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.

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.

In Lancashire speak Happy , that's known as wanting the cake and ha'penny.

Surely even you can see the anomaly you are advocating when you claim that ONLY your accepted angle can vindicate the outcome you desire?

To be conclusive the image that is total proof must be seen to be so from any clear and unobstructed view available. Maybe it's your eyes, or reasoning, that requires some testing also?

I think Sheens and Cameron Smith's comments are pretty telling. They don't say it's not a try based on downward pressure/Inglis perhaps grounding it/ball rising up etc.....for them they say it's a correct call simply because Hall didn't celebrate. No actual view/comment on the incident, just Hall's reaction, I think it shows they know deep down it was a try.

One Aussie news report I read claims Hall "climbed all over the back of Inglis" so even if the grounding was more clear cut then the Aussie VR would've found another way to rule it out with Hall probably penalised. Same report claims that when Bird tipped O'Loughlin over his shoulder and dumped him on his head/neck that it was O'Loughlin who somersaulted over Bird that caused that incident.

Nonsense. You can have a million different angles and views, and maybe non of them can show "inconclusive proof" If however just one angle shows "conclusive proof" then......................In Lancashire speak melman, The other angles mean Bugger'all.
Ask yourself just ONE question before you reply.

DID YOU SEE HALLS HAND TOUCH THE BALL THAT WAS ON THE GROUND IN ANY OF THE VIEWS ?

If the answer is yes then ALL the other "inconclusive" views are made null and void.

If the answer is No then I would suggest a visit to specksavers should be your priority tomorrow.

The Aussies have no shame in cheating. They were given so much field position on the back of 'nothing' penalties it was ridiculous. The very fact that they argued for 4 hours till they got their own way with an Aussie ref says it all. No class.