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.
"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.