These two clowns were nominated against the wishes of England who wanted a neutral ref, if a NZ ref can be with their side in it.
I stopped watching at 4-0 to Australia after the ref had put three incidents on report, none of which I thought merited it, and consistently turned a blind eye to Australians late tackling and barging into our kickers as they attempted run-throughs.
I looked instead on my phone to see we had lost 16-12.
Can someone tell me if the Hall late effort was correctly disallowed?
The ref's brother was the video ref.
I shalln't be watching since I am pretty much fed up with losing to Australia and particularly in these circumstances.

PS I had a look on the virtual terrace ... Jesus fooking wept!

It's a tricky one; to me there was downward pressure on the ball, minute but there. However was it controlled? Arguably not.

I though it was givable, but can see why it wasn't

It would have been given in SL as benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side; however in international rules benefit goes to the original refs decision which was 'No Try' in this case

TRY

Jemmo's definition of the rule explains why the try wasn't given. Ryan Hall must have been deemed not to have been in control of the ball as he touched it down.

The slow motion reply clearly shows that he had his finger/fingers on the ball as it made contact with the ground. The definition of "control" is subjective. I can see reasons both ways for allowing or disallowing it.

The rule seems something of an ass as we obviously need to establish the degree of downward pressure to decide whether it was "controlled".

Surely the easy answer is to simply say that if the fingers are in contact with the ball at the moment the ball is grounded, a try should be awarded? Why make it any more complicated than that?

Without the aid of video technology, I don't think the try could be given. In real-time it looked as though the ball was "bounced" with a possible gap between the ball and fingers as it touched the ground. The still frame showed this not to be the case.

The waters were muddied even further when the video ref told the ref that the ball was rising when Ryan Hall made contact with it. The evidence clearly showed this not to be the case.

I thought the Ref awarding a try and then seeking confirmation by the Video Ref was an NRL rule and not an International one ?

Not sure, bentleyman.

Wouldn't life be much simpler if we had one set of rules for everybody? Having NRL rules, Super League rules, and International rules is plain crazy.

I thought it was both

Going purely on memory of the event, I seem to think the Aussie player grounded it before Hall did, meaning that the ball at that time is dead and any touch Hall had wouldn't have counted.

It should however have been a drop out to England.

Just my 2 penneth

He didn't ground it, he tried to scoop it dead, made a porridge of it and left the ball still in play.

No he didn't ground it.

DM made a point I'd forgotten too, The video ref did indeed say that he didn't allow it as the ball was going in an upward direction when Hall touched it...which is quite frankly not true

Which would leave some people questioning his faculties and judgement.

The ref and video ref bottled it quite simply.

At normal speed it would never be given but in slow motion on a big screen it should have been given.

The refs wouldn't have got out of Melbourne alive had it been given and that's why it wasn't given.Also the Aussies would have been out.

simply can't have aussie refs and video refs controlling a game in which australia are playing.

they have got to be biased should have been a neutralref.
Also there was no difference to the aussie try allowed.only minimal contact.
What a farce.
I hope samoa knock there f******* heads off.