Video referee

[Fozz]

I can't see any reason to overturn a try call by the onfield ref if that is the best view. I don't see any green between the ball and the white line.

 

[Porthoz]

That's exactly my thought Fozz. If the ref awarded the try, it's because he saw the ball on the line at some stage. At no point was there a clear view of the try sequence to conclusively deny it.

 

[tkday]

That image proves nothing, I'm happy with the decision if there's evidence, but that ain't it. You're insane AP if you think that proves it was no try. I can't see a damn thing in it. I remember when seeing the reply I thought it was a no try, that image actually makes me think that maybe the video ref got it wrong. A better image would be great.

 

[Anonymous person]

like i said, thats a crappy streaming video from news.com.au capture, but it still clearly shows divide between the ball and the line. i honestly dont know how you guys dont see it but hey, im not gonna argue anymore.

 

[Porthoz]

like i said, thats a crappy streaming video from news.com.au capture, but it still clearly shows divide between the ball and the line. i honestly dont know how you guys dont see it but hey, im not gonna argue anymore.

Who are you and what have you done with AP? :001_tt2:

 

[Kaz]

I thought the on field ref, said he thought it was a no try.

 

[OXY-351]

I thought the on field ref, said he thought it was a no try.

I'm fairly sure he said it was a try, as if he'd said it was a no try, I would have been happy with the process of the video ref sticking with it.

 

[Coxy]

I'm fairly sure he said it was a try, as if he'd said it was a no try, I would have been happy with the process of the video ref sticking with it.

Yeah, he definitely said "Try, check grounding".

 

[john1420]

totally right, the ref called TRY

and while the video evidence (were this 2012) was 50/50 in 2013 that was to me quite clearly a try as there was not 100% evidence to overturn the field ref

I thought that then and i still think it

I remember saying to my son, well so much for this helping reduce controversy

its week 1 and they are already stuffing it up

 

[subsbligh]

like i said, thats a crappy streaming video from news.com.au capture, but it still clearly shows divide between the ball and the line. i honestly dont know how you guys dont see it but hey, im not gonna argue anymore.

I love it. By the very fact that we are debating the decision proves there was no conclusive evidence to overrule the referree's decision.

 

[Anonymous person]

I love it. By the very fact that we are debating the decision proves there was no conclusive evidence to overrule the referree's decision.

not really. not at all actually. what is conclusive to some people isnt to others. all i needed was 1 look at it to say 'yep thats no try'. it was that conclusive IMO.

remember, some people think that the tides are conclusive evidence that god exists. some people think that winning a premiership 15 years ago is conclusive evidence that someone is currently the best coach.

it was conclusive evidence to me, and it was conclusive enough for the video referee.

 

[subsbligh]

By the way the threshold is not "conclusive" evidence it is ​sufficient​ evidence.

http://www.nrl.com/laws-of-the-game-video-referee/tabid/10874/newsid/71023/default.aspx

There is a vital distinction here that you miss AP.

Argue how you will, there is not sufficient evidence to deny that the ball touched the line.

If the referree's decision was "no try", I would say that there would not be sufficient evidence to say the ball touched the line and the "no try" decision would have held.

It should have been a try based on that test and the on-field referree's decision.

Overturning a live "Try" decision is a higher threshold than overturning a "No-Try" decision when you have inconclusive evidence like this.

Hopefully they get it right in Round 2 and for the rest of the season.

 

[Kaz]

Around the 24 second mark.

 

[Anonymous person]

There is a vital distinction here that you miss AP.

Argue how you will, there is not sufficient evidence to deny that the ball touched the line.

"sufficient" is the same as "conclusive" in this case though. i think there was sufficient evidence that the try ruling should be overturned, so did the video referee. the replays showed IMO that he grounded the ball short. that is sufficient evidence to say that the original try ruling is incorrect, and it should be overturned.

 

[Dexter]

If the rule did read "conclusive" it would have been ruled a try , the fact it reads "sufficient" leaves a little leeway for interpretation IMO.

I'm stuffed if I can see how it didn't touch the line.

 

[Coxy]

If the rule did read "conclusive" it would have been ruled a try , the fact it reads "sufficient" leaves a little leeway for interpretation IMO.

I'm stuffed if I can see how it didn't touch the line.

Agreed. Sufficient is like "beyond reasonable doubt", where as conclusive is "no doubt". So I can understand that the video referee felt there was sufficient evidence to say no try - however, I disagree. Likewise if the original decision was no try, I would be fine with them sticking with that call. It was line ball. Hence, under the spirit of this new interpretation, IMO that's a try. But the bottom line is it still comes down to the video referee's opinion.

No system will ensure 100% agreement.

I know some people are bitching that the video referee is being used more as a butt coverer. I don't actually mind since most of the decisions get made after 1 or 2 replays

 

[Anonymous person]

did you see newcastles second (i think) "try", where boyd dropped it over the line? they took an absolute eternity with that decision, 10+ replays, when it was plain as day that it was just knock-on and 20m tap.

 

[subsbligh]

Agreed. Sufficient is like "beyond reasonable doubt", where as conclusive is "no doubt". So I can understand that the video referee felt there was sufficient evidence to say no try - however, I disagree. Likewise if the original decision was no try, I would be fine with them sticking with that call. It was line ball. Hence, under the spirit of this new interpretation, IMO that's a try. But the bottom line is it still comes down to the video referee's opinion.

No system will ensure 100% agreement.

I know some people are bitching that the video referee is being used more as a butt coverer. I don't actually mind since most of the decisions get made after 1 or 2 replays

Agree. Sufficient ~ beyond reasonable doubt. This is the problem with this new system. If the ref calls a try in the live decision, then there is obviously already existing some doubt before the video ref sees it.

Both referrees failed to follow procedure.

The on-field ref should have called no-try, check for grounding.

If he calls try, its like "video ref, I see this as a try unless you've got something beyond doubt that says its not"