If it had been at the other end it would have been given. BUT off the back of the way England came out to play in the second half we can not complain. Best chance to beat the Aussies in years blown away by a lack of application in the first 25 mins of the 2nd half. Gutted

It was a try no doubt, those have been given all year for many years here and in NRL. Blatant Aussies cheating.

It doesnt say anywhere in the laws of the game when scoring a try anything about "control of the ball". The term is a myth which people like Stevo have created.

Ofcourse if an attacking player carries a ball over the oppo try line he has to control the ball whilst placing downward pressure as that is the only way a try can be scored.

If a ball is kicked across the line or lay prone In the ingoal area and you excerpt downward pressure with one finger then you are never in control of that ball making your point invalid. Hall was never in control of the ball however he did excerpt an element of downward pressure thus scoring a try.

So are we really debating that the pressure he did apply didnt meet the required lbs of pressure needed to ground the ball? He touched the ball in an effort to place downward pressure to attempt to score a try. The fact it was his little finger meant Bernie struggled to see this.

Hall got as much downward pressure on his as Jennings did in the first half when the ball slid out of the side of his hand in the act of grounding.

Both had simultaneous contact between hand, ball and ground.

Inglis didn't ground the ball, he shovelled it backwards with no downward pressure.

Worse than the decision was the rationale used to try and justify it afterwards, that the contact was in the act of the ball bouncing up off the floor. That's just making stuff up to try and cover for the fact you know you've screwed up.

Hall has fingers on the ball when it's on the ground. No prior knock on by Hall. Try. Inglis did not ground the ball - if he did, it's a drop out not a 20 metre tap but he didn't ground it. Try

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel better. That was a try all day.



Hope we can go on and win it now, against the Aussies in the final.

Yep. I'll keep telling myself it's not a try. Easier to take that way

The pictures above show its a try, i don't really see how you can argue against that evidence TBH.

I know Hall didn't react like he had got it and this is the main argument from the Aussie side of it but thats irrelevant really, the VR is there to make the right calls and here they have clearly failed again.

What irks me more than anything is that if it was role reversal it would have been given for sure.

Notice the relief on the home fans faces when it was disallowed

Exactly his whole counter argument about Hall not reacting like he scored is desperate. Tom Briscoe thought he scored vs Hudds with a similar grounding. danny Brough thought his DG in the cup vs Saints went through the posts. Countless other people act like they score when they haven't. It doesn't happen as much but on occasions I've seen players get up not looking convinced and it does turn out to be a try.

Does anybody really think had Hall got up jumping up and down celebrating that it would've changed the VR's mind? That Sheens and Smith use Hall's reaction as their sole 'proof' that it must be a no try shows that they know it was really as they never mention the grounding, just Hall's lack of celebration.

Also, if you watched the NZ game last week.Kevin Proctor got the ball on the line but didn't celebrate and everyone including commentators wondered why the game was stopped and bentham had gone to the screen.And the evidence showed he got it on the line so the try was given.

We blew what was our best chance, in a long time, of beating a very average Aussie team. After an overall good first half performance we lost our ambition in the second half and appeared to be content to defend our 8 point lead. We allowed Australia to gain momentum and failed to counter their changed tactics after halftime.

Our right side looked weak in defense with missed tackles from Joel Tomkins, Watkins and Hodgson and a crucial error from Charnley. Watkins took his try well but like Charnley otherwise failed to impress in attack. Clark twice took wrong options but we looked better when he was on the field.

Australia were lucky to escape penalties as they repeatedly floored Matty Smith well after he had made a kick with the main culprit being his namesake. This IMO put M. Smith off his kicking game which was poor in the second half and just played into Inglis's hands.

On the positive side Hall was outstanding with Sarginson not far behind him and our props dominated particularly in the first 40.

I would like to see a Charnley dropped for next week and also a change in our second row.

Agreed. Charnley looks more of a threat to England than he does to the opposition. Burgess was arguably the best winger in the competition last season, and certainly the best winger at Wigan.

Joe Burgess should have played this tournament from day one, he has been red hot this year.Charnley has not been anything like the past few seasons this year and although not doing too much wrong so far, he is dealt with easily.

I would even consider going Hardaker on the wing.Would provide two walls of protection for Tomkins on the bombs(seems all the rage at the minute) with him and Hall comfortable.

I like Charnely but today he lacked his usual pace and he jump way too early and not very high for two bombs, I don't reckon he's fully fit.

Still reckon J.Burgess is a bit green defensively and we've had enough issues that side (he usually plays the other side for Wigan) to throw him in. I'd go for Hardaker on the wing. Not played there for a while but he's one of those guys you feel can easily slot into other roles, and we all know his dealing with kicks is good and whilst they haven't formed a centre/wing partnership for Leeds I would guess they'd be some kind of gelling there with Watkins.