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.