Benefit of the doubt.

[Spanner in the works]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...-raper-in-charge/story-fn5k30ac-1226429737251

NRL on Fox: Ricky Stuart says NRL refereeing standards have slipped with Harrigan and Raper in charge
By Ben Glover FOX SPORTS July 19, 2012 10:16AM

After having a running battle with match officials during the State of Origin series, Ricky Stuart has taken a thinly veiled swipe at Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper for causing refereeing standards to plummet.


Harrigan and Raper have been in charge of the NRL's referees department since late 2010 and Stuart believes the way the game is officiated has gone backwards since then.

Speaking on NRL on Fox on Wednesday night, Stuart expressed frustration at the diminishing relationship between coaches and referees, hinting this had been an issue for him as New South Wales coach.

Click on the video at the top for the full NRL on Fox conversation about the NRL's plummeting refereeing standards.
"Our refereeing and video ref system at the moment - and I feel sorry for our refs and this is not a shot at the refs - is the worst it's been in years," Stuart said.

"It is not the referees' fault, let me tell you. Referees are in a really tough position.


"The coaches are fed up with it, I spoke to a number of coaches last week, they're absolutely fed up with it.

"The commuinication from coaches to the referee coaches is very, very poor.

"It's a situation that has to be fixed and fixed quickly because the only people copping it at the moment are the referees."

While it's the referees who are at the centre of the action and often, the centre of the controversies, Stuart believes mistakes are being made in the interpretations of the law, which start at the top and filter down.

One interpretation that has led to some of 2012's most perplexing decisions is related to grounding the ball in the action of scoring a try.

Fox Sports rugby league commentator and Canterbury-Bankstown assistant coach Brett Kimmorley says this has been overcomplicated and needs to be stripped back to the basics.

"Why are they continually getting it wrong?" Kimmorley asked.

"Why do you see so many decisions each week where you see them as a fan or a commentator and you say try and it goes the exact opposite. Benefit of the doubt is the worst rule in the competition.

"You should have to score - physically score the try . . . with the hands. No torso, no slide, no separation, no BOD (benefit of the doubt) - ground the ball."

But unless there's a change of attitude at the top, confusing decisions will continue to reign according to Stuart.

"Until someone does something about it and sits down with the people who are in the position to make these right decisions, it's not going to be fixed."

Completely agree and have said it a number of times. BOTD is a terrible rule.

 

[PaddyBoy]

Any doubt should go to the outcine which seems most likely imo, not just the bloke who has the ball.

 

[Marshall_magic]

BOTD was originally brought in when the camera work was inconclusive (ie a player is getting the ball down and going out, but they key moment is in between frames), however it has become a play for video refs to use when they don't want to make a decision. Sadly, it will take a decision like this costing a team a finals game for them to bother changing it. I don't know why it's so hard for the referee bosses, no control=no try. But then again when you put the egotistical f**kwit Bill Harrigan in charge there is always going to be problems.

 

[MacDougall]

Attaching sayings like "benefit of the doubt" and verbose terms like "he's milking!" to the official language of our game makes it come off very amateurish. I hate it.

As for benefit of the doubt, I always thought that it was bizarre that it goes to the attacking team. I don't think it should exist at all. If the video ref can't be sure that it's a try or no try it should go to a refs call and the refs and touchies should just decide. If none of them are sure it's a try it should be a no try.

 

[Spanner in the works]

Completely agree. It's a shit rule. It's always been a shit rule.

 

[firechild]

In the 2011 grand final there was an instance where Sterling commented "in this case the benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team" (it didn't matter in the end because Hopoate was clearly out) but by the letter of the law the benefit of the doubt always goes to the attacking side which is just plain stupid. Common sense says that if it doesn't look like a try even in slow motion despite the fact the ball may be obstructed from view, then it should not be awarded. Video referees are using the benefit of the doubt rule to award tries that are highly questionable (and often not even displaying them as BOTD). We simply need to go back to rules that are cut and dry. If a video ref cannot make a call with a high degree of confidence then the decision goes back to the on field refs.

 

[Pierced Soul]

BOTD was originally brought in when the camera work was inconclusive (ie a player is getting the ball down and going out, but they key moment is in between frames), however it has become a play for video refs to use when they don't want to make a decision. Sadly, it will take a decision like this costing a team a finals game for them to bother changing it. I don't know why it's so hard for the referee bosses, no control=no try. But then again when you put the egotistical f**kwit Bill Harrigan in charge there is always going to be problems.

exactly. it was also to be used when you couldnt conclusively see the ball was grounded because someone was obstructing the camera but from the angle of arms etc the ball would have touched the ground. it's been bastardized to sue as a safety net.

those 2 tries kimmorley highlighted werent f**king tries a sliding fingertip off a ball isnt a f**king try

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Don't mind the rule. If it goes to the defending team, the defence will just try and shield the ball from any camera view. Totally unfair.

 

[Spanner in the works]

Don't mind the rule. If it goes to the defending team, the defence will just try and shield the ball from any camera view. Totally unfair.

I think they've got more important things to worry about. Like defending. What are they going to do? Make a wall in front of the dozens of cameras at the ground plus have someone hold their hand over the eyes of each of the refs?

 

[firechild]

I think they've got more important things to worry about. Like defending. What are they going to do? Make a wall in front of the dozens of cameras at the ground plus have someone hold their hand over the eyes of each of the refs?

It's really no different to the problem we currently have with attacking players running towards cameras prior to tries being scored to obstruct the view the video ref has. :sarcasm:

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

It's really no different to the problem we currently have with attacking players running towards cameras prior to tries being scored to obstruct the view the video ref has. :sarcasm:

Good point.

Regardless, I still don't see a need to change this.

 

[Quidgybo]

however it has become a play for video refs to use when they don't want to make a decision..

That's exactly what it is and quite rightly so. When an incident is too close to call or could be argued either way, and the video ref makes a call, everyone like the posters having a whinge in this thread want to cry bad call and rant on about how incompetent the officials are. BOTD is basically the official saying "I can't make a call I'm not going to get roasted for, either way it's going to be controversial". The rule then allows him to both publicly indicate that and choose a decision in a consistent way (always to the attack). But we can't allow the refs a way to avoid taking the blame and being vilified can we?

Leigh.

 

[thenry]

I don't know if it's just me but I find it funny the 2 rulings that people are blowing up about recently, Golden Point & BOTD both became regular fixtures in the NRL after negative results for NSW in origin. Golden point brought in after 99 & 02 QLD retaining the shield & BOTD started to be really used often after J Hayne sideline origin I 09.

 

[meltiger]

^ they changed the way they officiate because Jarryd stepped on the sideline?

With the video ref. why don't we go down the NFL road? Refs have to make a decision and the review can overturn only with definitive evidence the on field official was wrong?

 

[hunters]

I don't know if it's just me but I find it funny the 2 rulings that people are blowing up about recently, Golden Point & BOTD both became regular fixtures in the NRL after negative results for NSW in origin. Golden point brought in after 99 & 02 QLD retaining the shield & BOTD started to be really used often after J Hayne sideline origin I 09.

BS..

 

[LRC69]

Huge bug of mine on this rule. (see my other posts) The majority of BOD of vid ref calls are made on tries off kicks (especially bombs) or simple dummy half dive overs or side line dive overs.

Ide love to get the actual breakdown of vid ref calls.

I think most people here would say that a bomb is generally a lucky dip anyway and why should the attacking team be rewarded if thats the best they've got???

I dont mind if my team doesnt get the ruling on a bomb Vid ref decision (even if it should probably go BOD attack) as I think bombs need to be clear cut and clean otherwise bad luck..if thats the best you've got left its a fifity fifty....chances are you wont get the try unless it is crystal clear. I think most footy fans would cop that... we all hate the bomb as the only weapon some teams have. When you see multiple hands going up for the ball etc ...

Same with the dummy half dive over... if thats the best youve got then take the risk that you need to be clear cut... other wise you may as well just go for it every time and hope you are covered enough to get the call... this like the bomb isnt attacking footy and rewards mediocrity!

I think you could extend the BOD to general on field decision making .....especially these 50/50 types calls made on 6 again if a kick is played at........ if the kick isnt good enough to get through then bad luck... (Ide actually just get rid of the rule...let the player trap the ball and no 6 again if attack regathers...bad luck if the kick sux...the rule was brought in when you used to strike at the ball in the ruck...which we don't do now...) this will take one 50/50 discresionary call out of the game that annoys us fans...


The only time the attack should get BOD is in the general running of the game... like a possible forward pass... I dont mind copping it if the pass was slightly foward but 50/50 but it exploits poor defence... let the ref just assume play on if its 50/50... as long as the pass wasnt the reason the defence opened up which chances are wouldnt be...at least this promotes attack.
Ide rather see long cut out passes to exploit compressed defence to try to open the game up a bit in the centre for the little guys and spread a team...especially in dew conditions where you can have defences compressed to the middle third of the field.

 

[typicalfan]

Dummy half dive overs aren't rewarding mediocrity because it is the defense that is mediocre in that circumstance.

 

[skeepe]

BOTD was originally brought in when the camera work was inconclusive (ie a player is getting the ball down and going out, but they key moment is in between frames),.

And yet the one time I remember this happening, Colin Best for the Raiders against the Storm, the video ref rule No Try.

The man in the box that night? Bill Harrigan.

 

[LRC69]

Dummy half dive overs aren't rewarding mediocrity because it is the defense that is mediocre in that circumstance.

Fair call...if the defence is mediocre and is caught out and its a clear try then fair enough.. but often you see the dummy half dive over when the defence is set and its a low percentage play and doesnt deserve a BOD call... but to be honest..this is not a regular issue like the bomb vid ref decision... I jst threw it in for an example.

I would love to see what the Vid refs are used for and what decision given BOD come from kicks, put downs etc... I reckon the majority are from kicks and the wingers diving over and losing control.

 

[skeepe]

I honestly think the absolute worst part of the use of the video ref is when the referee on the field makes a decision, play continues and then, just because a try is scored, the referee asks for a review of the decision they made earlier in the play.

If the player is tackled before scoring we can't review it and have to abide by his decision, why does should that be any different because a try was scored?

It should only be used to adjudicate on incidents that the on-field ref has not made a decision on. It shouldn't be used as a crutch by a referee because they weren't 100% sure of a call they made 20 metres downfield.