Fri 4th Oct: SL SF: Hull KR v Warrington Wolves KO 20:00 (Sky)

[up the robins]

Reading all the comments about try no try just seems like pettiness and taking away from what was a great game. No evidence was provided either way so benefit of doubt  as always has done  goes  to the attacker.

[Hopie]

It's called "benefit of the doubt", not "is there any reason I cannot award a try". There are situations where you can't see the ball where it is obvious it has not been grounded, and others where it is so unlikely that it no reasonably unbiased person (i.e a ref) would think it had been grounded, these should result in "no try" and we all know it.

"I can't see the ball" is not the same as "it must be a try" and if anybody really thinks that, you have a perspective I can't understand. (I feel the same about you are just biased/ a sore loser etc)

[StandOffHalf]

There is a difference between ''not disallow'' and ''allow''. The circled law refers to ''the grounding of the ball''. The Burgess try was not an unsighted grounding, where the ref wants to have the video ref sign off on something that was obscured. It was a held-up situation, with the balance of probability being that the ball didn't touch the line..

Being sure isn't really the thing. It is a balance of probability.

I am a massive fan of KR in 2024 and am very glad that they have made the Grand Final. I just think Moore should have sent it up as a No Try.

[unapologetic pedant]

59 minutes ago, Worzel said:

The ref doesn’t need to prove grounding, or see evidence of it. He has to be sure it wasn’t grounded in order to disallow a try. 

Are you equating "disallow a try" with "send the decision to the VR as No Try"?

When the on-field ref is sure the ball has not been grounded, the ruling is PTB on the 10m line and play on. Therefore no decision on grounding could ever be sent to the VR as No Try.

How do you explain all the instances of VRs being asked to "confirm the ball was held up"?

[Leeds Wire]

1 hour ago, Fevrover said:

TRY(sorry) convincing Warrington fans, you would think they'd never had a contentious decision in their favour. Good luck next week.

Which Wire fans on here need convincing? That's the daftest post I've read in all of the 20 odd pages of this thread.

All Wire fans I know have taken it all on the chin and not complained. It was a terrible call, but other factors also cost us the game and we're mature enough to move on. 

I just hope, after 50 odd years of following the Wire home and away, we win the competition at some point 

 

[up the robins]

43 minutes ago, Leeds Wire said:

Which Wire fans on here need convincing? That's the daftest post I've read in all of the 20 odd pages of this thread.

All Wire fans I know have taken it all on the chin and not complained. It was a terrible call, but other factors also cost us the game and we're mature enough to move on. 

I just hope, after 50 odd years of following the Wire home and away, we win the competition at some point 

 

Pretty certain your time will come Sam has revitalised your team and their is very little separating KR and Warrington this year Wigan maybe just have the edge on us both, but beatable with a bit of luck.

Looking forward to more big matches against you guys next year.

[Worzel]

8 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Are you equating "disallow a try" with "send the decision to the VR as No Try"?

When the on-field ref is sure the ball has not been grounded, the ruling is PTB on the 10m line and play on. Therefore no decision on grounding could ever be sent to the VR as No Try.

How do you explain all the instances of VRs being asked to "confirm the ball was held up"?

If the referee knows from what he saw was that the ball was not grounded, but recognises it is possible that other angles he doesn’t have may shown that it was, then he will send it up as No Try.

If the referee doesn’t see the grounding at all (e.g. in this case he likely can’t see the ball), then he will send it up as Try and again is asking the VR if when they watch the action they can be certain that it wasn’t.

If after the latter the VR is in the same position as the ref, i.e he can’t see the grounding, then that is reconfirmed as a try. Because if refs don’t see the ball in those circumstances, the Laws of the Game define it as a try. 

This isn’t complex, it’s the rules. The Laws were written foreseeing this scenario, and defined the outcome precisely so that individual refs didn’t have to guess. The sport as a whole collectively decided what should happen in that scenario.

The Laws give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. We chose that. This was consistent with that, and anyone advocating for a different outcome or saying the ref did the wrong thing needs to ask for different rules. 

[48C North Stand]

20 odd pages of bickering over a decision no one will now change. 

It's over. 

Wow. 

Edited October 6, 2024 by 48C North Stand

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, 48C North Stand said:

20 odd pages of bickering over a decision no one will now change. 

It's over. 

Wow. 

Yup, people discussing rugby on a rugby forum. 

Wow.

[Fevrover]

9 hours ago, Leeds Wire said:

Which Wire fans on here need convincing? That's the daftest post I've read in all of the 20 odd pages of this thread.

All Wire fans I know have taken it all on the chin and not complained. It was a terrible call, but other factors also cost us the game and we're mature enough to move on. 

I just hope, after 50 odd years of following the Wire home and away, we win the competition at some point 

 

Not just on here ,and there have been some. Good luck next season. 

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

If the referee knows from what he saw was that the ball was not grounded, but recognises it is possible that other angles he doesn’t have may shown that it was, then he will send it up as No Try.

If the referee doesn’t see the grounding at all (e.g. in this case he likely can’t see the ball), then he will send it up as Try and again is asking the VR if when they watch the action they can be certain that it wasn’t.

If after the latter the VR is in the same position as the ref, i.e he can’t see the grounding, then that is reconfirmed as a try. Because if refs don’t see the ball in those circumstances, the Laws of the Game define it as a try. 

This isn’t complex, it’s the rules. The Laws were written foreseeing this scenario, and defined the outcome precisely so that individual refs didn’t have to guess. The sport as a whole collectively decided what should happen in that scenario.

The Laws give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. We chose that. This was consistent with that, and anyone advocating for a different outcome or saying the ref did the wrong thing needs to ask for different rules. 

Good points, but the Burgess try was more example A than example B.

[Dave T]

I broadly agree with Drinkwater on this, that irrespective of this decision, we had more than enough chances, a little sharper and it's in our hands.

I do have an issue withvthe principle of what we are doing here though.

The ref team didn't see the ball grounded. The multiple camera angles didn't show the ball being grounded. Yet we have to award a try. There just doesn't seem to be sensible logic there.

A quick sniff test - had the ref said no try, there would be zero controversy here. Genuinely nobody would have batted an eyelid, as it doesn't look to be a try at all. KR would have played on and it's no controversy. No KR fans here would have been appealing for it as there was no evidence of a try.

For some reason, we have created an interpretation that isn't logical and will lead to controversy.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Good points, but the Burgess try was more example A than example B.

It is a flaw with the logic though. In scenario A he gives the decision based on what he has seen and asks the VR to disprove it.

In scenario B he gives the decision based on what he hasn't seen and asks the VR to disprove it.

Call me old fashioned, I'm a fan of referees calling based on what they have seen.

[StandOffHalf]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is a flaw with the logic though. In scenario A he gives the decision based on what he has seen and asks the VR to disprove it.

In scenario B he gives the decision based on what he hasn't seen and asks the VR to disprove it.

Call me old fashioned, I'm a fan of referees calling based on what they have seen.

I think this is where judicious interpretation on the part of the on-field ref comes into it.

Example A pertains to a held-up situation. Example B pertains to a put-down where there aren't players looking to wrap up the ball where the ref's view made him miss the act of scoring.

At least that is how I look at it...

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think this is where judicious interpretation on the part of the on-field ref comes into it.

Example A pertains to a held-up situation. Example B pertains to a put-down where there aren't players looking to wrap up the ball where the ref's view made him miss the act of scoring.

At least that is how I look at it...

Yes, that's my interpretation too. It is interesting that then note that is often quoted here is never ever used in ref or VR comments during these type of incidents.

Silverwood also makes no reference to it on twitter when he criticised the decision. I will caveat that Silverwood is an attention seeker, and staunch Leeds fan, so not sure if he dislikes Hull which could sway his comments!

[StandOffHalf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, that's my interpretation too. It is interesting that then note that is often quoted here is never ever used in ref or VR comments during these type of incidents.

Silverwood also makes no reference to it on twitter when he criticised the decision. I will caveat that Silverwood is an attention seeker, and staunch Leeds fan, so not sure if he dislikes Hull which could sway his comments!

Yeah, I take Silverwood's offerings with a pinch of salt.

[RigbyLuger]

26 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Yeah, I take Silverwood's offerings with a pinch of salt.

Does he, or those journalists who write stories based on his tweets, mention why he suddenly disappeared from reffing?

[Moe syszlak]

Melbourne have been done over by an even worse video ref decision! So much for the super duper bunker.

[JohnM]

Maybe the answer is that Warrington should have kicked their goals. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Maybe the answer is that Warrington should have kicked their goals. 

Well no, that is not related to the incident being discussed.

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Does he, or those journalists who write stories based on his tweets, mention why he suddenly disappeared from reffing?

As an aside, it is interesting how many incidents we seem to have within the RFL that lead to investigations, suspensions and sometimes 'resignations'.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Moe syszlak said:

Melbourne have been done over by an even worse video ref decision! So much for the super duper bunker.

Christ!

[bratman]

12 minutes ago, Moe syszlak said:

Melbourne have been done over by an even worse video ref decision! So much for the super duper bunker.

I'm sure that was down!

[JohnM]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Well no, that is not related to the incident being discussed.

It's related to the topic, though, which is not solely about how many angels one can get on the point of a needle. 

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, Moe syszlak said:

Melbourne have been done over by an even worse video ref decision! So much for the super duper bunker.

 

9 minutes ago, bratman said:

I'm sure that was down!

Agreed. I know it's thread drift, but it's an example of needing to be careful of unintended consequences. I think the NRL have become a little obsessed with pace of the decision with the bunker, but it looks like that decision just lacked the due care and diligence that it needed.