The problem on Sunday is with how Australia handle the video ref.
The ref decided it was a no try and the video ref was just asked how to restart play. The control over the decision making is held on the field, in the super league the video ref's have more influence and the ability to override.

Not sure if it was on the 'live' coverage but on the highlights last night Ryan Hall was saying part of the reason he didn't 'act' as though he thought it was a try because he would be 'owning up' that he definitely got the last touch and therefore that the Aussies would get the ball back if the referee decided he didn't think it was a try before sending it up.

Though the argument in the studio was if he had 'acted up' more, might it have made the ref rule it WAS a try and therefore being agreed upon as a try by the video ref.

In some ways it comes down to what others have said - that in ERL the video ref has more power to decide whatever they want to, rather than having to 'toe the line' with the on-field decision as it seems to be in ARL.

If I understand the difference and the discussion correctly (!)

In response to the OP it was undoubtedly a try. We should never have got in that position though. As a number of people predicted the second rows offer nothing going forward, they will offer even less against the more physical Kiwis. O’L added nothing to the attack, whether he is fit enough is debatable. Matty Smith has adopted the Paul Deacon model of doing absolutely nothing with ball in hand to avoid being found wanting. His kicking is average to boot. Charnley has been very disappointing, I’d put Burgess in there.

Like a few others, I don't particularly like the way the rules work in making that sort of brushing with the fingers a try. But that's the way they're usually given, so we should, according to the rules, have had the try.

Overall, I think we let the Aussies off the hook far too easily. They were there to be finished off after the break, and I think we lacked the belief to go and do it. Disappointing.

On a positive note, we were far better in our ball retention, and also much better defensively. Sarginson was a revelation. I rated him for Wigan this year, but I thought he was not ready for test level yet. Wrong.

The only changes we could make are on the wing, where I still don't think Charnley is fully fit and sharp yet (could bring Hardaker for broken field running and defence, or the electric pace of Joe Burgess) and maybe weigh up bringing in Whitehead, sacrificing some defensive fragility for more attacking threat. But I've been pleasantly surprised by Farrell.

I guess Ratchford for Smith is the only other change, but we're short of kicking options then and territory is key against the Kiwis. Smith is underwhelming with ball in hand, but we don't really have any organisers and kickers who aren't.

The Ryan Hall 'no try' wasnt the turning point. England's lack of ability to hammer home a stronger lead was.

Think the 2nd row will change next week. Farrell will be banned and Joel Tomkins has to make way.

Farrell has been cleared to play.

It was a try. I’ve seen them given for as much downward pressure as that in the past. See Jennings “effort” in the first half as an example. IMO both aren’t tries as there wasn’t any real downward pressure but it’s hard to judge. As a result if you apply the rules you must award the try if the scorer has hand or finger contact with the ball and no separation.

Of course there was no way an Aussie video referee was going to give it but we’ve allowed ourselves to be screwed off the field into letting the Aussies pick the refs they want.

For the game versus New Zealand I’d be tempted to replace Charnley and Joel Tomkins. I’m not convinced by Hodgson either but Clark doesn’t seem able to play the full 80. Watkins needs to smarten up a bit but I expect playing opposite Jennings was a shock as there aren’t any centres that are quicker and better on their feet than Watkins in SL.

On Hardaker I’d like to see what he can do at Test level but aren’t sure where I’d put him. Widdop and Smith could both be better but I’m not sure moving Sam Tomkins into the halves is an answer.

Probably not. The only exception would be if England had trained a fair bit with him playing that role. I doubt they will have but if by some miracle they have then it's worth a trial even if it doesn't win us the game. Because if England put in a performance similar to those against Australia and Samoa then they will lose in any case. And it is something that needs to be looked at prior to the WC because good a player as Tomkins is, he's not setting the world alight from full back.

It was a try plain and simple. The point of having video evidence is to give the right call. It didn't look like a try at first and even Ryan didn't think he'd got it, but all of that is immaterial when you view the evidence.

Hall was superb, as were the pack. But for those who think Burgess is better than Charnley - no way. Burgess made more errors than anyone in the Wigan team last season. Not ready for the test team yet IMO.

Charnley has been on fire since coming back from his injury. Whoever plays outside Watkins will get no decent ball anyway. For all his many attributes, passing isn't one of them. Ask Tom Briscoe.

Charnley hasn't been a patch on his previous season's form. I thought he was the best winger in SL in 2013. I wouldn't put him in the top 5 at the moment.

Whoever lines up on the right wing on the weekend will be required to mark big Manu.We need someone secure defensively first and foremost.

This is again why i would put Hardaker out there.With his safety under the kick and kick return ability he stands out as the safest option for this game.