England top Tonga to make RLWC final, but not without controversy

No, I'm saying if the game were played for 85 minutes then Tonga might well have won but, as you said, it's only played for 80 minutes, so they didn't win. We are in agreement, Tonga left it too late to come back this time but it was great to watch.

I looked again, you are correct. He should've gone upstairs but I guess would make no difference if he ruled no try on the field. If video ref overturned it on that would have been a terrible decision in my opinion.

The game is played for 80 minutes for a reason, are you saying any come back wins in the history of rugby league are irrelevant if they scored their points in the last 10 minutes of the game?? Get real

ref blew the whistle after fifita grounded the ball in the ingoal area..

He can't go to the video ref, he called it way before Tonga went over the line. In that scenario the defensive line has stopped playing so you can't then award a try. If he didn't call it before the ball was grounded over the line then fair enough, go upstairs.

Yes you are right Greg and Archer hardly ever made a decision on his own always in the bunker and he was also the worst ref of all.

Tonga couldn't make the final coz that would have been embarrassing - the law is absurd but the question for such a vital decision is why didn't he look at the video (with an English ref) Gawd, what a stuff-up.

So where's loose carry in the rules

It's definitely a grey area but I don't know how much clarification you can get. There will always be an element of subjectivity to it unless there's a rule that every time a defender's hand makes contact with the ball it's a strip - which will cause it's own set of problems. I don't think you can have a player breaking through the line, a defender making incidental contact with the ball (and happy to admit that's just my interpretation of it) the attacking player dropping the ball as a result, then picking it up and scoring. That's a loose carry / knock on every day of the week to me. Even though I think the ref got it right, I agree that it's a 50/50 call, because of the subjectivity and I can understand people disagreeing with the call, but there's a lot of posters here (and elsewhere) who are making up their own versions and wordings of the rules. I don't think it's possible to get away from those 50/50 calls and they happen in every sport despite efforts to make rules black and white.

Actually, how loose the carry is relevant, at least in an indirect way. If the carry is secure enough, then it is less likely that the ball will be dropped or stripped. If the carry is too loose, then the referee is forced to make a decision. These days, rightly or wrongly, refs tend to go the easy route of calling knock on so I don't think it is right to complain about Chechin's decision given that is how the vast majority of referees were likely to have called it.

"...I am not one who jumps to conspiracy theories but that decision stank so bad..." Your whole comment was about a conspiracy theory, lol.

So fox the ref consciously was aware that if in the 79th minute tonga had come back from 20 nil down he was obliged to disallow the try that would have won them the game? Yep. Perfectly logical. Good grief.

Sleiman you honestly dont think this tournament is followed Worldwide. Even being the captain, coach and sole selector of "International" Rugby League you couldn't think this rournament is followed Worldwide. 5 countries doesn't make it a worldwide appealing tournament

Tonga lost because they conceded 20 points and scored nothing until the 73rd minute. They left it too late to get going but it was a good effort at the end. Looking forward to the final.

Everyone who wanted an England Australian final for ratings - which is many - would agree the decision was spot on of course - but the ball was clearly raked out - but the TV networks and the powers that be got the final they, and their sponsors wanted...the ref knew the call he had to make and be under no illusions about the power of networks and sponsors, I worked in TV and radio for several years and I could tell you some stories that would make your jaw drop believe me . No he wasn't told - that would be point blank rigging - but he knew what he had to do in the 50/50 call ( if you can call it that decision) as we all did. Tonga got shafted for corporate dollars and I am not one who jumps to conspiracy theories but that decision stank so bad you could smell it in England where the networks and sponsors smelt money and ratings. The ref did a great job for all concerned except Tonga. It was raked back and down hard meaning the raking players body weight and the motion of his arm puling down and backwards was a counter force to the player running forward so too much pressure came on the carrier in the counter force as anyone who has half a brain about physics could tell you - it was not a lose carry at all - it was raked out and down. Well the final is now a promoters dream is it not - they can make ten adds about the historical rivalry etc etc - and I can assure you that many would be in the making before the semi trust me and especially with the kiwi's playing such crap footy - the final would have been seen as a given once they got knocked out - just ask the bookies - the odds for an Australian v England final was not even worth the price of the bet once the kiwis were eliminated.. Yep that decision was only ever going to go one way. Tonga were standing with England in a advertising ratings money pit - but only one team held the big cheque book.

I thought usually when a hand was seen to dislodge the ball in the tackle, it was deemed a strip, then the question is number of tacklers. it was a 50/50 call. I reckon there was intent to tackle as well as wrap the all up. It looks like the rules need clarification. Another posted that by the rules, Fifita had not knocked on. Not a bad point.

“If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of impact with an opponent or with the ground, play shall proceed unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. the ball has been knocked forward.” The definition is perfect because it's exactly what happened, he lost possession forwards after impact in the tackle, so it's a knock on and the ref stopped play. Great desperation tackle to save the try but if he just held the ball with more respect it wouldn't have come loose and England switching off in the last five minutes would've cost them much more dearly.

How do players manipulate the rules if the whistle is in the refs hand??

That’s not the rule though Dean. The rules specifically refer to players “stealing the ball” so the ref has to seem intent from the defender. The defenders hand hitting the ball out is not of itself evidence of a strip. Unfortunately determining intent is where things get murky because it’s so subjective. For mine, Whitehead was trying to complete a tackle and his contact with the ball was incidental and not deliberate and the refs call was correct. It would be a pretty bold move to tackle someone from behind and primarily play at the ball rather than make an effective tackle, especially on someone like Fifita in full flight. I reckon the call was consistent with how these are adjudicated week in week out in the NRL. I cant recall too many where a player busting through a gap has lost the ball like that and been allowed to pick it up and play on. Tough break for Tonga, it would have been incredible for them to make the final in that fashion but the ref got it right for mine.

Apparently the explanation was that it wasn't stripped but loose carry - so if the tackler knocks it out accidentally by grabbing the arm while tackling its a loose carry and possession change but if he attempts to strip (how can you judge this when a player is close to the tryline as Fifita was and platyers in both codes try to force the ball out) then its not a loose carry. Does this encourage players to go for the arm holding the ball? If its one on one "strip" then its play on isn't it?? Is this one of these rules open to refs interpretation to even up the game...