OK - it seems to me that the decision to square what was said with the rules was that it was adjudged Hall applied no downward pressure nothwithstanding his touching the ball. Great significance was put on the fact that the fingers bent showing Hall touched the ball. The VR seems to have adjudged that bending of fingers was due to the upward roll of the ball, rather than downward pressure being applied by Hall. I have not studied the video evidence but does that interpretation fit the pictures?

I would first advise that you do indeed study the video evidence yourself first, then roll a rugby ball away from you if you have one and try to bend your fingers back like Hall were bent. Can't be done UNLESS THE BALL WAS GROUNDED AND DOWNWARD PRESSURE IS APPLIED.

Someone posted this somewhere earlier in a thread (sorry, can't remember who) but it shows clearly the position of the ball/finger. Try.

It was a try on Sunday and still is today.

So many pages now, I'm not going to check, but did Anybody explain how so many ' late hits ' on the kickers wasnt penalised?

Wasn't given then and nothing's changed there either......
LOCK IT!

Looks from those pics that Ryan knocked it on (pushed the ball forward).

Oh dear God.

Nurse, the pills !

Enough already.

Oh give it up Dally.

While we know Mugchump is having one of his episodes, you're just taking the proverbial.

Look at it relative to the "O" on the advert - it's pushed forward and so knocked on (ie as I said before no "control" in the touch down).

Video ref stays. There are more correct decisions than incorrect. Without video ref they wouldn't have even looked at the Hall try and may even have given a drop out, which although beneficial to us would have been the wrong call.

Some interesting views here: m.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nr ... 7111245197

Some interesting views here: m.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nr ... 7111245197