45 replies to this topic

[my missus]

so now the aussies have scrapped it what's the chances of us doing the same, or would sky have something to say about it.

[thundergaz]

so now the aussies have scrapped it what's the chances of us doing the same, or would sky have something to say about it.

All this stuff about the Aussies if they scrapped a four point try to a one point try and we kept the four point try and we played them on them rules we would still lose. The Aussies pump a lot more money into their RL than we do plus it's probably their number one sport over there. I don't think we need to emulate the Aussies just find a new way not their way as they have an head start already on everything we copy.

[terrywebbisgod]

Would it make much of a difference,very few tries are given benefit of the doubt over here anyway.

[Johnoco]

Don't like it anyway. Either its a try or it isn't. But worse, they never even seem to apply it anyway.
Wouldn't be bothered if it was scrapped.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

Having seen some of the try's awarded by Aussie video refs this season I'm amazed the haven't gone the whole hog and scrapped them.

[Padge]

Benefit of the doubt has been a fundamental law of the game since year dot and is there for a reason and has remained there for a reason. The only change needed is not to announce it, Try or no Try, if its given on BoD you just say Try. It was only when it appeared on a screen that most supporters (and probably players) realised its existence.

The actual law is that a referee cannot disallow a try just because he didn't actually see the ball grounded. If you turn it around and say that a referee must disallow a try if he hasn't seen the ball grounded then you just give benefit of the doubt the opposite way.

[my missus]

What you'll see in the game now is a referee actually indicate his view on whether it is a try or no try.
"If there's uncertainty, he will send it to the video ref, and it will only be overturned if the video ref can clearly see there is a reason to overturn that decision - I think that it will be positively received by fans."
so this is similar to the union way where the ref asks " i think it is a try, may i award a try"

[Dave T]

What you'll see in the game now is a referee actually indicate his view on whether it is a try or no try.
"If there's uncertainty, he will send it to the video ref, and it will only be overturned if the video ref can clearly see there is a reason to overturn that decision - I think that it will be positively received by fans."
so this is similar to the union way where the ref asks " i think it is a try, may i award a try"

which is identical to rl.
a vr will give a yay or nay decision no matter how the question is asked. The only way it would differ is if they are asked and only allowed to look at certain incidents. If the question is open, it is the same in both sports.

[Cake Tiger]

It's getting very similar to the NFL where all scoring plays are reviewed but are still called first by the on-field refs. The decision is only overturned if there is irrefutable proof on the replay that the wrong decision has been made.

The ARL are also trialling the use of a "captain's challenge" in the U20 games that are televised - similar to the NFL "coach's challenge".

[Padge]

It's getting very similar to the NFL where all scoring plays are reviewed but are still called first by the on-field refs. The decision is only overturned if there is irrefutable proof on the replay that the wrong decision has been made.

Its still BoD, it doesn't matter how sports try to hide BoD, whether for giving or rejecting a score has to exist.

What they are trying to do is change the publics perception of how decisions are made more than changing how decisions are made.

[flyingking]

which is identical to rl.
a vr will give a yay or nay decision no matter how the question is asked. The only way it would differ is if they are asked and only allowed to look at certain incidents. If the question is open, it is the same in both sports.

In field hockey it is up to the captain to state the question that (s)he wishes to put to the video ref. The video ref can only rule on that question and I have seen a couple of instances where the captain asked the wrong question and as a result did not get what they were hoping for.

[gingerjon]

In field hockey it is up to the captain to state the question that (s)he wishes to put to the video ref. The video ref can only rule on that question and I have seen a couple of instances where the captain asked the wrong question and as a result did not get what they were hoping for.

I seem to remember in the Olympics in desperation a captain asked words to the effect of "Was there something wrong with that?" and the referee replied with, "You're going to need to be a bit more specific ..."

[markleeds]

One rule I would like to see is the time some teams take to set up for a drop goal or take a conversion. Something Kevin Sinfield drags out when it suits Leeds to do so.

[terrywebbisgod]

One rule I would like to see is the time some teams take to set up for a drop goal or take a conversion. Something Kevin Sinfield drags out when it suits Leeds to do so.

As every other team does.Never let that get in the way of your agenda though.

[ehbandit]

One rule I would like to see is the time some teams take to set up for a drop goal or take a conversion. Something Kevin Sinfield drags out when it suits Leeds to do so.

I think there is already a rule covering this

[Shadow]

What you'll see in the game now is a referee actually indicate his view on whether it is a try or no try.
"If there's uncertainty, he will send it to the video ref, and it will only be overturned if the video ref can clearly see there is a reason to overturn that decision - I think that it will be positively received by fans."
so this is similar to the union way where the ref asks " i think it is a try, may i award a try"

There's three questions a Union ref can ask the TMO
(1)Is it a Try, yes or no?
(2)Is there any reason why I can't award a Try?
(3)If it weren't for an act of foul play would a Try have probably been scored?

I am not a fan of the BotD rule, largely for the name and the way it gets announced on SKY, I always feel it sounds a bit too park football, jumpers for goalposts. Sport should be about clear yes / no, faster, higher, more points results and having a slightly fuzzy "oh well it was probably a Try so we'll give it" diminishes the result, in my view.

[Futtocks]

There's three questions a Union ref can ask the TMO
(1)Is it a Try, yes or no?
(2)Is there any reason why I can't award a Try?
(3)If it weren't for an act of foul play would a Try have probably been scored?

(4)Did it have the "ring of truth"?

[Wiltshire Rhino]

There's three questions a Union ref can ask the TMO
(1)Is it a Try, yes or no?
(2)Is there any reason why I can't award a Try?
(3)If it weren't for an act of foul play would a Try have probably been scored?

Simple and to-the-point! I like the way union referees instructs the video ref to give a yes or no answer.

[Dave T]

There's three questions a Union ref can ask the TMO
(1)Is it a Try, yes or no?
(2)Is there any reason why I can't award a Try?
(3)If it weren't for an act of foul play would a Try have probably been scored?

These give the same outcome as a League VR question,I've had this discussion on the Cross Code forum and nobody has ever been able to explain the difference:

Q1 - same as RL
Q2 - the answer will be a yes or no to a try - exactly the same as Q1 in effect
Q3 - same as RL penalty try question

[Griff]

I'd rather it were termed "balance of probabilities". There are plenty of cases where you can't tell, even on the video and you have to make a decision one way or the other. Let's face it - one of the teams gets the "benefit of the doubt" whether you award the try or not.

Classic example is the ball is (or maybe isn't) grounded in a ruck of players, point of contact with the ground - if there is one - out of sight of the cameras. The outcome is always going to be a guess.