If the video ref took Hall's reaction into consideration at all, then he needs reprimanding.

Anyone that watched NZ v Samoa will have seen Jesse Bromwich (I think?) score a perfectly good try but the referee completely missed it! He just got on with it and played the ball.

You really should have. The penalties he awarded to Australia in the second half, and the penalties he didn't award to England, were crucial in determining the outcome of that match.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with you quite vehemently here. The rules are very clear - downward pressure on the ball by any part of the hand is a try. There was downward pressure on the ball by Hall's finger, and thus it is a try. I genuinely do not understand why some people are claiming this is somehow debatable. It was a 50/50 call for the on-field referee, which is fine - if he'd left it there then I wouldn't be on here crying foul, because at full-speed in the heat of the game, I certainly wouldn't have felt confident making that decision. But when the video referee looks at it, sees absolutely cast-iron 100% evidence of a finger on the ball while it is on the ground, and STILL claims no-try, then you've left the realms of judgement calls and entered into the realms of corruption and cheating. There is no argument about this - it was a straight out and out cheat. Disgraceful.





I have in the past made very similar calls. I think the reason I am so disgusted today is that actually, we WERE good enough today, and we DID do enough to win it. Our forwards beat their forwards, and our threequarters matched theirs. Only in the halves did they have the advantage. It's not often you can say this, but today the difference absolutely was the entirely one-sided penalty count for interference, and the corrupt video referee decision.

The problem with taking the "It's our fault, it was ours for the taking, let ourselves down" line is that whereas I used to think that was about being realistic about our prospects, I now think it's actually part of the cultural cringe of us expecting to lose, and refusing to believe we can win. Today, we were robbed - absolute highway robbery by a bent set of home officials. If that had happened to the Aussies over here, they'd be screaming blue murder from the head of the NRL to the lowliest bag-carrier, and they'd make damn sure that pressure was applied to ensure no repeat could ever happen. That's because they would start from the place where they believe they could have, and should have, won. When it happens to us, I think far too many of our British fans, players and officials start from the place of assuming that we were never good enough to win, and so we shouldn't make too much fuss because it's our fault. Yet today, we were the better team for most of that match, and the Aussies were effectively gifted the second half through the onfield referee, and then outrageously given an undeserved victory by the corrupt video referee. We damn well should be screaming blue murder. Not because we're whining and moping, but because we deserved that victory, and we should back up our players on the field with some courage and determination off the field too.

Those who argue that it's all in our hands, shouldn't make a fuss etc, are really just accepting failure. In this case, those who recognise robbery for what it is, are the ones who are demonstrating that our traditional lack of self-belief is shifting.

Absolutely 100% sums up what I feel.

I can't understand why so many English are putting any blame on England.

Well put Roy.

In the past I would've said no we need to play better and not have a period of "slacking off" and just deal with the situation. But I've had enough of seeing us not get a fair crack at Australia. Not necessarily see us win, but get a fair crack. It's happened too often and over too many years to be a coincidence and today is beyond a joke, as Roy Haggerty says it's cheating and it's corrupt.
I think we're almost at the point where we have to think about not playing the Aussies.
A 4/5 Nations comp of England, New Zealand then 3 of France, Wales, PNG, Samoa, Fiji etc would be viable and despite not having Australia in it at least the winners would be fair winners. Whether the other nations would go for it I don't know.

Taking the last couple of minutes out of the game, how often were England's kickers taken way after the ball had gone?

How many high shots went unpunished by the Australian forwards?

Why was Greg Bird not even put on report for blatantly standing on James Graham's achilles in a grub act in keeping with his character?

Still, it's not like anything will happen. England will complain, the Australian media (insular as always) will dismiss them as "whinging Poms" and will continue to run the sport for their own benefit.

Frankly, after the liberties taken today, I would be tempted to tell them to stuff it. If they want to focus on their dull, five drives, no risk Origin product then let them. The rest of the sport would be better off without the school bully, who insists that everything is done on their terms.

its not 50/50, its not a matter of degrees or opinion. It was a simple, binary decision. Did Hall Touch the Ball whilst the ball was on the ground. There is conclusive proof he did.

What is the point of playing Australia when they blatantly bend all the rules to suit themselves.

For instance , they banned the shoulder charge just as the Burgess brothers and the South Sea Islanders were using it to devastating effect.

As for appointing their own refs and video refs. I really wonder why we bother playing against them.

If we beat The Kiwis by ten points next week who refs the final if it's us and Australia ?

Today was also a clear example of why the NRL video ref system doesn't work.

The referee on the field is forced to guess at whether it's a try or not before referring it. The VR then has to find a compelling reason to overturn the on-field call, which he's hardly likely to do unless it's an absolute blunder for fear of making his colleague look like an idiot. (particularly if said colleague also happens to be his brother)

Why not just do what we do in SL? Pass the whole lot up to the VR, and let them make a decision without having the pressure of the on-field referee's opinion weighing on them.

they didn't. The referee was chosen by a vote between the three reps. Jon Sharp insisted on a neutral referee. Australia and NZ argued for the 'best' referees to be appointed.

its just complete coincidence that the best referees to be an Australian refereeing the Australia game and a Kiwi refereeing the NZ game, any argument that the tournaments two host nations conspiring to appoint their favoured referee to two very close games won by 2pts and 4pts respectively is a bad look for the game is obviously just whining.

I don't know. My initial reaction and instinct during and after the game was one of positivity. I didn't feel hard done by the officials in the least, watching the game there were lot's of incidents where i thought england could have been penalised but weren't, so when australia weren't penalised for equally borderline stuff i just thought fair doos. I didn't begin to feel any negativity or injustice until I came on here and read some comments and outrage, which just depressed me.

I'd rather go on my gut feeling as i watched the game, rather than being influenced by the mass opinion on here. It's easier on the brain and the ticker.

I don't think england were robbed and I still think they have a great shot at actually winning the tournament. Let's hope the players still believe it too, they should do after that performance.

At a guess, I would say Gerard Sutton with his brother Bernie in the VR booth again.

Out of interest, when was the last time Gerard Sutton refereed a game under a single ref system prior to this tournament?

Having a referee used to working in the two ref system of the NRL work an international game, is like having a netball umpire work a basketball game.

Fully agree with RH and the general sentiments on here. We've got to feel cheated today.

Just two points in addition though:-

One specific. The video ref could have checked and probably would have more easily been able to adjudicate that Inglis grounded the ball in-goal before the Hall littlefingergate incident came into play. At least it should then have been a goal-line drop-out.

General point. (OK, I'm a Keighley supporter). The arbitrary if not shambolic operation of the internal departments at RFL HQ under Ralph Rimmer's "management" hardly sets the required standard in terms of the professional and fair administration of the sport.

Even so, my overriding feeling of being cheated today will be the ref never penalising the 3rd Aussie defender flopping onto already completed tackles (Smith often scampering 5 yards or more to do it) and the England kicker either being tackled after the kick or obstructed in his follow-up never once being penalised.