Fri 29th Sept: SL Elim: Hull KR v Leigh Leopards KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Think you have to give that as benefit of the doubt to the attacking player (and sent up as a try).

And in your opinion seeing exactly tge same as the VR?

[Just Browny]

There's no realistic scenario where a VR can give 'held up' when it is sent up as a try; you'd need some sort of Hawkeye to prove some part of the ball never touched the ground.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

Good half of rugby that, really enjoyed it

[EagleEyePie]

That's probably the wrong outcome for the Hall try as it looked like Mellor had his arm underneath, but it was weak play to turn over the ball and weak defending to allow Hall to get over the line. If Leigh had defended better that marginal call never has to be made, but it will be the officials who 'robbed' Leigh if that turns out to be decisive when there was ample opportunity to prevent Hall even crossing the line.

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Bad call. If the on field ref didn't clearly see the ball grounded, it should have gone up no try, and then there would have been no compelling evidence of a try.

KR still well worth the lead though.

No it shouldn’t. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Hall didn't get that down.

The video ref said it could be down, or it could be up. Always a hand under it. Bad call IMO.

I don't think it was conclusive and in those situations the attacker should get the call.

[Jinking Jimmy]

8 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Not enough evidence to overturn the try, but that's tough on Leigh.

Surely if the referee can’t see that the ball has been grounded it should go up as no try and the leave it to the video ref to try and prove otherwise.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Jinking Jimmy

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Or just give the try. 

It's Leigh isn't it, you have form in your opinions.

[JohnM]

Just now, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

Good half of rugby that, really enjoyed it

Agree entirely. Fast, furious, and well- reffed.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And in your opinion seeing exactly tge same as the VR?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[Northern Eel]

Just now, Jinking Jimmy said:

Surely if the referee can’t see that the ball has been grounded it should go up as no try and the leave it to the video ref to prove otherwise.

Did the ref say 'I didn't see it on the ground'? If so, I agree. If not, we can only surmise. I agree though; I would have been overturning that one personally.

[gingerjon]

Hull KR worthy of the lead, mind.

[StandOffHalf]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Bad call. If the on field ref didn't clearly see the ball grounded, it should have gone up no try, and then there would have been no compelling evidence of a try.

KR still well worth the lead though.

Yeah, poor from the man in the middle. They way he phrased it, looking for confirmation, means that he thought it could have been held up. The better course of action would have been to send it up as a NO TRY, since he was obviously unsure.

A lack of sensible thinking under pressure from the ref, unfortunately.

[17 stone giant]

2 minutes ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Surely if the referee can’t see that the ball has been grounded it should go up as no try and the leave it to the video ref to prove otherwise.

But presumably he thought he had seen it being grounded, otherwise he wouldn't have given it as a try.

Only on the replay afterwards can you see that it almost certainly wasn't grounded and that the ref was mistaken in his belief.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

51 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Empty seats in the corner. Or is that the Leigh end where Harry and his entourage would have been?

The Leigh blocks. They sold 750 out of 1100, which ain’t bad at a week’s notice with that drive on a Friday night.

Although it took m f###### five hours from Oxford so they’re not getting any more credit from me

[Just Browny]

 

2 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

Did the ref say 'I didn't see it on the ground'? If so, I agree. If not, we can only surmise. I agree though; I would have been overturning that one personally.

 "I've got a try. Just check some of the ball has touched the ground there please."

[Wolfey Rovers]

The try would be given if it has no tv cameras to check on.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

What did you think on the evidence you saw, same as the VR did?

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think it was conclusive and in those situations the attacker should get the call.

 

1 minute ago, Jinking Jimmy said:

Surely if the referee can’t see that the ball has been grounded it should go up as no try and the leave it to the video ref to prove otherwise.

The laws state that a ref cannot disallow a try because he didn't see it grounded.

From the notes on scoring.

Referee unsighted The Referee should not disallow a try because they were not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.

[bobbruce]

4 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Yeah, poor from the man in the middle. They way he phrased it, looking for confirmation, means that he thought it could have been held up. The better course of action would have been to send it up as a NO TRY, since he was obviously unsure.

A lack of sensible thinking under pressure from the ref, unfortunately.

That is not how the game has ever been reffed. The law states not seeing the ball grounded is not a reason to disallow a try. So if the ref believes hes got it down he should award the try even if he hasn’t actually seen it on the ground. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by bobbruce

[Archie Gordon]

I have a feeling that the laws state that the ref doesn't have to see the ball grounded to give a try. In which case, Smith was right to send it up as a try. However, he was clear to Kendall that he hadn't seen the grounding and asked for help on that. Kendall should have said no try.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

What did you think on the evidence you saw, same as the VR did?

It was inconclusive and, as the law states, the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt.

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

 

 "I've got a try. Just check some of the ball has touched the ground there please."

Oh, is that what he said? I take back my previous assumption then. How has he got a try if he needs to check that some of the ball has touched the ground? I'm confused now.

[Northern Eel]

Just now, Just Browny said:

 

 "I've got a try. Just check some of the ball has touched the ground there please."

Which, to be fair, could be interpreted as, ' I think it is a try, but need confirmation'. That's quite different to 'I'm not sure he got that down'. The ref made a reasonable call, the VR didn't think there was enough to overturn it. I did.

[StandOffHalf]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think it was conclusive and in those situations the attacker should get the call.

The ref asked to check whether the ball got to the ground. He obviously had doubts. A boo-boo on his part, and the video ref essentially washing his hands of it is a pretty bad look.

I thought it was pretty clear that the hand was always under it.