Not really. The post come in to play when the ball hits it. It doesn't come into play if a player hits it.

Whether it hit the ground before line is surely irrelevant though - did it hit the ground before the post???

For me, that is the best evidence that it was a try. Yes the ball does touch the line, but surely some part of the ball has touched the ground in goal before it has touched the line (albeit very fine margins). It's not like he's plonked the whole ball on the line is it? My opinion.

It stands to reason that if the side of the ball hits the corner flag, the lowest point of the ball must hit the floor in-field.

I'd check the rules if I were you. Even Cummins was saying at the time that the corner post has no bearing.

It's all gone a bit quiet in here now that picture has gone on which clearly shows green between the ball and the line.

But it's also conclusive proof that the ball was not placed directly on its end, but rather more sideways which blows most of your arguments and perfectly positioned ball diagram out of the water.

WTF is this?!!! Forget video technology, get FA to draw us a picture!

This picture also clearly proves Charnley lost it.

It was a try. So was Lauaki's.

I'm not a referee but I can't see any references to the flag not being touch in goal:

"The ball is in touch in-goal when it or a player in contact with it touches the touch in-goal line, or any object on or outside the touch in-goal line."

and

"A corner post is in touch in-goal."

I didn't say the ball was placed directly on its end, that's neither my argument nor my diagram to which you refer. However, I don't see that it matters either way, my point still stands whichever way the ball was put down (and I was referring specifically to the way it appeared in the photo in the post I quoted, obviously).

The ball never got placed down on its point though, obvious to see for most!

8.51806640625:10