Or alternatively, read the actual laws of the game.

It was a high shot from Thurston. Hall still had hold of the ball before Lewis's leg hit his arm and knocked the ball out. Thurston's high shot did not stop him from scoring.

Therefore it was not a penalty try.

The video ref had a shocker really awarding that and denying the second Aussie try after about 20 mins for offside. These things happen though.

I agree with the Australian media. It was never a penalty try.

So at what point do you just give a penalty and ignore the scoring potential ?

10 yards , 5 , 1 , 6 inches ?

What is the punishment for a deliberate attack to the head ?

Since when does making one bad decision mean you ignore a blatant penalty , where is that in the rules ?

Simple questions even for a Kiwi , I await some simple answers ?

The simple answer is in the simple reply I gave above.

Hall was still in control of the ball after Thurstons high challenge. Therefore no penalty try.

So Thurston's head shot had no effect on the act of Hall moving to ground the ball? And I also believe the act of knocking the attacker senseless with your knees (accidental or not) is illegal.

Did you think the penalty try decision in the 2008 World Cup Final was correct?

As clear a penalty try as you will see.
Thurston's illegal contact with the head almost knocked Hall unconscious, and therefore he struggled to ground the ball. If he hadn't been half-comotosed, the probability of him scoring was higher than the probability of him not scoring.

Fella, I've seen players knocked out cold and be unconscious before they hit the ground but they still keep hold of the ball, does that mean they weren't affected by the high shot?

It was a clear penalty try and Thurston should have walked for a deliberate attack to the head, Lewis should have been spoken to about the grubby act of sliding in with his knees. Had Isaac Luke done that every Australian commentator, journalist and pundit would be spewing about it, talk about hypocritical!

So it's ok to smack somebody unconscious as long as they don't let go of the ball ?

How about it's ok to attempt to break somebodys leg , as long as you don't actually succeed in doing it ?

Answer the simple questions I asked you

At what point do you decide it wasn't a try scoring penalty , 10 yards ? , 5 ? , 1 ? , six inches ?

Come on stop being thick

It was a clear high shot but definitely not a penalty try. If anything Hall milked it like Westwood did the other week.

We won't agree on this one, the video ref (in my opinion) got it wrong (the same as he got the Aussie no try call wrong on 20 mins)

Lets move on.

it was definitely the knees that caused the penalty try to be given. to use your conditions, you yourself said it was the knee that knocked the ball out, but then the knees carried on and collided with halls head. this, if lacking intent was wreckless play that is regularly penalised. therefore a penalty was conceded that stopped the try from being scored. penalty try.

You have got to be on a wind up. If you really believe Thurstons attack on Hall had no impact on His attempt to ground the ball then you really are hard of thinking.

Yup. I was willing Hall to score as much as anybody, but that doesn't make it a correct call. Throw in the Chris Lawrence "try" & I was wondering if Steve Mac was the video ref.

So no penalties should be given if the player remains in control of the ball?
You're just trolling!

So because Thurston didn't hit him hard enough it wasn't a penalty ?

So what is hard enough ? , broken nose ? , how many lost teeth constitutes a tackle hard enough to be a penalty ?

Once again , how close to the line is it ok to deliberately smack somebody in the face , and it not to be a penalty ?

FFA , answer a simple bloody question , I know generally Kiwis aren't the cleverest people , but for christs sake , it isn't rocket science

He is a wind up.

He makes it sound like there was an age between Thurston's challenge and Hall's attempted grounding. Watch it in real time, it's no time at all. Hall lost the ball because of the challenge to the head.