Are you sure about that? What's the point of the ref calling it a try or no try before sending it up then? Also I'm happy with the call. If that's considered grounded, then how is that any different from when someone loses complete control but keeps a finger on it at all time? If you played the try at a slightly faster speed you'd see he does sort of graze it, he momentarily puts a tiny point of pressure on it before his finger rubs straight back down the ball.. if you want to be super technical you can call that a try (and in that case you'd have to go back to the no seperation ruling imo) but I'm more than happy for the video ref to take an opinion on whether or not there is enough downward pressure rather than just following a textbook rule that allows no conjecture.
Scoring a try just because your little finger brushed past the ball on the ground is so much bullshit. I was happy with the call. Common sense for once seemed to prevail.
It may be a silly rule, but its the rule. There's plenty of rules that don't make sense but still have to be enforced.
I've argued with a few people on this, one person actually said 'by the letter of the law it's a try, but it just wouldn't have been right to give it' I mean there's just no response to that. It's the sort of idiocy that sees the continuous retardation and inconsistencies in rulings
Although the whole thing really highlights one of my pet peeves. Why the fuck didn't GI just ground it? So many player try to bat the ball dead instead of just jumping on it. Whole situation could've been avoided.
I thought there had to be a fair amount of downward pressure, not just touching it while its on the ground. Fairo then
Well that looks a little disappointing. Will watch the full game later but doubt I'm gonna be very happy with the way it ended
I'm wondering if the outcome would have been different if Hall got up claiming a try? The way I saw it, he had no idea he touched it.
He probably knew he touched it, but didn't think he grounded it. If he gets up claiming and he didn't ground it Australia get the ball back, whereas if he pretends he didn't England get the dropout.
I still cannot get over how poor Watkins was in defence, did he even make a tackle on Jennings? He's been credited with 5 missed, but surely it was twice that number.
I would never accept Hall's "try" if it went the other way so I wouldn't take it here. That isn't what a try should ever look like.
True, it was ugly as sin. However; to the letter of the law, it's a try. There was downward pressure on a ball on the ground. No separation of the hand and the ball or the ball and the ground. Try.
I believe that just indicates that the law is written incorrectly. The fact that we can slow down and zoom in on the footage to find a tiny point of contact, shouldn't override the fact that it shouldn't be a try.
I think you are wrong fundamentally but also still have a valid point at the same time. Is it Fourex - anyway the Queensland bloke hit the nail on the head. It is just common sense that you can't give a try based on a little finger applying downward pressure. And that is what the ref thought so he just invented some lies basically about the ball rising when it was touched. Which was a farcical thng to say. But he just wanted common sense to prevail. The problem I have with that is that common sense should have no part of governing a sporting fixture. It should be based on blind adherrance to the rules or teams have a justifiable case to protest the outcome as there will be inconsistent interpretations and judgement calls being made. For example my thoughts on what is common sense are probably different to the next bloke's. Edit just re-read your post - yes the law may also be faulty if it allows for little finger tries to be scored but this try should have been allowed.
I respect and understand your stance, but what is the alternative law? 2.5 fingers, the palm? Then there was Jennings' try, where the ground dislodged the ball... Still a try, but looked very awkward.
I think that if Hall got up cock-a-hoop after the challenge with Inglis things may have been different. I honestly believe he had no idea he had touched it.
The fact that the ball is rising indicates that the alleged "downward pressure" that Hall has exerted is so incidental/non-existent that it hasn't even affected the trajectory of the ball. Tries should involve the ball being forced onto the turf.
