Benefit of the doubt.

[Robbie'o'Davis]

you think benefit of the doubt is a shit call..
"refs call" is worse.

 

[firechild]

Like I said, the vast majority of video ref calls are from bombs...

I call BS on that point.

 

[Norths Tiger]

I understand the frustration in, say, the Mason no-try call, but it is very frustrating watching, say, the Jonathon Wright try get given time and time again where his arm was only really in the same postcode as the ball.

How about...

Referee gives his decision, try or no try, and then calls for the video. Instead of BoD going one way or the other, BoD is with the initial referee's decision. If the video ref cannot come up with significant proof the onfield call is wrong, you stick with the onfield call.

A bit like the NFL system. It won't be perfect, but it will be much better I think. Refs come up through the ranks having to make calls on EVERY play so why should they stop at the top level?

 

[SuperiorEasts]

BoTD should only be used when you can't see the ball, and even then it should be refs call. If you can see it you should be able to make a call, not cop out by saying benefit of the doubt cause you can't be bothered to think or read the rule books.

 

[LineBall]

It would be better to have the video review system used only when a captain or coach challenges the decision. Let the referees and touch judges call it as they see it. If the captain want to challenge a call - give them two challenges per game. I would allow them to challenge on any ruling or play within a set of six tackles (e.g. - if the refs missed a small knock on from dummy half the tackle before a try was scored, then that can be looked at by the video ref).

 

[Stagger Lee]

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.

Agree with the above 100%
Yes refs will make some howlers but at least it will be understandable. What is the point of video refs if the result is still wrong? It is just slowing our game down.

 

[LineBall]

Agree with the above. Let the video ref be called in if the captain challenges it. Referees are getting more things wrong because they are becoming gun shy in regards to making decisions, and then they start doubting what they would normally just go ahead and call on.

 

[LRC69]

Yep..that deserved a try!!!!!!!

 

[Cumberland Throw]

The argument against bOD is that in most other sports of there is doubt the score stays the same


You could argue nearly every try ever scored in history has some percentage of doubt, even 1% is doubt

Just f**k it off. If they can't prove it's a try. No try

If there is doubt there is a dropout. Then the attacking team has another chance

 

[Spanner in the works]

Hate the rule and this is a textbook version of why.

 

[LRC69]

Hate the rule and this is a textbook version of why.

Exactly.. I still want the stats of how many of the tries that go to the vid ref for a decision are off bombs.

Most tries where they invoke BOD are usually from scrappy poorly executed plays which most footy fans would agree do not deserve a try.

I don't know about last night...maybe he did touch it or maybe he didn't.. as the rules stand BOD was possibly the right call..I don't want to get in to the facts here as it was 50/50 at best tot he attack.... but the bottom line is that that scrappy contest and boring last tackle option did not deserve a try.. I don't care if its my team or any team... execute well or bad luck..risk the decision.

 

[Dr.J]

Obvious solution to BOTD - bring it into line with most other sports:

When going upstairs the on-field ref needs to say "I think this is TRY (or I think this is NO TRY), but I want to get it checked".

If Video evidence is strong enough to over-rule the on-field ref, then the decision gets reversed. If the video is inconclusive (i.e. doubt) then whatever the ref thought it looked like in real time stands.

I think people can live with the thought of a 50/50 being decided on "whatever it looked like to the main ref in real time". What they can't live with is it being decided, alternatively, by BOTD to the attacking team (sometimes) and toss of a coin (sometimes, apparently).

People will accept the video decisions more if they are CHECKING the on-field real time rather than being allegedly decisive when they appear to be greyer than grey on many occasions.

 

[natheel]

If a ref in the field has to go up and say 'I don't think it's a tey' then he clearly has no idea. He should only go up if he would give it himself for a bit of back up

If he has doubts where he says I don't think it's a try then he needs to have the balls to say no try right there

 

[bartman]

Yep, wind it back to simpler times, when you knew you had to actively force the ball in the in goal to get a try.

Bring back the ingoal refs to help adjudicate that, instead of wasting it on two onfield refs plus a video ref. The video reffing adds nothing imo, still gets the calls 50-50 and it just means players have less respect that they used to have to show a single on field ref.

 

[kmav23]

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.

Are for for real?

Before video refs.

Every game was filled with ref mistakes and post game all they talked about was refs mistakes how teams were robbed 100 times worse then now. Looking thru rose coloured glasses.

Benefit of the doubt is either attacking or defence.

 

[kmav23]

If a ref in the field has to go up and say 'I don't think it's a tey' then he clearly has no idea. He should only go up if he would give it himself for a bit of back up

If he has doubts where he says I don't think it's a try then he needs to have the balls to say no try right there

There is so much pressure on refs today with millions on gambling and every one with hd large screens. If they get it wrong and don't go up to video ref they will be accused of bribes and outcry.

everyone attacks the refs mistakes yet how many mistakes do players make ?

 

[Apey]

Would like to see BOTD to defending team, especially in situations like last night.

 

[lockyno1]

What was wrong about the old rule....it is either a TRY or it isn't, simple. This BOTD is a cop out simple as that.

 

[Joely01]

Not a fan of benefit of the doubt at all, it is either a try or no try. I don't think either tries last night were tries as there was to much doubt.

Another thing I dont like is refs call, the refs should award the try to start with if he knew. It's clear refs call is made by the ref after the 10 looks on the replay and a few words with the video ref. if it gets sent up stairs the video ref makes the decisions.

 

[eozsmiles]

Benefit of the doubt goes the wrong way in footy. In cricket the batsmen gets the benefit because the umpire must decide that it was 100% out. Anything less doesn't count. In footy you only have to get close to scoring to get the benefit. 50% is good enough to score a try now.

BOTD has always existed in some form for 100 years. There has always been 50/50 calls and the ref always has to do something. Just never got caught until we had 40000 slow motion cameras at the ground for every game.

Remove BOTD and replace it with a "certainty" rule which means the ref must be 100% CERTAIN it was a try to award it. Or just give BOTD to the defence. Immediately gets rid of all the scrappy tries that lead to arguments. Leave the scrappy sh!t to the other codes.