It went forward off Johnstone IMO and went backwards in your opinion. I’d call that club bias mixed in with it being a touch and go call. I thought the refs on field call was fair enough and the video ref couldn’t turn that over.

I’d be more annoyed with the Powell try if I were a Wakey fan. He’s lost control of the ball but because it’s given on field, it’s not considered to be a clear enough loss of control for the video ref to go against his mates decision on the field.

Ultimately the process needs changing for me. The on field decision prejudices the video refs call and it’s never sat right with me. If you’re not sure, go to the video ref and let him decide. If it’s an absolute 50/50 the benefit goes to the attacking team.

And I'd disagree with that. His forearm and fingers on the ball carrying arm never lose contact with the ball. They're given every week. It all depends on your view of what constitutes losing control. If you're disallowing because of some arbitrary judgement call of what constitutes under control I'd suggest we'll be disallowing a lot more than we do. Some part of the hand/arm touching the ball has always been try as per Stevo's "fingertip control". Whether it should be is an entirely separate argument.

Couldn't agree more with the sending it up one way or the other though. Either make the call (right or wrong) OR send it up. Not both.

Absolutely

And as I mentioned earlier, you shouldn't have had the ball in the first place as Johnstone knocked on the set before but a dropout was given.

Control isn't part of the rule. It's downward pressure you need.

The ref should either award the try or he shouldn’t. There should be no sending it to the video ref with ‘I’ve got a try / no try’ message.
This is I feel where the captain’s challenge rule could be used, it’s the captains call if he thinks the ref is wrong in his decision. Give two captains challenges per team but these should only be used in the action of scoring a try and not for knock on/ obstruction to the lead up, this area should still be controlled by the official

Indeed. Quite clearly downward pressure in this case too so makes it all the more a try (if that's possible).

I'd disagree. It's tight but I think there's separation (thus no downward pressure, knock on)

The operative word there is "think" Grimmy. If you can show me a single frame of footage that shows separation then I'll agree. I'd counter your assertion and say that ball movement does not necessarily imply separation. Whether you "think" it did or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it cannot be shown, less so proven. Try all day long.

P.S. Am I right in remembering you advocating try for the "Ryan Hall finger tip control" no try for GB? If not, as you were. If so, what do you see as the difference?

Yes, as I say it's tight. I see why the on field officials didn't pick it up, and the video ref didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. Obviously my thoughts are immaterial the same as yours, doesn't stop us talking about it!

Hall - you keep going back to control, that's not a factor in it. Yes I do think Hall's should have been awarded. He had downward pressure on the ball IMO, never any separation after he touched it.

That Ryan Hall try gets given if it's Inglis to win it for Oz

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean immaterial in that sense. All opinions are immaterial except the ref's. I meant immaterial with regards to this discussion as thinking something is not the same as being able to prove it. Not a single frame of footage shows separation so for you to think something has no bearing on proving your point (purely within the framework of this discussion). So when you advocate "no try" I'm asking for you to illustrate why. (That being the point of a discussion, no?)

The Ryan Hall was exactly the same in that at no point could separation be shown, therefore "try".

You're not wrong EC!

For me, he doesn't move his hand and yet the ball begins to move, that's why I'm saying no try. Yes some part of his hand/arm may have still been on it, but I think the ball starts moving early enough that it's more likely to have completely separated. All chip paper now of course and as you say, there's no definitive shot to completely prove it.

Can't agree with your "more likely to have completely separated" comment. Based on what? It's equally likely to have stayed in contact. There is no empirical way to favour one scenario over the other. It's a 50-50 at best.

All chip paper now though as you say and the chip papers agree it was a try