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.

Sure, but here we're not talking about some nonsensical theoretical possibility of grounding the ball. That would be completely ludicrous. Here we're talking about a situation where there is a realistic possibility that the ball was grounded. It's also possible that it wasn't grounded. Hence the benefit of the doubt decision.

People might want to have a look at [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=651this[/url. Thirteen minutes in. At the same time Moore's left side (where he's holding the ball) hits the ground the defender's leg can be clearly seen without the ball on it (his legs are level with Moore's hips - not where the ball is).

I await the next try to be not given because the grounding has likely happened but there is no visible evidence on replay

[size=50(although I am just attempting to copy tvoc's genius)[/size

But it was much more likely it wasnt grounded, and as such to say that we are giving the benefit of doubt to a much less likely possibility because there isnt conclusive evidence either way is nonsense.

The only sensible way to look at it is, Ganson makes his decision on what he thinks happened even if he isnt sure, if he really cant tell the BoD goes to the attacking side, anything else would be ludicrous.


BoD isnt a defence for Gansons decision here.

so.... Mcguires "no try" today
not sure why that wasnt given

So, McGuire's first try today.

Not sure why that was given

because the referee missed a forward pass which wasnt that far forward?

So an official got the decision wrong?

We've answered hopies aswell.

if you want to start a forward pass thread go ahead, that one was most likely forward, just as a few that were given forward werent - this thread is about the interpretation of the grounding rule and the video refs/refs differing opinions