? , you clown

Same as any penalty. He didn't score the try, but he was fouled, so it was given a try. That's the penalty. Same as the penalty try in the World Cup final, same as penalty try in the 1999 NRL grand final. You poms just want to whinge about something so you're whinging about this. What you actually want is a rule that says regardless of how sh:t England is and how much they get beaten by they still get the trophy. Like I said, have a cry you sore losers.

You thick , there was no punishment , the soft bustard ref , scared of losing his job back home didn't punish Thurston

So a penalty try is now not a penalty. Genius. Only a whinging pom could come up with such nonsense after yet another much-deserved England loss. And as for the conspiracy theory about NRL referees having anything to do with an international performance in an event that has not the slightest thing to do with the NRL is the kind of ignorant crap we have come to expect from flatcaps, so no surprises there. Keep crying.

Thing is, is that the act of the penalty, the high shot, did not really prevent him from being able to move forward with momentum and move his arm out to place the ball on the deck to score.

That is what the aussies are saying. I can see that. It would never have been given as a penalty try here in oz. However, the game was not it Oz and played under international rules.


As for the commentators. Peter Sterling is very unbiased and actually is usually the only one on a panel that shows the game in the UK any respect. However even he commented that someone being just within 10m after being in an offside position from a kick, shouldn't really matter. This was unusual for him. Just an opinion I guess as opposed to any deliberate attempt at bias.

As for hearing the English commentary over here. It is embarassing with how one eyed it is. Get them off the telly. We look like pråtts.

Keep Carney. He is good, but not English. Hemmings is a joke but pretty accurately represents pom fans from what I can tell.

No. It was a normal try and then a red card. Pat took the kick from just to the left of the posts. He wanted an 8 point try but Ganson didn't give one.


Was the second Aussie try actually disallowed for offside? If you watch it further on, Watmough takes Sam without the ball allowing the Aussies to recover the ball

So if I rob a bank

But get caught and the bank gets it's money back

I don't get sent to prison ?

You? Yes, yes you would, for oxygen theft.

So England are the bank

Thurston is the bank robber

But the judge is an Aussie ref

He commits a crime , but doesn't get punished

See I've put it in an easy to understand way for you

He wasn't punished

Yes he was. It was a penalty try. How much simpler does that have to be. When a player is penalised for something that means he was punished. When a player holds a tackled player down he is penalised, when a player is in front of the referee at the 10m he is penalised, when a player hits a player high he is penalised. Get it? Thurston was not only penalised with a free kick, but with a try that was otherwise not scored. That's what a penalty try is. Same as in 2008, same as in 1999. And those two were far more clear cut too.

The fact you try to use some kind of legal analogy is hilarious. The fact you think it's apt is even funnier. Just admit you're having a whinge because England lost and you can't hack it so you're trying to come up with any excuse to make that failure appear less dismal. If it was the first time this had happened it might seem credible but when England loses year on year and poms make up nonsense to whinge about as an excuse it's somewhat transparent.

Yes when a player is held down , a penalty results , the team committing the foul loses field position and ball possession compared to what it would have done if it hadn't committed the foul , ie they are punished more than they would have done if they hadn't committed the foul

That's why it is called a punishment

The team that is fouled against gains yards and ball possession

If Thurston hadn't committed the foul , England would have scored and got 4 points and a conversion attempt

He did commit a foul , and England got 4 points and a conversion attempt

What did Australia ' lose ' ?

What did England gain ?

How simple do you need it to be ?

That's what a penalty try is. Suddenly now that England loses a game you want to have a big whinge about the rule. Which just proves what your motivation is. Boot on the other foot and you wouldn't make a peep. It's just yet another pom having another whinge about another loss because you're a sore loser. You'd think you would get used to it by now. England never scored the try. They never put it down. But they were given a try anyway. And it was one of the most dubious penalty tries ever too. But you still want to try and use it to claim England were hard done by, even though they lost by 22 points and in no way were the better side. Get over it. You lost. You deserved to lose. The rule has been around forever. It was applied in line with the book. Suck it up cry baby.

You're thick........and boring!

I dont get the big drama here.. Sending off? nahh no way, it was just a bad challenge but you see much much worse.
Anyone that thinks it wasn't a penalty try should let me thump them round the chops and see if they can ground a ball.. it was as blatant as you can ever see and less controversial than the J Monaghan incident in WC08. Of course he would have scored and had Thurston not have hit high Lewis would have given away an 8 point try anyway.

As for the result and whingeing, none here.. beaten by a much better side although we were poor, really poor at times. Disappointing.

Short, precise and to the point. ECTs posts on this thread are redolent of a 6 yearold who's just won a game of 'pass the parcel' and is now whirling around the playground, oblivious of everything except the lollipop he's just won, shouting 'Ner-ner-na-ner-ner - look at me.. I won - you lost!'

Red card lol? A penalty try was a massively fortunate call in our favour, and you think it wasn't enough?

Maybe the code should split as it did in the past. From reading this forum and listening to British pundits and fans in relation to Aus and Kiwi pundits and fans, it's obvious the games are now too different. Aus League wants to go one way, English League wants to go the other. Trying to find a middle ground is only annoying both groups

British League fans are too soft for the type of League played down under. It's getting to the point where British League is just holding the Aussie and Kiwi game back, and frankly, embarrassing Rugby League with the tissue paper comfort softness.

I never thought I'd see the day where League is softer than Rugby, but when you look at the English games it's obvious that it's happening.

Soccer culture bull. Whinge about every call in every game. Every ing hand that dares stray above the shoulder, however soft, accidental or unavoidable, is met with a hissy fit by English commentators and fans who have too much estrogen in their body and are about as fruity as a skittles rainbow.

Well you would be wrong. It's never been illegal for someone to headbutt your legs

What an embarrassing post!

No.

It's extremely accurate.

The Thurston incident has nothing to do with the penalty try. He was deliberate and high so should have had action taken against him, but the penalty try was not awarded because of the high tackle.

Hall didnt get the ball down because Lewis led with the knees. Accident, maybe. But in this instance, accidental or deliberate makes no difference. Result of whole incident? Penalty try against Lewis.

The Australians on here who are saying that it wasnt a penalty try and "you poms" are just whinging, are looking purely and simply at the Thurston high tackle. Look at the whole incident to get the full picture.

Did England deserve to win? Nope, not at all. Tomkins isnt a fullback as long as I have a hole in my , yet he is lauded as the messiah in Super League. Chase isnt a 7 and no amount of shortlisting him for awards will make him one. Sinfield is OK with his mates around him but out of his depth at Test level. Peacock and Morley made no metres. It should have been 40+. Thats reality.

No, he's a stand off who lets Danny Orr do the organising which frees Chase up to do what he does best - play off the cuff.

It's the same reason why Benji had a poor series too, he was made to play an organising role which doesn't suit his style of play.

Chase had a pretty much free rein in this series. Sinfield took on thr role of organiser on most occasions throughout the series.

Your right, except for the bits that arent accurate. Which is all of the bits.