Try or no try system. Is it working?

Try or no try system. Is it working?

  • Total voters
    12
Super Freak

Super Freak

International Captain
Forum Staff
Jan 25, 2014
44,117
33,255
There have has been some controversy this season regarding the new system. I just wanted to hear thoughts from people on whether they think it's working or not, or whether they believe we should go back to the benefit of the doubt system.

Personally, I think all tries should be no try and only awarded if it's a clear try.
 
I'd like to see stats about how many they have got "right". It doesn't really matter as the video ref should be looking for reasons why it isn't a try anyway. My issue is the two ref system. Two different perceptions of the game does not work.
 
I prefer this to the BOTD tries we had before, with people practically scoring tries by applying pressure to the ball with their testicles... :tsk:
 
I completely forgot about that moment.

I needed a new TV remote after that. I didn't watch the game from that point on.
 
I think it's working. But if any replay is pretty clear cut then the scorer should have the right to slap the ref upside the head and tell him to just make a bloody call.
 
This will be almost a cut & paste from my previous rants on the topic. And I will continue to loudly voice my opinion because it seems to fucking obvious to me yet the NRL just gets dumber.

Remember the catalyst for this bullshit was Foran's "Hand of God". For those who don't remember Foran knocked a ball on mid-air yet Manly were still awarded a try via "benefit of the doubt". It ended the Cowboy's season. What happened then was the BOD ruling was used to excuse anything but a 100% no-try. Foran looked to have knocked on, but they couldn't be 100% certain, so it was BOD. IMO, BOD was only ever there to split absolute 50/50 decisions. As an example, true 50/50 BOD would have ruled Copley's try on the weekend as a no-try. He looked to have dropped it, but there was the chance that his right arm, which was tucked in out of view, never lost contact with the ball. It was only a chance though. Call it 25% try, 75% no-try. If it had been ruled like Foran's example, it would get the green light. If it had used BOD in its intended form, it would have been red. And red would have been the correct decision IMO.

So to fix this clusterfuck, the NRL went full retard and demanded that every decision had to be ruled by the on-field ref and it was up to the video ref to overturn. Sounds logical in theory, but in practise it was just as loose as before. In that even if it looked mostly like the on-field ref was wrong, unless there's 100% proof to contradict, that refs ruling will stay. The proof that convinces me that this system it totally flawed is this: Had this ruling style been in place, and had the ref called a Try for the Foran example, even though it looked like Foran had knocked it on, it wasn't 100% proof so it would still be awarded a try. So really, nothing's changed.

IMO, the NRL aren't interested in anything but covering their own arses. All they want to do is put a set of rules in place that protects the refs. Unless you can prove the refs to be 100% wrong, they're right. Even if it's 99% likely they're wrong, they're still right. They go on about the refs needing to be confident in their decisions and them constantly getting derided erodes that confidence, which leads to more errors etc. Well **** that. Artificially skewing their right/wrong calls won't help anyone. Their priority shouldn't be covering themselves, it should be training & developing refs to be fucking up to the standards demanded by a billion dollar sport.

I won't even add /rant because I'm sure there will be plenty more to come!
 
Completely disagree on the premise that Copley's try should be a no-try under the BOTD rule.

You doubt whether he still had his right hand on the ball, but there is nothing to indicate he didn't, hence TRY.
Remeber this is benefit of the doubt, not prejudice of the doubt.

This is a perfect example of the validity of the current ruling, where the ref was probably the best positioned to see what happened, but wanted the video ref to verify his decision.
The images didn't show clearly whether Copley did have the ball under control or not, so I'm happy to go with the refs original decision.

There have been however, situations where the video is conclusive enough to justify a decision from the video ref to overrule the field ref, and that's where 100% certainty is going overboard, allowing for tries to stand while they shouldn't and vice-versa.
 
Porthoz said:
Completely disagree on the premise that Copley's try should be a no-try under the BOTD rule.

You doubt whether he still had his right hand on the ball, but there is nothing to indicate he didn't, hence TRY.
Remeber this is benefit of the doubt, not prejudice of the doubt.

This is a perfect example of the validity of the current ruling, where the ref was probably the best positioned to see what happened, but wanted the video ref to verify his decision.
The images didn't show clearly whether Copley did have the ball under control or not, so I'm happy to go with the refs original decision.

There have been however, situations where the video is conclusive enough to justify a decision from the video ref to overrule the field ref, and that's where 100% certainty is going overboard, allowing for tries to stand while they shouldn't and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

I'll have to watch it again. I was convinced that his left hand definitely released the ball.
 
Nope.

I don't think the on-field referee should have to make a decision when he sends it upstairs. The video referee should look at it, discuss it with the referee and touchies, and they should then make a decision.

It's really no better than the benefit of the doubt last year.

Porthoz said:
You doubt whether he still had his right hand on the ball, but there is nothing to indicate he didn't, hence TRY.
Click to expand...

There was no evidence of it being on the ball though, that's the thing. We couldn't see it on the ball, so why do we assume it was?
 
Last edited:
Anonymous person said:
Nope.

I don't think the on-field referee should have to make a decision when he sends it upstairs. The video referee should look at it, discuss it with the referee and touchies, and they should then make a decision.

It's really no better than the benefit of the doubt last year.
Click to expand...
I agree. The video ref should make a call based on it being 50.1% or more either a try or a no try.

Saying BOD to the try scorer was just a disaster.
 
The referrees don't understand that the rule is there for procedural fairness. They overrule the refs decision all the time based on things they are not called on to adjudicate.

On field ref: I'm not sure, but I think it's a try
Video ref: I'm not sure, but I think it's a no-try, my ruling takes precedence.

WRONG.

And they should set the bar to the video ref needing proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that the on-field refs ruling is wrong.

OR

Give the OFR on-field review capability (surely there's an iPad app or some technology channel 9 can set up) to give him review of the decision.

Divide decision making power - divide responsbility.
 
Just give all the fans a buzzer and let them decide!

At least you'd get more fans through the gate!
 
symbolsoup said:
When Googles Glass(es) becomes more mainstream and viable, it could totally remove the need for the video ref. Sounds like a great topic for a PHD topic in interaction design with massive commercial outcomes. Pity I'm already committed to a different topic.
Click to expand...

I'll do it. I'll just needs some industry-sourced boundaries. Is the word "fuckwit" a commercially viable term when referring to refs?
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 560
1:34:52
ARL Qualifying Final, 1995 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Harry Sack
  • TwoLeftFeet
  • RolledOates
  • Locky's Left Boot
  • leith1
  • Waynesaurus
  • Morepudding
  • Gaz
Total: 93 (members: 13, guests: 80)
Robots: 237
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.