Happy: I hope you will accept apologies for the delay in replying, been away.

The second paragraph by 'Mild Rover', is spot on and the wording does perfectly describe what can only be seen as a very dubious and stupid error on behalf of all of the Southern-Hemi officials that voted for the refereeing situation that was imposed, it reeked before the game and due to what went on eventually the stench got worse.
I have stated previously that: the ref appointment was bad enough in itself; but to then compound that with a single entity VR; who it turns out is also the BROTHER of the on-field ref, could do nothing less than display that an Australian win was paramount, however, or no matter, how that was to be achieved!

It is simply human nature to suspect and claim that a conspiracy theory was in operation and anyone denying that is deluding themselves.

Now Happy, I will admit to the still pictures having a very strong case for your assessment of arriving at the evidence of Hall scoring being accurate, but as I originally said, these are stills and the evidence of the incident in movement, ie Video, is not in anyway as conclusive, to me it isn't.
But I am accepting your view and will concede that on the stills photo's there does seem to be room for arguing your case.
However I would have to argue that having yet again watched the game, I still, as the ref, would not have gone any further than to immedietly have given a drop out, as I would still have seen it as no try. That is what I find evident and cannot alter that view.
I also will reiterate that we gave the game away in the second half, and for that have only ourselves to blame for this situation ever having been a contentionable aspect of the end result.

The Aussie explanations that followed are both ludicrous and wide open to criticism of the highest and, to the deepest degree and, that the cheating aspect was bound to follow.
The NRL has dug itself an hole and it will be many a day before this is forgotten and correctly so. The entire episode was corrupt and it was of those S/H officials making, for that they deserve all the criticism and opprobrium going.

I'd agree that should be the rule. But it isn't and hasn't been for a long time. Though there was clear Difference between it and Watkins try.

I also think that Smith wouldn't have tackled him because of he isn't a great defender or particularly speedy, not because it was a physical impossibility (let's not forget he did get a hand to Inglis). I think the doubt has to go in Smiths favour there under any obstruction rule. Put another way, the roles reversed and I would put money on Inglis getting to Smith.

I dont think we let them back into it, the ref gave two very soft penalties on the half way on 4th tackle that gave them great field position and momentum. Coupled with the scrum against the head decision and weight of ball was heavily on their favour off the back of ref decisions. I dont have much problem with the no try tbh, at full speed it doesnt look close but the fact Engalnd did not get a penalty in 2nd half, no penalties were given for the blatant flops in 1st half and then those 2nd half decisions that gifted Australia field position and possession all smack of something very distasteful.

Spot on the coward Bernard Sutton was the stand in for Pontius Pilate for the day he choose the most expedient (for him) faced with a guillotine for Australia he deliberated as you said scurried round absolutely desperate looking through the A to Z of 'reasons not to give' book.And the rising ball was the best they could come up with "oh my god we need a miracle we are out now the video is slow mo,we are out arrrgh calm down Bernard bite the bullet and follow the dumb insolence line" .You could tell the deliberation zone was how NOT to give a try ITS MARADONNAS HAND OF GOD ALL OVER what are we to call this Bernards rising ball of God?.It is frankly just preposterous to insult the intelligence of millions.I find it totally depressing for rugby league that an intense game that could result in an historic victory for england and exit of Oz is decided by some weasling equivcating fool in a video box

Dont forget the 'supposed' Hall hand on the ball on australias 4th or 5th tackle that resulted in their scrum and momenum

Excellent post, sums the situation and goings on extremely well.

Zuchini Head says it for me also and following that glimpse of the touching down I will accede that it was a try also, until that one I to had not been sure that the ball was touched at all whilst in ground contact, clearly there was some contact and yes a part of the ball was touching the turf, result.... a try, it has to be.

Sorry for objecting previously and thanks for the photo.

You seem to be suggesting an even more ridiculous permutation of the obstruction rule than we're already subjected to; not only should the ref make a judgement about an attacker running behind his own player to create an advantage, but he should also make a subjective call about whether the impeded defender *could* have tackled the onrushing attacker had he not been impeded?

Meanwhile, it was still a try and the Brothers Sutton and their employers are still cheats.

International rugby league is over after last weekend as far as I am concerned get the lads home and let's get on with superleague

lol

Told you

There are plenty of people saying England did not get a penalty in the 2nd half. Didn't Inglis have try chalked off for obstruction?

The referee didn't give England a penalty in the second half.

Didn't Inglis have a try chalked off for obstruction in the 2nd half?