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

[Moe syszlak]

10 minutes ago, bratman said:

I'm sure that was down!

 

[Moe syszlak]

10 minutes ago, bratman said:

I'm sure that was down!

 

[StandOffHalf]

30 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

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.

Exactly what I thought. I was shocked when they had two brief looks and signed off on the ref's call. It was almost perfunctory, without honing in on the ball and coming to a measured decision.

I have to say I thought it was grounded.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours 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.

The only written guide I'm aware of is -

On 04/10/2024 at 20:55, Padge said:

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

One poster says this means the ref should give the try unless he is "sure it wasn't grounded".

I don't recognize that interpretation. In my view, the note only means the ref should give the try if he believes there was a grounding but hasn't actually seen it i.e. sight of grounding is not the be all and end all.

[ELBOWSEYE]

We need to move on, next week I hope we have a competitive game like most of the play offs and would like the game decided by a flash of brilliance rather than a controversial officials decision.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours 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 possibility of other angles is the sole doubt in the ref's mind, why would he send it up as No Try when, according to you, he needs to be "sure it wasn't grounded in order to disallow a try"?

What happened to 

18 hours ago, Worzel said:

No ifs, no buts, no maybes. It is a try. 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Exactly what I thought. I was shocked when they had two brief looks and signed off on the ref's call. It was almost perfunctory, without honing in on the ball and coming to a measured decision.

I have to say I thought it was grounded.

Deliciously ironic that a day later we get one on the other side of the world that casts further doubt on the simplistic interpretation of the "Referee unsighted" note in the rulebook.

Safe to assume Ash Klein couldn't be "sure it wasn't grounded". Amazingly he doesn't seem to have realized this automatically means he should send it to the bunker as a try.

[StandOffHalf]

9 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Deliciously ironic that a day later we get one on the other side of the world that casts further doubt on the simplistic interpretation of the "Referee unsighted" note in the rulebook.

Safe to assume Ash Klein couldn't be "sure it wasn't grounded". Amazingly he doesn't seem to have realized this automatically means he should send it to the bunker as a try.

Yes, given some of the commentary, it is ironic.

I think Klein was correct to send it up a No Try. My sole dissatisfaction was in how it was summarily looked at and knocked away by the Video Ref. I think it should have been looked at/shown on the TV pictures in further detail.

[Padge]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The only written guide I'm aware of is -

One poster says this means the ref should give the try unless he is "sure it wasn't grounded".

I don't recognize that interpretation. In my view, the note only means the ref should give the try if he believes there was a grounding but hasn't actually seen it i.e. sight of grounding is not the be all and end all.

Yes, people have been arguing that because he didn't or couldn't see it grounded he should send it up as no try, the, long-standing, law says he should send it up as a try. If he is reasonably convinced it wasn't grounded he should give no try, he can then go to VR for confirmation, but tha law is quite clear that he cannot give no try just because he didn't see it grounded.

[unapologetic pedant]

27 minutes ago, Padge said:

Yes, people have been arguing that because he didn't or couldn't see it grounded he should send it up as no try, the, long-standing, law says he should send it up as a try. If he is reasonably convinced it wasn't grounded he should give no try, he can then go to VR for confirmation, but tha law is quite clear that he cannot give no try just because he didn't see it grounded.

There is no basis for categorical interpretations of the law either way.

I would word the current procedure as -

Certain grounding, give try on-field.

Certain no grounding, PTB 10m line.

Likely grounding, send to VR as Try.

Likely no grounding, send to VR as No try.

With a useful reminder note that directly seeing a grounding is not essential to the 3rd option. Circumstantial evidence can suffice. Which makes sense, given the ball can disappear from view at the critical moment.

All perfectly reasonable.

[Worzel]

9 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

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

That’s not true, otherwise the ref would have sent it up as no try. Unless the ref can see a hand under the ball, or something else to suggest the ball wasn’t grounded, then the rules tell him to assume a try has been scored.

The onus is on the need to disprove a try, not to prove a try. In the absence of any evidence, a try has been scored. Hence why Moore sent it up as a try, basically saying “I can’t see that it is not a try, so it is a try unless you have a better view than me” 

That’s how the laws are written. Moore wasn’t making a judgement call on the balance of probability, or even worse guessing. He was applying the rule that says if you can’t see it’s not a try, then it is. 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If the possibility of other angles is the sole doubt in the ref's mind, why would he send it up as No Try when, according to you, he needs to be "sure it wasn't grounded in order to disallow a try"?

What happened to 

Because the ref, from where he was, may have seen that the ball was prevented from being grounded. But in another moment during the action, the ball may have been grounded albeit the on field ref did not see it. It is for that scenario that the ref sends it up as No Try, and asks the VR to check if he is right.

In the absence of any evidence either way, he sends it up as a Try, as the rules tell him he has to. 

There’s no contradiction at all. 

[Worzel]

19 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"?

When the ref is sure the ball hasn’t been grounded, you are correct. However there are also quite clearly scenarios where the on-field ref will have seen the ball has been prevented from being grounded, but recognises that from angles he hasn’t seen it may have been possible to see a grounding. In those cases, he will send it up as No Try.

In the latter cases had there not been a VR in place, things would proceed as the former and a try not given. But we now have VRs, and so check. 

If the referee can neither see a grounding, nor a non-grounding, he’ll award a try. With a VR in place he’ll check other angles by sending it up, as a Try, with no VR he would just award the try on the field.

It’s all simple. No guessing: If the ref has no material information, he has to award a try or at least send it to the VR as a try. 

[StandOffHalf]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

That’s not true, otherwise the ref would have sent it up as no try. Unless the ref can see a hand under the ball, or something else to suggest the ball wasn’t grounded, then the rules tell him to assume a try has been scored.

The onus is on the need to disprove a try, not to prove a try. In the absence of any evidence, a try has been scored. Hence why Moore sent it up as a try, basically saying “I can’t see that it is not a try, so it is a try unless you have a better view than me” 

That’s how the laws are written. Moore wasn’t making a judgement call on the balance of probability, or even worse guessing. He was applying the rule that says if you can’t see it’s not a try, then it is. 

I enjoy reading your posts and you make a good Laws-based argument.

I disagree though, insofar as how incidents such a these are generally reffed. I agree largely with @unapologetic pedant's categorisation of certain and uncertain groundings. To me this was an uncertain situation/a held-up situation.

Interesting to see the differing takes in terms of interpretation in the game. As sad as it may be, I don't think one should look at the Laws as the be all and end all. I think it is more instructive to look at similar in-play examples and how they are sent up. As we know, the laws are interpreted, not universally applied.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

I enjoy reading your posts and you make a good Laws-based argument.

I disagree though, insofar as how incidents such a these are generally reffed. I agree largely with @unapologetic pedant's categorisation of certain and uncertain groundings. To me this was an uncertain situation/a held-up situation.

Interesting to see the differing takes in terms of interpretation in the game. As sad as it may be, I don't think one should look at the Laws as the be all and end all. I think it is more instructive to look at similar in-play examples and how they are sent up. As we know, the laws are interpreted, not universally applied.

It’s very rare that a ref can’t see the ball, and so is forced to apply the “assume scored” principle in the absence of information. That’s what’s caused the debate here, because it is such an uncommon event. 

It’s clear that Moore did the right thing in this case however, and that most commentators didn’t understand why. 

[StandOffHalf]

40 minutes ago, Worzel said:

It’s very rare that a ref can’t see the ball, and so is forced to apply the “assume scored” principle in the absence of information. That’s what’s caused the debate here, because it is such an uncommon event. 

It’s clear that Moore did the right thing in this case however, and that most commentators didn’t understand why. 

I suppose the difference in our interpretations is around whether this is the correct scenario to apply the ''assume scored'' principle.

I don't want my comments to come across as an attempt to undermine or sour KR's achievement. On balance, despite being a neutral, I am a KR fan in 2024. I hope they can do themselves proud at OT and finish off a great season!

Interesting thread!

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I suppose the difference in our interpretations is around whether this is the correct scenario to apply the ''assume scored'' principle.

I don't want my comments to come across as an attempt to undermine or sour KR's achievement. On balance, despite being a neutral, I am a KR fan in 2024. I hope they can do themselves proud at OT and finish off a great season!

Interesting thread!

Yes, i would second the point of this post - the discussion here isn't to take from KR's win, I'll be supporting them this week and they've been terrific this year, I do however find the discussion on the VR approach interesting.

[Worzel]

10 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I suppose the difference in our interpretations is around whether this is the correct scenario to apply the ''assume scored'' principle.

I don't want my comments to come across as an attempt to undermine or sour KR's achievement. On balance, despite being a neutral, I am a KR fan in 2024. I hope they can do themselves proud at OT and finish off a great season!

Interesting thread!

Yeah, it has been a bit like "Schrodinger's Try", or the old "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound" level of philosophical debate