Proposed change to BOTD rule

[Dr.J]

I like it

Though one problem on clarity.

If the attacker cleanly catches a bomb exactly on the line (and this is difficult to tell) is that classed as carrying over or catching after the line? Also if a pass is cleanly made in the in goal area by the attacking team is that a carryover or catching?

Sorry to be pedantic but invariably this question will arise.

Based on the wording I would say:
(1) Catching a bomb on (or just before) the line - all doubt prior to the bomb is BOTD to defensive team, but BOTD on the grounding (if that is the only doubt) would be BOTD to the attacking team.
(2) Is super rare, because normally when the attacking team has crossed the line they just ground it rather than pass, but I would say BOTD to the attacking team because the ball was carried rather than kicked across the line.

 

[clarency]

Works fine.

Benefit of the doubt exists where there is no conclusive evidence one way or another. If you cant prove that the defence stopped it - how can you deny a try? To call "no try" you have to have a reason - you cant just say you didnt see it - because that is what the touchies and the video ref are for! Its up to the defence to prevent the try - same a it's up to the defence to stop the progress of a player so a referee can call "held".

There has to be a reason to deny a try. Same as there has to be a reason to institute any penalty. And if a team is good enough to get the ball over the line, they should et the advantage of benefit of the doubt when it applies. The same as an attacking team gets a scrum feed for a 40/20, or the defending team gets the feed if the attacking team knocks on first in a double knock on, or gets a scrum if they pick the ball up and are ruled to have gained no advantage.

You have it backwards. It isn't a matter of the defenders claiming it is a no-try, but the attacker claiming it is a try. Refer to "innocent until proven guilty".

ie: if there is no evidence that the score line should change from 0-0 to 4-0, then no action is taken and the scoreline remains the same.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

I think they should bring in the challenge rule, and the on-field call only gets taken away if there is proof the ref is wrong. This does a few things:

1) makes the ref make a call.
2) ensures that the cahllenging team only challenge when they actually think the decision is wrong.
3) if the team doesn't challenge, or loses their challenges, they are to blame, not the refs.

 

[Loudstrat]

You have it backwards. It isn't a matter of the defenders claiming it is a no-try, but the attacker claiming it is a try. Refer to "innocent until proven guilty".

ie: if there is no evidence that the score line should change from 0-0 to 4-0, then no action is taken and the scoreline remains the same.

Innocent until proven guilty? What's the f*cking crime? Scoring a try or not scoring it?

This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Its all a moot point and quite pedantic. BOTD works fine as it is.

 

[langpark]

Innocent until proven guilty? What's the f*cking crime? Scoring a try or not scoring it?

This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty. Its all a moot point and quite pedantic. BOTD works fine as it is.

It is a completely relevant comparison. Inconclusive evidence should mean that you can't award something that may not have happened. "beyond reasonable doubt" is another term i think you may like

 

[clarency]

It is a completely relevant comparison. Inconclusive evidence should mean that you can't award something that may not have happened. "beyond reasonable doubt" is another term i think you may like

This.

 

[fred95]

Works fine.

Benefit of the doubt exists where there is no conclusive evidence one way or another. If you cant prove that the defence stopped it - how can you deny a try? To call "no try" you have to have a reason - you cant just say you didnt see it - because that is what the touchies and the video ref are for! Its up to the defence to prevent the try - same a it's up to the defence to stop the progress of a player so a referee can call "held".

There has to be a reason to deny a try. Same as there has to be a reason to institute any penalty. And if a team is good enough to get the ball over the line, they should et the advantage of benefit of the doubt when it applies. The same as an attacking team gets a scrum feed for a 40/20, or the defending team gets the feed if the attacking team knocks on first in a double knock on, or gets a scrum if they pick the ball up and are ruled to have gained no advantage.

I believe your post makes more sense than others, on the question of B.O.T.D. I always believed that if you can't discern whether a try was scored or not, a try must be awarded. The charade of the video refs sending the decision back to the onfield ref who now is sure of a decision infuriates me and no doubt others. If they ( in the video box ) can't decide then it's a fair try, no ongoing histronics for all and sundry.

 

[Slackboy72]

I think they should bring in the challenge rule, and the on-field call only gets taken away if there is proof the ref is wrong. This does a few things:

1) makes the ref make a call.
2) ensures that the cahllenging team only challenge when they actually think the decision is wrong.
3) if the team doesn't challenge, or loses their challenges, they are to blame, not the refs.

Don't like it because:
1) Teams should not become de-facto referees; and
2) Open to abuse by a team who are under the pump and need to stop the clock to get their breath back and/or get their line reset.

The fact is you are always going to get mistakes. The issue of continued poor performance by referees is not to protect them but punt them.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Maybe use BOTD rule correctly is the start.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

How about we get rid of this stupid rule all together? Why do we have a rule with the word "doubt" in it and why does the benefit of this doubt go to the attacking team? The wording of the rule also suggests the contrary, that it also may not have been a try. Rules are meant to be objective and easily enforced, not subjective 50/50 interpretations.

 

[Lambretta]

Jesus, are we dealing with criminal law or a game of football?

Well some of the decisions given are criminal - especially when they're against the Roosters

:sarcasm:

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Don't like it because:
1) Teams should not become de-facto referees; and

That is the only relevant argument against it. That argument was used in cricket and quickly subsided and the debate is now about whether or not you except mistakes without video or how to use it, not the fact that refs shouldn't be judged or challenged, because when it boils down to it they will be judged after the game anyway.

It works in tennis, cricket, american football. And it would work in League.

2) Open to abuse by a team who are under the pump and need to stop the clock to get their breath back and/or get their line reset.

Not if they lose their challenges for getting one wrong. if they want to lose one to get a rest I'd say they are a pretty shitty defensive team anyway.

AND refs stop the game all the time now.

The fact is you are always going to get mistakes. The issue of continued poor performance by referees is not to protect them but punt them.

This will make them better!

One piece of this refs puzzle that is coninually overlooked is that they are getting worse becuase of the video. They don't pull things back that they should, and they wait for tries to be scored before checking.

Two examples:

1) Shephards. Rarely get called unless there is a try.
2) Offise from a kick. Likewise, only pulled back if there is a try.

Not calling becomes a habit and before they know they are not calling things that they know they should. they have got used to letting things play on.

 

[Lambretta]

I don't have a problem with benefit of the doubt, because in 90% of occasions there is probably a try being scored, we just cant prove it beyond ALL doubt - but more often than not it's proven beyond reasonable doubt

OK, so this relies on us understanding that the fans of the team being scored against ARENT going to be reasonable.

If the rule was reversed and the scores stayed the same - we'd have just as many butt hurters in here moaning that tries scored by their teams should have been allowed and the rules should benefit the attacking team.

The rule is fine imo.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

I don't have a problem with benefit of the doubt, because in 90% of occasions there is probably a try being scored, we just cant prove it beyond ALL doubt - but more often than not it's proven beyond reasonable doubt

OK, so this relies on us understanding that the fans of the team being scored against ARENT going to be reasonable.

If the rule was reversed and the scores stayed the same - we'd have just as many butt hurters in here moaning that tries scored by their teams should have been allowed and the rules should benefit the attacking team.

The rule is fine imo.

would you stand by that comment if it decided the grand final against the roosters or even decided the result of the 3rd origin to deliver QLD their 6th straight series?

 

[Loudstrat]

Of course he would. And if the Sharks scored in the last minute of a GF against Saints to give them a 16-14 lead - but they would be knocked back on BOTD, you'd grab the mic at the Leagues club and say "I supported the rule change and I stand by my decision" - you'd expect to leave the club with your testicles intact?

Dickhead.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

Of course he would. And if the Sharks scored in the last minute of a GF against Saints to give them a 16-14 lead - but they would be knocked back on BOTD, you'd grab the mic at the Leagues club and say "I supported the rule change and I stand by my decision" - you'd expect to leave the club with your testicles intact?

Dickhead.

Thanks for your input Loudstrat. No need for the personal attack.

In response to your statement, I 100% do not agree with the rule and I stand by that even in the given scenario! Why? Because I don't want to win a grand final under those circumstances and have other fans claim we won our first grand final under false pretense.

If you can't see the ball on the ground then it is no try, it's that simple, no grey areas involved and no 50/50 calls favouring any teams.

 

[Lambretta]

would you stand by that comment if it decided the grand final against the roosters or even decided the result of the 3rd origin to deliver QLD their 6th straight series?

How about a try that we believed NSW scored that was wiped off because there was a 2% chance the ball didn't quite hit the ground?

It works both ways. Would I be happy with the outcome you've described? No. Would I want a rule change because of it? No.

A different interpretation of the rule in either direction will result in teams benefitting or losing out depending on circumstance.

I won't be happy with any result that negatively effects the outcome of Roosters or Blues results, but I can live with the rules because at other times they'll favour my team. Overall, these things tend to even up.

PS. I am assuming you're the same Birdie Num Num from ITM from about 10 years ago? Hi

 

[Lambretta]

Of course he would. And if the Sharks scored in the last minute of a GF against Saints to give them a 16-14 lead - but they would be knocked back on BOTD, you'd grab the mic at the Leagues club and say "I supported the rule change and I stand by my decision" - you'd expect to leave the club with your testicles intact?

Dickhead.

If Birdie Num Num is the same person I knew from ITM back in the day, the only testicles she owns are her boyfriends.

 

[Loudstrat]

Thanks for your input Loudstrat. No need for the personal attack.

In response to your statement, I 100% do not agree with the rule and I stand by that even in the given scenario! Why? Because I don't want to win a grand final under those circumstances and have other fans claim we won our first grand final under false pretense.

If you can't see the ball on the ground then it is no try, it's that simple, no grey areas involved and no 50/50 calls favouring any teams.

OK - maybe the personal attack was uncalled for.

But a try is awarded for the ball being on the ground when an attacking player applies downward pressure - not when it is seen to be on the ground. Otherwise, in the days before video refs, a runaway winger like Ken Irvine would have had half his tries taken away because the ref was still upfield chasing him.

I can still remember the first time I ad ever seen a fullback try and slip his hand under the ball to stop a try. It was Garry Jack in a game at Leichhardt - and until we had in goal touch judges it was a rare thing. Now it's commonplace.

Change the rules and all players have to do is obscure the vision of the ref and the cameras. And suddenly a swag of fair tries will be disallowed. If a player catches a bomb the score, all the defending side has to do is to corral around the try scorer and block vision. You would see teams suddenly forming a circle around a tryscorer - no vision - no try.

The current rule means a real contest happens. Otherwise if all you have to do is obscure vision, you dont have to be Einstein to work out how to do that.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

OK - maybe the personal attack was uncalled for.

But a try is awarded for the ball being on the ground when an attacking player applies downward pressure - not when it is seen to be on the ground. Otherwise, in the days before video refs, a runaway winger like Ken Irvine would have had half his tries taken away because the ref was still upfield chasing him.

I can still remember the first time I ad ever seen a fullback try and slip his hand under the ball to stop a try. It was Garry Jack in a game at Leichhardt - and until we had in goal touch judges it was a rare thing. Now it's commonplace.

Change the rules and all players have to do is obscure the vision of the ref and the cameras. And suddenly a swag of fair tries will be disallowed. If a player catches a bomb the score, all the defending side has to do is to corral around the try scorer and block vision. You would see teams suddenly forming a circle around a tryscorer - no vision - no try.

The current rule means a real contest happens. Otherwise if all you have to do is obscure vision, you dont have to be Einstein to work out how to do that.

I understand what you are saying, however to be fair, we are really talking about a very low percentage of trys that are obstructed from all camera angles. At the pace the game is played these days it would be very difficult to premeditate your body position (consistently) in the act of defending a try to block a camera angle. The only type of try I can think of where this might be fairly easy to execute is a close range barge over try where the markers, the guy who played the ball and the try scorer all get knotted up in a heap over the line.

My problem exists entirely with the fact that rules like BOD are becoming subjective interpretations by the blokes in pink and by the video ref. Rules by definition are a set of laws governing the actions of individuals involved in the (a) game and are objectively enforced at all times so those individuals involved know when they are playing within the rules and when they are not. IMO we need to go back to what the definition of a rule is and not until then will we see clearer and more precise definitions for the rules that govern RL.