Proposed change to BOTD rule

[Dr.J]

I think the "Benefit of the Doubt" (BOTD) rule for video referee decisions should be changed as follows:

"If the attacking team CARRIES the ball across the tryline and there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the try after this point, the ATTACKING team will receive the benefit of the doubt. In other circumstances the DEFENSIVE team will receive the benefit of the doubt (i.e. ball kicked across the tryline OR doubt occurring before the ball crosses the tryline)".

The reason for this proposal is the mis-use (according to the rule) of BOTD. The original circumstance envisaged for BOTD (which should, in my opinion, still apply) is where a player runs across the tryline with the ball, gets tackled, and you can't quite see according to the video whether he grounds the ball or whether he is held up by two millimetres, or the ball separates from his hand 1/100th of a second before downward pressure. This circumstance constitutes 95% of a clean try and should be awarded a try. The horrible circumstance that BOTD is now often used is where a bomb is put up, a sea of hands go up and you definitely see the ball hit hands (offensive, defensive or both), the ball clumsily spills out and an attacking player falls on it. When this gets awarded a BOTD try I think it is an embarassment, as it is the attacking team trying a speculative play, not executing it properly, and then being rescued by a bad rule.

The other great thing about this rule change is that it would provide further incentive (which the game needs) to run rather than kick on the 5th tackle attacking option, because you get BOTD in your favour if you run but no BOTD if you kick.

 

[RufusRex]

i dont mind this at all .. the other one (on the other foot) that i think we could benefit from is If you jump to contest the ball and come down with it then play on (regardless of knock-ons, knock backs, bobbling, bouncing, pinballs and falcons) .. The knock on rule is suspended in chargedowns so there is precedent for allowing a knock on to be ok.

 

[langpark]

I've always had a problem with benefit of the doubt favouring the attacking team in ANY circumstance. I believe it should favour the defending team.


It's like 'innocent until proven guilty' in the courts. If the evidence is inconclusive, then keep the status quo, rather than awarding them something when they may not have even done anything to earn it...

 

[thommo4pm]

I've always had a problem with benefit of the doubt favouring the attacking team in ANY circumstance. I believe it should favour the defending team.


It's like 'innocent until proven guilty' in the courts. If the evidence is inconclusive, then keep the status quo, rather than awarding them something when they may not have even done anything to earn it...

Agree.

 

[besthalfbackPEARCE]

I believe it should only be used when you can't see the ball, not when it's blurry. Refs call should be utilised more often.

 

[whall15]

What happens if a bomb is put up, an attacking player has caught the ball and there is confusion about whether he has grounded it?

 

[besthalfbackPEARCE]

What happens if a bomb is put up, an attacking player has caught the ball and there is confusion about whether he has grounded it?

No try.

I hate all these stupid benefit of the doubts given lately just cause the video ref gets confused. Benefit of the doubt should only be given IF IT CANNOT BE SEEN if it's blurry you can see the direction the ball has travelled whether it's been grounded ETC #-o

 

[Slackboy72]

This is a tricky one.
I don't believe it should be BotD either way but rather the balance of probability.
You shouldn't favour attackers or defenders.
The ref should say "I think x happened but my vision was obscured, can you check".
Teams shouldn't have tries disallowed or awarded because a ref couldn't see everything.
And the video ref should play it no slower than 1/2 speed and they should know the rules regarding knock-ons i.e. the ball has to be knocked toward the opponents dead ball line, not sideways, backwards or down. We're not talking about touch football Mr Harrigan, it's called rugby league and you've been ruining it for the last twenty odd years.

 

[LoganRL1988]

To make it fair should be any Doubt no try.

 

[clarency]

I've always had a problem with benefit of the doubt favouring the attacking team in ANY circumstance. I believe it should favour the defending team.


It's like 'innocent until proven guilty' in the courts. If the evidence is inconclusive, then keep the status quo, rather than awarding them something when they may not have even done anything to earn it...

Again this. Burden of proof always lies with the claimant, which in this case is the person claiming they scored a try. If there is not enough sufficient evidence to prove this is the case (no matter the circumstances), then a try can not reasonably be given.

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryb/g/burdenofproof.htm

 

[Slackboy72]

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

 

[bottle]

I think the "Benefit of the Doubt" (BOTD) rule for video referee decisions should be changed as follows:

You also 'thought' Bennett would be leaving Saints at the end of 2010 and going to Brisbane for season 2011 so you're probably wrong, therefore I didn't read your dribble after this point.

 

[BDGS]

Great idea in the OP.

Mail the NRL, they are open to suggestions like this and take it into considerations unlike other sports.

 

[Dr.J]

You also 'thought' Bennett would be leaving Saints at the end of 2010 and going to Brisbane for season 2011 so you're probably wrong, therefore I didn't read your dribble after this point.

So did Brisbane when they sacked Henjak (x2). Can't be held accountable when Bennett goes back on his word.

 

[Mr Fourex]

i've always had a problem with benefit of the doubt favouring the attacking team in any circumstance. I believe it should favour the defending team.


It's like 'innocent until proven guilty' in the courts. If the evidence is inconclusive, then keep the status quo, rather than awarding them something when they may not have even done anything to earn it...

^^^ this ^^^

 

[docbrown]

Smart and concise Dr J. Send it onto the NRL.

 

[POPEYE]

All decisions should be made from observations at normal speed the way referees see the game. The in-goal area is no more important than the rest of the field.

 

[some11]

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

:lol:

 

[Loudstrat]

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.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think the "Benefit of the Doubt" (BOTD) rule for video referee decisions should be changed as follows:

"If the attacking team CARRIES the ball across the tryline and there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the try after this point, the ATTACKING team will receive the benefit of the doubt. In other circumstances the DEFENSIVE team will receive the benefit of the doubt (i.e. ball kicked across the tryline OR doubt occurring before the ball crosses the tryline)".

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.