Benefit of the doubt.

[redvforlife]

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.

I feel dirty, but I agree.

 

[Richard Gay Was God]

The word "interepretation" was introduced by Bill Harrigan and has blighted the entire Rugby League rule book. Referees no longer make decisions based on fact or right/wrong. It's "interepretations". We've introduced bullshit like "dominant tackle" to the vocabulary. Shephards are now obstructions and we have to get our set squares out to "interpret" angles, whether the ball recipient is on the "outside" of the "blocker".

I could go on and on about how hard they've made this game to adjudicate. The stripping rule is another bug bear. Corey Parker has been offloading adnauseum the last few weeks. Last night the Titans finally made a play to wrap him up. He tries to pop a ball and drops it. Penalty to Broncos. There has to be some emphasis on the man with the ball actually having some responsibility. I wish they would allow players to steal the ball again, especially in this era of hold it for 5 and kick to the corners.

The only good rule change I've seen in the last few years is making the corner post irrelevant when scoring tries which has created a great new era of wingers scoring ridiculous tries.

The problem is we change rules every year. The truly great sports don't need to change rules all the time. Please f**k Billy boy and his shire mate off.

 

[mongoose]

BOTD doesn't go to the attacking team. It goes to the team the refs believe "should" win. I.E QLD, Broncos, Storm...

Teams that don't get BOTD - Raiders, Roosters... not sure who else

 

[Lambretta]

BOTD doesn't go to the attacking team. It goes to the team the refs believe "should" win. I.E QLD, Broncos, Storm...

Teams that don't get BOTD - Raiders, Roosters... not sure who else

Sadly this appears to be true. More often than not, the benefit goes with the team that the referees think should be winning or are most popular.

I've lost count of the number of decisions that have gone against us this season thanks to the video ref. So called fifty fifty decisions actually end up being five ninety five decisions. The Raiders have also been victims of this in the past and it's a joke.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

BOTD is a load of garbage. It is making the refs even more inconsistent each week. The Uate 'no try', is a no try in my book... But then you go back over the last month, I've seen them go both way numerous times. He dropped the ball... You should be able to put it down without regaining control of the ball. And there is the other BS rule... Downward pressure.

 

[Spanner in the works]

It's either a try or it's not. It's that simple.

 

[Lambretta]

What gets me with botd is the strange way they apply it. Tonight St George had a chance through Vidot and Sean Hampstead ruled GI held him up.

Two camera angles showed he was held up once inside the end goal but one angle showed the ball was probably on the line for a second as he slid into the end goal. But the evidence was inconclusive.

As the evidence looked like he might have made the line, but you couldnt see for sure then the botd rule sates a try should be given. Yet Hampstead ruled no try meaning he was certain it was held up.

He looked at the footage about 90 times so surely there must have been doubt. As such the rule was ignored.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Yep. I personally thought that was a classic case of BOTD. Video ref got it wrong.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Benefit of the doubt for sure, but it wouldn't have changed the result.

 

[LazyDreamer]

Thought there was two instances today that made a mockery of previous BOTD tries this season. Vidot's - although I reckon it wasn't a try (and unfortunately agreed with the VR), there was no angle that proved conclusively the ball didn't brush a blade of painte4d grass, and some camera angles showed it most likely did touch the line. The other was Uate's attempted one-hand put down against NZ. Whilst I agree that should never be a try, the fact is his hand regained contact with the ball as it was hitting the turf. No camera angle proved beyond a doubt the bal hit the ground first. Thus given some of the ridiculous rulings this season, he should not only have been awarded a try, but should have been apologised to for doubting his integrity.

 

[bottle]

Was originally a fan of this, and for that matter the video ref. Have gone cold on both I'm afraid. Time has proven they just can't get it right often enough for me to have any satisfaction with it anymore. The amount of rubbish that gets awarded, and the obviously 'doubtful' ones that get denied (as per Vidot's try mentioned above), have soured the whole thing.

Kill the lot, bring back in goal touchies. Make a call, at speed and in real time. It's a try or it's not. Yes errors will result but I can live with a bloke making an error at speed and under pressure, but not in multi frame slo mo after 7 looks. I'd go further and ban replays on the big screen at the ground, and for that matter during the telecast outright. I know this wouldn't be supported by the majority on here but that's my take on it. Leave the replays and slo mo's for the analysis and post mortem shows. They're a blight as far as I'm concerned.

Whilst I'm ranting about things I was in favour of and gone cold on, throw in the two refs. If one ref can't be primarily responsible for controlling the ruck and getting rid of the wrestle the second ref serves no real purpose. Throw in an extra couple of touchies for good measure. Keeps the number employed up and might assist the on field guy.

 

[LRC69]

Ok..BOTD again.

Seriously the rabbitohs try today off a bomb (what else is new, most BOTD are off bombs)...correct ruling BOTD...but does that type of try really need to be given.

Surely we want a little more perfection in our execution than that type of try where it was a mess and possibly a knock on by souths. They or any team does not deserve a try off a bomb if its that meesy.

BOTD must go to the defence ..the rule needs to be changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im still waiting for the sta on how many video ref calls are made , and what perecentage of these relate to the kick, and then what percentage of these are inconclussive but given BOTD..!!!

 

[Frailty]

In what world was it a correct ruling?

There was no doubt. It came off the Souths player's hand forward into Prince. No doubt. The video ref just skipped over that replay and didn't ask for it again.

Even pro-Souths Gould was saying No Try.

 

[Danish]

I can't comment of benefit of the doubt, as The roosters are yet to be awarded a BOTD try in 2012

 

[M2D2]

In what world was it a correct ruling?

There was no doubt. It came off the Souths player's hand forward into Prince. No doubt. The video ref just skipped over that replay and didn't ask for it again.

Even pro-Souths Gould was saying No Try.

:lol:

i thought it was a 50/50 call, i could leave either way.

 

[LRC69]

Ok.. I dont think it was a try but didnt want to get into that debate...more just the fact that I could see why it was BOTD in a way..and many more that are similar (did he touch it, did it go forward etc etc)...seriously why bother..

If thats all my team has to offer , then they dont deserve a try.

And this has nothing to do with souths or this particular try...just many others like this..I hate tries off bombs especially where there are so many hands and such contention.

 

[Loudstrat]

BOTD must go to the attacking team. The whole idea of penalties or scrums for knock on and accidental offside is to react to evidence of an infringement. How anyone can condone NOT awarding a try despite there being no evidence is beyond me. Besides, to deny a try the referee must give a reason. If you default to a try, then a genuine BOTD decision is a try. If you default to no try, Refs must give a reason - and you cannot make a ruling that denies the attacking team without a reason.

My example is the Mason no try ruling from last night. No camera angle showed what happened to the ball once Mason got it in goal. What we DID see is the defender (Graham?) also grab the ball as Mason did, but as Mason turned to ground the ball, the defender clearly lost contact with the ball. At that point Mason had the ball about 30cm off the ground as he rolled with it in his grasp to put the ball down. Again, there was no unobstructed vision of him actually grounding the ball.

The decision? Ref's call - and knock on!!!!!!!!

OK, you cannot see Mason ground the ball. You could not see him knock it on either - or knock it back and then score either!

BOTD - by definition - cannot be ruled in favour of the defensive side.

 

[Spanner in the works]

Just get rid of it. Or if we have to come to a compromise make it refs call and refs call only. It's time for refs to stop getting away with blue bloody murder because of BOTD.

 

[LRC69]

BOTD must go to the attacking team. The whole idea of penalties or scrums for knock on and accidental offside is to react to evidence of an infringement. How anyone can condone NOT awarding a try despite there being no evidence is beyond me. Besides, to deny a try the referee must give a reason. If you default to a try, then a genuine BOTD decision is a try. If you default to no try, Refs must give a reason - and you cannot make a ruling that denies the attacking team without a reason.

My example is the Mason no try ruling from last night. No camera angle showed what happened to the ball once Mason got it in goal. What we DID see is the defender (Graham?) also grab the ball as Mason did, but as Mason turned to ground the ball, the defender clearly lost contact with the ball. At that point Mason had the ball about 30cm off the ground as he rolled with it in his grasp to put the ball down. Again, there was no unobstructed vision of him actually grounding the ball.

The decision? Ref's call - and knock on!!!!!!!!

OK, you cannot see Mason ground the ball. You could not see him knock it on either - or knock it back and then score either!

BOTD - by definition - cannot be ruled in favour of the defensive side.

You make a fair argument..I'de be happy to see at least in the instance of a bomb that the try should be conclusive.

I just hate those messy type of tries and it sells our game short. If you cant execute cleanly then bad luck.

Ive seen the same type of tries come up with different rulings on a thousand occasions...I think it would be easier for a fan of the attacking team to swallow a no try off a bomb than to cop one against you in defence.


Like I said, the vast majority of video ref calls are from bombs...they do not deserve to have the weight of a contentious decision with them!!!


And BOTD can go to the defence... as in there was too much doubt on the conclusiveness of the try and therefore we award tot eh defence.

Anyway..I'm not going to argue with a fellow start player who has the late great RJD avatar!

 

[Loudstrat]

Yeah? Cool! What have you got?