So can anyone explain why [i"bluffing to get the drop out"[/i could be prioritized above [i"bluffing to GET THE TRY AND WIN THE PHUCKING GAME!"[/i in a professional player's mind?

Can anyone THAT DUMB be [i"the best winger in the world"?[/i

It's a very desperate attempt to cover up for the fact that Australia and NZ conspired to have to have home refs ref their games and a botched last minute call by an Australian referee in Australia gave Australia an undeserved win. Admitting it would mean we HAD to go to neutral refs so the PR has gone in to overdrive

Found an example of a similar incident yet? You know, one where the ref's brother makes a last minute decision that's wrong to disallow a match winning try and where the ref & video ref are directly employed by the side who benefits from that decision?

Plus he tried to touch down as it was rolling dead. He can't have thought he got decent contact.

To counteract the ex-Aussie refs' opinions, Stuart Cummins is reported as saying it was a try (today's Times)! So, we have our own "expert" to say it was. That'll show those Aussies.

As I hinted at back, we need official clarification of how the Law pertaining to grounding a ball on the floor should be interpreted. Seems wholly inconsistent in its current interpretation. If necessary the Law should be redrafted for clarity. One of the main problems with rugby as a sport is the big influence referees can have. There are enough subjective calls to make without having a lack of clarity on such a simple matter as what constitutes grounding.

If we hadn't bombed two golden opportunities the last try would not have been an issue, the Aussies also had a dubious try disallowed which seems to have been overlooked here

Nothing dubious about the disallowed Inglis try - blatant obstruction on Smith.

We did bomb those opportunities true. But that is irrelevant.

There was nothing dubious about Inglis try being disallowed, it was a textbook example of obstruction and was refereed entirely consistently with how that offence had been refereed for a few years now.

It's not my favourite rule but Inglis ran behind his man and then went through a gap if not created certainly exacerbated by the dummy runner not only being in the defensive line but impacting the defender. If that type of try isn't ruled out, I don't know why we would have an obstruction rule in place

Do you know what's really annoying about this. The explanation given to Tomkins from Ref Sutton was "he's touched it as the ball's rising so its going to the 20".

Now the replay shown straight after by Channel 9 clearly showed Hall first touch as the ball goes down. The rising part of the ball then forces Halls finger upwards, but the opposite end of the ball stays on the ground until the full ball rotates, Halls finger loses contact and it goes out.

I cant see in a million years how the VR has managed to decide this isn't a try. If this was reversed and Inglis was Hall and the try was given my initial reaction would be its a try, and a spawny one at that. Whichever way this is analysed, control of the ball, downward pressure, intention etc, it doesn't change the fact that, with the help of video technology and frame by frame footage (which rightly or wrongly helps decides hundreds of decisions in SL and NRL each week) for a split second Hall managed to get a finger on the ball whilst it was on the ground and should’ve been rewarded with a try. At the very least the VR should’ve applied some benefit of doubt in his decision because theres more evidence to show he got something on the ball than there is to say it wasn’t enough.

The fact is, the Australian VR was about to make a decision which would’ve seen Oz lose back to back games for the first time since the 70’s I think it was and also guarantee them not to make the final. He has decided that the flack he may get from not awarding the try would be less than the flack he may get from the likes of Sheens and the NRL/ARL mafia for the rest of his professional career. And that is exactly where the problem lies with international RL.

Smith would have never stopped Inglis even if he had a free run at him - the penalty should be awarded if the player genuinely has a chance of making the tackle, that was not the case here. There wasn't a lot of difference between that and the Watkins try.

Halls little finger needs to "Get on the weights uuurrgghhhhh"

He could have stopped him, He actually got his hands to him anyway.
Whether he would have or not is just opinion.
The Dummy runner got in the way of smith and held up his slide across.
No Try - obstruction - correct decision.