My question stands - "because he's not 100% certain" is not a physical reason. A physical reason in this case being an act or suspicion of an act.

...ie new question the referee could well ask the video ref "is there is act which took place, or do you suspect of any act that took place that could have stopped the the try being scored".

Depends on the circumstance. He could allow the tackle count to continue, or award the defending team a 20-metre restart.



Doubt implies that one is not sure about what occured. I think the burden of proof should be on the attacking team to score, and not whether they 'might' have scored. Of course, when there are no physical reasons to disallow a try, then 'doubt' becomes less of a factor in lieu of certainty? It's all semantics, i suppose, but i don't think 'doubt' should be apart of a referee's vocabulary.

He should just choose a random option? He hasn't seen any reason to give a 20-metre restart, or to deny the try and allow the tackle count to continue.

you didn't explicity say momentum however your explanation of a forward pass was on the momentum rules. as players are traveling. when i stated the ball could be passed in any manner and directions as it is not in a direction closer to the opposing goal line you said i was completely wrong. and went on to give the senario of a player traveling at 15mph. however in my statement i don't recall actually mentioning the players moving so i stand by my definition

Not all. It depends on the circumstance in regards to why he's not certain it's a try. That could be dependent on numerous factors such as being held-up, knock-on, or short of the line, etc...

Conversely, I don't think a try should be awarded because it will lead to a dead-end in regards to how the game should be restarted.

All this talk of 'momentum' v forward passing reminds me of Bradfords disallowed try against Wigan in the play offs last year.

Went forward but clearly was hit backwards by the bulls player ..

That caused all kinds of arguments with me and my mates.

I see, so you think a try shouldn't be awarded if there referee thinks there is the possibility (however small) that there was something wrong. Instead he should make a decision that something incredibly unlikely happened that none of the officials actually saw?

That's hardly a benefit of the doubt scenario then. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, when benefit of the doubt, played out realistically means 'quite certain'?

You are completely wrong - the absolute statement that "when the ball travels towards the opposition's line it is a forward pass", is plain wrong. It [ican[/i travel towards the opposition's line [iif[/i it goes backwards relative to the passing player.

Nooooooooooooo, not the momentum "rule" again... wasn't there a record-breaking thread on that a couple of years ago, where one of Keith Senior's relatives was absolutely certain that the laws of physics didn't apply within a rugby pitch?