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.

But they won't, will they. They won't care. Out of all this nonsense regarding "best refs for the best games" and completely disregarding neutrality, the person that has annoyed me the most has been Luke Watts, because it was his deciding vote that caused this issue in the first place. Who would have thought a New Zealand official would jump into the sack with a scumbag like the NRL/ARL official in Tony Archer after the way the NRL treated his colleagues in the past; people like Glen Black and David Pakieto; Shane Rehm and Leon Williamson. NZ refs who didn't get a chance in the NRL, referee's who were scrutinsed by the likes of Wayne Bennett and Ricky Stuart down to the minute detail. Glen Black actually came out publicly and stated that he was uncomfortable when the ARL made him referee a New Zealand game back in the Tri Nations a few years ago. You'd never hear Perenara come out and say that.

Next week, it will be the same; Perenara will referee New Zealand, Sutton will referee Australia, and Bentham will be left to referee another meaningless friendly match. Cummings nailed it in his comments earlier in the week; he said there was absolutely no point for Watts to be on the panel because he was questioning who Watts has ever produced for international duty. Not Perenara because he's a product of the Australian system. He also said "Jon Sharp may as well come home as he will be out-voted each week.”

Interesting to hear from 2 coaches with completely different views on things; McNamara has come out, said it didn't look like a try, yet now he's saying he is "disappointed" it wasn't given. Matt Parrish has come out and absolutely blasted the officials, especially Perenara. I think the defining factor is McNamara has a job in the NRL. He won't want to rock the boat because he's probably afraid he will get canned.

McNamara should be seething and demanding neutral referees for the remaining fixture(s). Saying that, Perenara is just as bad.

There's no way an Australian VR would give a decision to put them out of tournament, he'd never work in Australia again.

Well Happy I may be bloody old but I am not blind ......yet.
I agree with the stills displayed on here that it does appear to be the way you and many others claim it to be, But when the video was shown from the opposite side I could not honestly try, at all, to claim that it looked as conclusive.
I am referring to the video and the continuation that that medium shows, I would therefore being fair ( which I would contend also is more than could be levelled at the NRL lot) have to go with the decision as given.
I do know that the rules are why Inglis's try was disallowed but I find it a ridiculous pedantic one that has crept in and which is creating nothing less than a cheats charter, Cherry-Evan's attempt at getting Watkins try disallowed completely vindicates that view, it should be stopped as it does a disservice to the game.

I don't get the complaints at Inglis' try being ruled out. Was as clear as day, the dummy runner ran in front of Inglis' in to the line and impeded Smith's progress towards Inglis. Would Smith have been able to stop Inglis I don't know, but he went through a gap created by his dummy runner impacting a defender. It is exactly why we have an obstruction rule.

[del[/del
I didn't realise at the time they were brothers, which throws yet another element of farce into the equation.

Not only do we have an Australian refereeing the Kangaroos in a must-win game, we have his fricking BROTHER as video ref. So, there's a good chance any tough decisions will go in favour of the on-field official for fear of making his brother appear incompetent. Whether deliberately, or subconsciously, the risk is there.

Once again, make it nice and simple: remove all possible doubt by having neutral - and non-related, ffs! - officials.

The mind boggles.

There is even a THIRD brother who is on the way up the ranks, Chris Sutton.

Don't be surprised to see him as a touchie next week or something like that.

So you say you're not blind yet and you also say the video shown from the "opposite" side was not conclusive ? Of course it wasn't, that's why we have various views and angles.
If as you say your not blind then you MUST have seen Halls finger put downward pressure on the ball, (from the one angle that mattered) and that the ball was flat on the ground when it did. ie TRY.
As has been mentioned here before, you can show a thousand pictures to try and disprove something, but only one is needed to show the truth.

My belief was that we would win today I was absolutely assured we would at half-time too.

Our backs did exceptionally well especially Sarginson and Hall, and yes our forwards more than matched theirs.............BUT. Not for 25 minutes in the second half.
Hunts inclusion was an example of coaching with some guts and deep knowledge of what was required to help your side, yet by the time he did emerge onto the field the Aussies had already gained the initiative.
We let the game go and I wonder if that was a dressing room decision, to contain rather than keeping the ascendency and going for the jugular?
During the period from; 7 minutes into the second half until 5 minutes from time; the Australian forwards were a match for ours and as a team they outplayed us then, we were not beaten for fitness this time, but simply a lack of cohesiveness within our team over 80 minutes.

And as for delaying tackles no one was any more blatant for that than O'Loughlin.
Maybe Evans tried to do more, but we were lucky on quite a few occasions not to get penalised for some of that.

I have been supporting this game for well over 60 years and am as committed an England fan as you will find, but I do not and cannot go with today's ref being vilified in the way he is being. Overall I dont believe he had too bad a game, I can recall many worse.
The Video ref .... well if the on-field ref was to be Aussie then under no circumstance imaginable should the VF as well have been.
That I do agree was deplorable and does the NRL and Australian's no credit whatsoever.

Tbf, because it was a try, if only just (even the Aussie commentators went a long way to acknowledging it as they wrestled with the implications of it), I think he'd have probably been okay. The Aussies were lacklustre by their standards and I suspect the team would have taken the blame. But it might well have been burrowing up through his subconscious. He was put in an invidious position.

If there was a rematch in the final (points difference maybe makes that unlikely?), and they go with an Aussie ref and VR, I doubt I'd bother watching. I'd hedge my bets and record it, but check the score first. Having come this far, I can't see them suddenly developing a sense of embarrassment.

Not even that fussed about the game with the kiwis now, tbh.

From the other angle I thought that Hall missed the ball but in that case it would have been a drop out. The conclusive angle clearly showed that he touched the ball and got downward pressure. The fact that he recognised that Hall touched the ball irritates me even more because the VR was convinced he touched it in which case how could he not give a try? Saying that he touched the ball as it bounced up is plain nonsense and just serves to cover up a poor decision.

I would just love it if England can pick themselves up from this disappointment and win the tournament.