Which is fine, =#FF0040IF that rule is followed consistently throughout the season. But when even the same video ref as not done that, then it is a cause for concern.

The fact that the obstruction try could be argued as incorrect is just clutching at straws from Saints fans. That sort of incident has been dissallowed consistently throughout the season, and therefore there was no way he was going to give that one. This smacks in contradiction to the benefit of doubt one.

All the armchair match officials out again!

Are you suggesting a person sitting down and watching a tv screen cant make accurate decisions? if so you are in agreement with the majority of the posters int he thread

This seems reasonable and I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to the Video Ref.

no one, but surely benefit of doubt only becomes an issue if Ganson is split 50/50 as to which way to go.

if he is 99% sure he didnt ground it then he cant give the try on the basis something somewhere he cant even see may have happened. means its a try, it would mean the VR could do nothing but give a try, there would be no point in even asking him.

If Ganson thought it didnt touch the ground its no try, regardless of if he isnt sure 100% his opinion is the right one. If Ganson truly believed there was enough doubt in those views to cloud his judgement to the level of giving the benefit of doubt he isnt fit to referee. There is no technical get out clause here, he doesnt need to prove conclusively the other way, he just needs to give his opinion.

It was a poor decision that he should be embarrassed about, and that Cummins should bring him up for. Though we all know that isnt really likely to happen

that doesnt say he should give it he didnt see it being grounded, or that he should give it if he doesnt see whether it was grounded or not, simply that on its own, not being able to see the ball being grounded isnt a reason not to give a try.

if the referee doesnt know he has no option but to make his best guess, similarly the video referee if he doesnt know should make his best guess, if he is split either way he can give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side.

If Ganson really was split he is a bloody idiot

thats the thing, its not his opinion or view on it, theres a rule and he made the correct call

altho i agree it wasnt a try!!!!

there isnt a rule, for there to be so would make the VR pointless. To say he has to have conclusive evidence before he can rule no try is nonsense, it would mean he would have to give nearly every decision as a try as there will always be doubt either way.

there isnt a benefit of doubt on something he doesnt think is a try, either he cant tell either way in which case the benefit of doubt is given or he he thinks it is or isnt a try.

He cant judge that he doesnt think its a try and then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side, he is then deliberately giving a decision he thinks is incorrect.

id also ask what evidence he is expected to produce to back himself up, surely he would just show the video and say in my opinion he didnt get it down. What other evidence can he possibly give?

im not sure, this is where the BOTD rule is a bit silly. Luckily it doesnt crop up too much and it didnt have an impact on the outcome. If you gave the benifit to the defending team there would still be this situation. Im not sure what the answer is

well the obvious answer I would think is he gives what he thinks is the correct decision, if he really cannot make a call the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Which is fair enough really.

I just cant believe he honestly thought it was that close

if its impossible for the vr to make the correct call then shouldn't he hand the decision back to the referee?

What's to say it did?
It is logical to suggest that, especially in the second available, the ball couldn't pass through the defender's leg to touch the ground.
It is pure speculation, supported by nothing at all, to suggest that it might have done. What we know is that the path to the ground was blocked, and then in a second the ball has gone UP, away from the ground.


But it does apply. Why wouldn'tt it? The laws are the same for all officials! The reason why this 'try' should have been disallowed is [inot[/i because the VR was in no position to see the ball being grounded, but because there was no reason to belive that it [ihad[/i been grounded. Otherwise you are arguing that it's a try every time the ball disappears from view. Which I hope you're not, as that would be extra dumb.

The reason to believe it might have been grounded was that it was heading towards the ground when it was last visible. Now it might have hit the defender's leg and then come up, it might have slipped down the side of the defender's leg and hit the ground before coming up, it might have been held up without hitting anything. Maybe he briefly lost control of the ball and knocked on. We don't know. I doubt anyone, even the players involved in the tackle, know.
As we haven't seen any reason to disallow the try your only option would be to disallow it because you can't see the grounding.

then youd be making an assumption the ball didnt hit the ground thus giving the botd to the defense

once again the ref made the right call lol

You see this is the ultimate reason we'll never agree. We both watched the same thing, but saw something different - as obviously Ganson think she did too. The ball was with respect [inot[/i heading towards the ground when last we saw it, it had very clearly landed on top of the defender's leg. How was it "heading" anywhere south, beyond that?

A quick arithmetical calculation suggests that had the ball been placed on the leg at a speed of at least about 1,830 mph then it may have burst or deformed around the leg enough to likely touch the ground with some bit, or at 16,000 mph probably enough kinetic enertgy to go through the leg, but I don't think either situation applied.

It may have done all these things and more, even things so cool no-one has even imagined them yet. But thats not really relevant.

We have seen a reason to disallow the try, that the ball was on the players leg, we dont have conclusive evidence for that but any sensible opinion would surely be that was the most likely occurrence and as such the try shouldnt have been given.

The only justification for giving that try you have brought, is that there isnt conclusive evidence against it, just some pretty good evidence.

=#0000FF[size=200IF IN DOUBT, THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IS GIVEN TO THE ATTACKING TEAM!!!!![/size

Now what part of that statement as applied here in GB and in Aus are people having difficulty with?

probably the idiotic nature of that statement and the ridiculous game it would lead to if it was ever applied

Nope. The last clear shot of it showed it firmly planted on a defenders leg. When next visible it was actually further away from the ground. I understand the BOD rule but IMO there was zero evidence of the ball getting anywhere near to being grounded. If this now constitutes sufficient 'doubt' to be able to award a try (or insufficient evidence to disallow one) then we really are going into uncharted territory.

None. It is you who is having difficulty understanding the arguments.

Between the two shots when it was visible there was time and opportunity for the ball to be grounded. So we have doubt over whether or not a try was scored. The correct decision being to award the try. There's nothing I'm aware of that says that when in doubt the ref should weigh up the various possibilities and decide that the most likely one happened.

so the situation we have is that if the ball goes out of view of the camera for any period of time then the decision is try?
unless there is another person in the video box and then it isnt

No. If the ball is out of view when it could be grounded then it is a try.
There is no change here and it doesn't depend on which ref is making the decision. No ref will disallow a try because they couldn't see the grounding.

you werent aware referee should give the possibility he thinks happened even if he isnt one hundred percent sure?

were you thinking he should give the one least likely to happen? a random possibility picked out of a hat? a try in all situations? a decision based on nothing specific

no referee will disallow a try because the cant see the grounding, they will disallow a try if they dont think it was grounded, regardless of there being a possibility it was grounded.

The reason being there always is a possibility it was grounded, in fact there are endless possibilities, so allowing the try on the basis there was a possibility it was grounded, however ridiculous, small, or nonsensical that possibility would be completely ludicrous, and as such it isnt in the rules.