The benefit of the doubt

[Inferno]

Evening chaps,

Something that occured to me while I was watching today's telecast.

Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt? As far as I'm aware the benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team is a rule that has been around for umpteen years, but over the last couple of years it has disappeared.

Remember when referees used to either call a try, or send it up the video ref and the video ref had complete discretion BUT benefit of the doubt went to the attacking team.

Now with the referees forced to make a call one way or another benefit of the doubt has disappeared. Instead video referees need "compelling evidence to overturn" whatever the f**k that means.

Flanno mentioned in the presser and Gall did during the game that video referees were looking for reasons not to award trys and he's right. There was doubt for both of Barba's trys and IMO they should have been given. If both had been given at first instance does anyone think there was enough to overturn?

Anyone else think the game would be much better served either giving the on field ref the third option of sending it up with an "unsure" on field sign, or alternatively just sending it up when in doubt without binding the video ref to look for "compelling evidence" to overturn?

What do youse guys think?

 

[eddiesmith]

The obstruction call against Ennis was an absolute disgrace and that one was sent up as a Try.

An unsure ruling is definitely needed, of all the tries they send upstairs to see whether the ball was grounded or not, 95% are inconclusive so they go with the on field call and 100% of those on field calls are guesses. There have been some where more likely than not it was held up but went up as a try so stayed a try. I have also seen some sent up as no try and I would say video is 99% conclusive its been grounded but they stuck with no try.

I don't mind the system of on field referees making a call, that way if the video is inconclusive at super slow mo then stick with what was seen live. But yes an unsure should be added especially for if the ball has been grounded or held up.

 

[Card Shark]

Both refs thought it was ok as it happened & let it go 50m before second guessing themselves.

Don't ruin a good try by doing that shit, if you see an obstruction, f**king penalise as it happens.

Bring in a captains challenge, referrals to the bunker , 2 successful challenges per half & get refs to make all the calls.

 

[carcharias]

Both were trys
Vals looked a bit iffy in Super slo mo
But if that's not momentum then I'm not here pooing.
The one against Ennis was horseshit
How the f**k they get obstruction from the bloke who just passed the bal us beyond me.

So there was no doubt
Benefit of the no doubt

 

[millersnose]

Haha

Ennis did obstruct though

It's a play most clubs try to perfect and Melbourne are the best at it

It's sucks the minute the Sharks perfect it they want to enforce the rule for the first time in history

 

[Card Shark]

Cracks me up when they said Ennis was in front of him.

Of course he was, he just threw the bloody pass.

 

[carcharias]

Exactly
First time in history

The obstruction rule is for decoy runners taking out blokes in the defensive line.
Ennis passed the ball and was just backing up the ball carrier .

It's footy there will be blokes bump into each other but calling that try back for it from 50 metres away was ridiculous.

I've never even considered that an obstruction and I've seen Cameron smith do it for 10 years.

 

[Windy70]

The call on the Val try was just as bad as the Barba one IMO.

You cannot judge / evaluate momentum in super slo mo. Momentum has a natural state that follows the laws of physics. Slo mo removes that. f**kin ridiculous.

 

[bluefox68]

Agree 100% - just imagine we get robbed in the GF because of call(s) like that.

Referees DO affect outcomes - I reckon NSW were cruelled by the refs in Game I this year - 'net result': we lose the series, QLD arrogant again.

 

[Defer to the coifed]

if he ws going to go over then the dope shouldnt have exteneded his arm. But lets forget the fact that he had the opportunity to pass it to somebody faster in Barba at least 3 times, even at the death. The play wasthat bad we should have had points taken off!!!

 

[bluefox68]

if he ws going to go over then the dope shouldnt have exteneded his arm. But lets forget the fact that he had the opportunity to pass it to somebody faster in Barba at least 3 times, even at the death. The play wasthat bad we should have had points taken off!!!

Yeah, he clearly wanted the glory. The 'flip side' is that he did some wonderful lead-up work with the changes of direction, and kind of deserved to get what would've been another contender for 'try-of-the-year'...

HOWEVER, the 'team play' would've been to pass it!

 

[Arnold]

Haha

Ennis did obstruct though

It's a play most clubs try to perfect and Melbourne are the best at it

It's sucks the minute the Sharks perfect it they want to enforce the rule for the first time in history

He needed to run straight without his hand up as a "support" runner. We need to get a bit smarter to take advantage of these rules.

 

[shaggs]

He needed to run straight without his hand up as a "support" runner. We need to get a bit smarter to take advantage of these rules.

As soon as ennis lent forward and put his hand Adam they were going to pull it up.

Ennis should have been smarter.

As for Holmes, should have passed the ball, however I think that should have been a try. If he had enough momentum to bounce and then roll then he had enough to reach out. At no point was he stationary and therefore held

The rules are too grey. The refs want to blow the whistle

 

[shaggs]

double

 

[shaggs]

Movement

 

[millersnose]

Hahaha

 

[shaggs]

Hahaha

Bloody internet connection on the train

 

[Surely]

if he ws going to go over then the dope shouldnt have exteneded his arm. But lets forget the fact that he had the opportunity to pass it to somebody faster in Barba at least 3 times, even at the death. The play wasthat bad we should have had points taken off!!!

So bitter

 

[millersnose]

Well he did butcher it.....again

 

[Card Shark]

It was a double movement.

The ball contacted the ground short of the line, with a defender around his legs.

Whilst momentum took him another 700 or 800mm further, his body didn't cross the line & he had to reach out to get the ball there.

Double movement every day.

He bombed it but in his defence, he ran 85m & deserved to convert it to a (solo) try.