Benefit of the Doubt

[HaroldBishop]

I would also give them the right to call on forward passes, if they are unsure due to camera direction etc, then they let it go, but when you see obvious forward passes leading to tries make you wonder why the video ref cant get it right.

Been there, done that. It doesn't work.

Four officials on the field SHOULD be enough.

 

[snowman]

If there is doubt, the benefit needs to go with the defending team.

agree with this 100%

myself and macca were talking about it on sunday, should go to the defending team.

 

[BurgoShark]

Dump the video ref for everything except onside and grounding... and no "refs call" or B.O.T.D.

Referees are human and they are going to make mistakes sometimes but they should make a call and get on with the game. I don't see any point in stopping the game for 3 minutes and still ending up with the wrong call.

 

[deano the p]

Dump the video ref for everything except onside and grounding... and no "refs call" or B.O.T.D.

Referees are human and they are going to make mistakes sometimes but they should make a call and get on with the game. I don't see any point in stopping the game for 3 minutes and still ending up with the wrong call.

Agreed burgess, it ****s me to tears.

 

[SharksMichael]

I hate benefit of the doubt, even more so that it favours the attacking team. It gives the video ref an excuse to give a try that is 50/50. If it isn't 100% a try then don't give it!

 

[Tyger Sharky]

I hate benefit of the doubt, even more so that it favours the attacking team. It gives the video ref an excuse to give a try that is 50/50. If it isn't 100% a try then don't give it!

Totally agree with that.

 

[Illawarra Shark]

Driving home this afternoon, and someone came up with a great idea regarding BOTD. Scrap the BOTD, go back to one ref to control the game, and take away any video ref decisions. Only time the video ref is used, is in a captains challenge of the ref's call for which they are allowed 1 or 2 per half.

I thought is was a great idea. For mine the idea of the "benefit of the doubt try" is almost like saying you were close to shafting Scarlett Johansson. Close only counts in the horseshoes and hand-grenade stakes as far as I'm concerned

 

[Blix]

Been there, done that. It doesn't work.

Four officials on the field SHOULD be enough.

That was before benefit of the doubt though wasnt it...

As I said if they are unsure they leave it, and nothing is different to the rules now, BUT, if there is a definate forward pass they call it.

 

[Gards]

If refs arn't allowed to rule on anything with even 0.5% of doubt do you think decisions would be made that are otherwise fair and logical?

The most likely outcome should be ruled upon unless there is more than reasonable doubt. Forans try was not one of those 1% could have been a try situations, there was more than reasonable doubt he touched it and therefore correct call would have been no try. Everyone could have lived with that decision but due to a lock of common sense we get a controversal call.

If they can sort their approach to the Vid ref out get rid of it - it should be an asset not hindrance.

 

[Mark^Bastard]

The benefit of the doubt is meant for 50/50 calls.

It's not there so that a video ref can say "Look, it appears that was a knock on, but I can't be 100% certain and the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team, so it has to be a try".

It should only be used when something is 50/50, when either option is exactly the same likelyhood, they then should go in favour of the attacking team.

Our systems at the moment are fine, it's the referees that are not fine, and that stems from their boss.

 

[Gards]

Yup that's what I was getting at MB keep it for 50/50 calls.

The Foran try was like a 99/1 sorta call with the tiniest of doubts

 

[Mark^Bastard]

The problem is they go looking for doubts.

IMO, there was no doubt at all.

But they just try to get too technical.

Who knows why they do this with some decisions and not others?

 

[Gards]

It's gotta be the Harrigant influence trying to prove how smart he is with rules and stuff know one else knows about or can understand

At least he sometimes admits when his guys get it wrong but the rot starts at the top and from I can see nothing is being done about it

League has become a total lucky dip. Kick on the 5th and see what the ref thinks...

 

[Gibs]

Give them a bigger tv in the box

 

[fancyman]

One Ref, 4 linesmans & benefit of the Doubt goes to the defending team.
AND 3 Video Refs.
Why isnt Bill & Stewy in the video box instead of a Corporate box

 

[Bundy Shark]

I personally prefer the BOD to the defending team, I remember hearing Kimmorley once & he said he believed that the attacking team should have to prove that they have scored, ever since then I thought that was a pretty fair statement/argument.

 

[Born&bred]

The rule has always been benefit of the doubt to the attack.

I understand why there's a flurry of support for D to get the BOTD - but look at some scenarios:

Attacking team busts the defence wide open and the player gets tackled in the in-goal, and claims a try, though the D tried to hold him up.

The ref couldn't see if he grounded it or if he was held up.

Vid ref can't tell either.

If you think botd should go to the defence there, you're discouraging attacking play. The attacking team outplayed the defensive team in that situation & the D would be extremely arsy if a technicality changed that.

 

[BurgoShark]

The rule has always been benefit of the doubt to the attack.

I understand why there's a flurry of support for D to get the BOTD - but look at some scenarios:

Attacking team busts the defence wide open and the player gets tackled in the in-goal, and claims a try, though the D tried to hold him up.

The ref couldn't see if he grounded it or if he was held up.

Vid ref can't tell either.

If you think botd should go to the defence there, you're discouraging attacking play. The attacking team outplayed the defensive team in that situation & the D would be extremely arsy if a technicality changed that.

While I see your point, that's probably not a good example. The rulebook actually says that if you can not see the ball it must be a try, In the case of that particular, under International Rules (rather than whatever the NRL decides interpretation is this week) it would still be called a try.

 

[WillyInBris]

I personally prefer the BOD to the defending team, I remember hearing Kimmorley once & he said he believed that the attacking team should have to prove that they have scored, ever since then I thought that was a pretty fair statement/argument.

I think its quite fair as well.

 

[slide rule]

^Agree in general.

But I think it depends how much doubt there actually is. Sometimes the ref sees it fairly clearly the first time and sometimes he doesn't.

If the ref is 90% sure that it is a try but refers it just to check and there is no conclusive evidence either way, it would be kind of unfair not to award a try. In that case it should probably go back to the refs call, who would then award a try.

I don't know how that would work in practice though.

The problem I have is more with the current "interpretation" of the rules. I think the rules need to be reviewed and made clear.