"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.

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 [uTHAT DUMB[/u be [i"the best winger in the world"?[/i

So, by suggesting there wasnt enough downward pressure, he is actually confirming there was 'some' downward pressure? In my world, some always is more than none so, by rights, its a try??

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

Yeah, this angered me. Is he really that ignorant?

I too missed that bit in the laws where a unit of pressure was provided, plus a minimum value that must be met.

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