I am someone who gets angry when I think about that decision, but I have to say that the image you posted supports the no try decision.

There is no doubt that Hall's little finger touched one end of the ball when it was on the ground. The moving image you show, however, suggests that Hall's end of the ball was rising up and pushing against his finger rather than Hall applying downward pressure on it. The other tip of the ball might have been in the turf but there is a reasonable view that the pressure was against the finger from the ball rather than the downward pressure being applied by Hall's finger.

Add into that the on-field ruling, that there was no try, I am seeing the decision as a reasonable one. Or at least understandable.

Not sure how they burn internet witches but you might be about to find our......

If that's aimed at me...he opened the door with the insults, granted it's childish but he's an admin, he can remove me if he so wishes.

Hall's hand is moving down to the ground. It's impossible for there not to be downward pressure.

That post of yours is way too rational.

Consider yourself excommunicated by the Moonie Massive.

No Sir. Mugwump. It's really infantile behaviour. Moreso as it's from someone criticising other people's behaviour!!!

Admin. Sorry. Even worse then.

@England_RL: The referee for Saturday's match against @NZRL_Kiwis will be Phil Bentham with Henry Perenara as the video referee. #4Nations

I don't see why we can't just have a neutral ref?

It is a reasonable description of the moment that Halls finger contacts the ball. But it actually highlights why the decision was so wrong. Pretty much every rolling ball (due to the shape of the ball) will likely result in part of the ball going up and part going down. There is nothing in the rules that gets close to stating that the pressure of Halls finger has to be great than that of the ball rising. It is an entirely invented criteria. He may as well have actually disallowed because Hall didn't celebrate. Yes it would be true, but it isn't part of the criteria for a try.

To me it was no try BUT the apparent rationale given at the time smacked of looking for an excuse not to give it. That's what needs to be questioned and investigated - was that decision made fairly (even if they got it right by default)?

You do realise that is because the camera is moving forward, not the ball...?

Hall's finger/s never leave contact with the ball, so it is irrelevant whether the ball is rising at any stage. At the time I thought it was a try but at no stage did I think the VR would have the balls to give it. When he gave no try I was completely unmoved, but the injustice is burning more & more as time goes by & I keep thinking about it. I have spent a fortune following tours down under, I was in Melbourne in 92 when GB dicked the Aussies. The furore in the press against the ref the following week was unbelievable. Sufficient to say we were slaughtered by the ref in the decider at Brisbane.

Well said.

All undone by the fact that Halls hand is travelling in a downward motion and at some considerable speed which means he's meeting the upward motion of that end of the ball with a downward force. TRY

"Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure""

I didn't realise that there was a pressure measurement as part of the video ref process. Can someone show me the button on the Sky screen? They do talk some rubbish.

But then seeing who said it and his however many ineffective years at Red Hall, its hardly surprising.