Benifit of the Doubt

[Lettuce_Sharks]

Before the season gets underway, i was curious to know everyones position on the Benifit of the Doubt rule. This rule is the subject of much criticism and controversy during the season, and it would be interesting to hear everyones opinion.
I personally feel that it is a poor rule, as giving benifit when there is doubt is wrong to begin with. i feel, that if there is any doubt, it should be given "no try" as how can anyone award a try, without knowing with 100% certainty that it is a try? Trys should only be awarded when it can be proven with certainty that the ball is over the line, or the player had possesion etc. I believe the rule should be reversed to benifit the defensive team, as this would promote more equality and ensure that dubious decisions do not occur on a regular basis

 

[Jigsaw]

Benifit of the doubt rule should be in play During the regula season but should be dissmissed during Test and Finals Footy. but the ****in video ref gets easy to spot no trys wrong anyway. so either way we are still stuffed lol

 

[sharkiesfreak]

I think that the rule is subject to,too many different interpretations. Every video referee has a different view on what is a try and what isnt.The nrl should put in place a strict rule that covers all areas of the rule. I think that it should be ruled a no try but if there is at least some evidence that its a try then it should be awared. On this subject of video refs the nrl should have a limit at how long/how man replays the refs can use as sometimes it takes 3-5 minutes to get a decision and then they end up giving it back to the game referee its just plain rediculous

 

[bluey]

It is a simple rule that has complications.

 

[Bronze Whaler]

I hate the rule the benifit of the doubt should go to the defending team.

 

[Lettuce_Sharks]

exactly what ive been saying bronze, exactly

 

[peachey]

the video refs suk ass when it comes to that rule

 

[Capital_Shark]

Its the off season, time for a bit of calm. Low blood pressure, low stress, time for the knuckles to heal over and patching up of holes in the walls, all before we start again on March 16. So I'm gonna wait until the season starts before getting revved up and pissed off with refs, dubious calls and dodgy rules.

 

[sharks195]

it is a bit of a hard rule to have, you either have it all season, or don't have it at all.

 

[Great White]

They have it now and we have to live with it, so lets just accept it.

 

[sharks195]

i think in some instances it is useful, but it can't apply to only some and it has to be fair to both teams, if the player has clearly scored on one camera view and on another it is a knock-on then you have to be fair to both teams, don't know if that situation is possible, but there needs to be a way of saying that there is enough evidence to support a likely try or that there isn't enough evidence.

 

[Eyeballs]

I think it does need to be reviewed - too many mistakes have occurred from the refs and other officials.

 

[Dr Prawn]

Sorry, but I actually like the idea. I think it's reasonable that the referee doesn't have to necessarily sight the grounding of a ball to award a try. If you've taken three defenders with you to score but the grounding is obscured by these bodies you've got hanging off you, why shouldn't your efforts be rewarded? The problem is getting it applied consistently which clearly hasn't happened; a lot of refs seem just to ignore it. In principle though, I'm for it.

 

[Megashark]

I have to disagree with you there Doc. In my opinion there are enough camera angles these days to warrant not awarding a try unless the ball is clearly shown to be grounded over the line, there are plenty of occasions where defenders manage to get hands under the ball to prevent a try being scored and those last ditch efforts should be encouraged. Otherwise our game is in danger of becoming like the NFL where no grounding is necessary and the line only has to be crossed for a touchdown to be scored.

 

[Dr Prawn]

Fair enough. We'll agree to differ.

 

[Great White]

I think Doc has made the most realistic call, CONSISTENCY, that is the key.

 

[san29]

Benifit Of Doubt

BENIFIT OF DOUBT IS GREAT IF IT GOES YOUR WAY, BUT IT STINKS IF THEY GET IT WRONG WHEN IT IS YOUR TEAM

 

[Lettuce_Sharks]

Sorry, but I actually like the idea. I think it's reasonable that the referee doesn't have to necessarily sight the grounding of a ball to award a try. If you've taken three defenders with you to score but the grounding is obscured by these bodies you've got hanging off you, why shouldn't your efforts be rewarded? The problem is getting it applied consistently which clearly hasn't happened; a lot of refs seem just to ignore it. In principle though, I'm for it.

you say in thsi instance, why shouldnt your efforts be rewarded...what about the efforts of the defensive team?

 

[Dr Prawn]

you say in thsi instance, why shouldnt your efforts be rewarded...what about the efforts of the defensive team?

Fair point, but they didn't stop him getting over the line. If it's unclear whether the ball has actually crossed the tryline then I accept that it's harder to go with this rule, but in instances where it is clear that the ball has made it past that line then I'm OK with it being applied there. That's me anyway. I'd actually like to see the NRL rulebook. Does anyone know if there is such a definitive thing on the web somewhere. Can't find one at NRL.COM

 

[Great White]

I think also Doc, you will find interpretation on different people also can hinder the correct decisions too.