Video referee

[Big Pete]

Plenty of members on LU were baffled and so were a few commentary teams.

 

[john1420]

thats what im saying - the ONLY difference between 2012 and 2013 is, in reality, the removal of benefit of the doubt. unless benefit of the doubt would have come into it, what the referee initially states as his decision doesnt really matter. he may as well just say "i dont know, you figure it out" because if he says try and hes wrong the video ref will change it. if he says no try and hes wrong the video ref will change it. the only time it makes a difference is when the video ref would have used benefit of the doubt.

If what the ref states does not matter, why has Anderson told him to say it?

It's not because he's playing an early April Fools joke

It's because it does really matter, or is at least supposed to

Either that, or Anderson's a moron, and frankly I doubt that's the case

It is supposed to mean something and it didn't mean anything in that decision, hence the decision was wrong

 

[john1420]

Still, I think the spirit of the changes was meant to be that the video referee would only overrule when it was clearly obvious that the on field referee was wrong. I think that was touch and go, and the fact a similar case went the other way shows that.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say :)

 

[john1420]

Oh yeah, there is no doubt (pun intended) it's an improvement, but there is still inconsistency as Coxy pointed out, honestly, without BOTD there shouldn't be.

Regardless of what everyone's opinion is on the Macca try, the simple fact is that the polarized discussion about it shows it wasn't a clear cut case, and the video ref should have deferred to the field ref, as happened in the other game. Now that would've been consistent!

BINGO :thumbup1:

 

[Anonymous person]

If what the ref states does not matter, why has Anderson told him to say it?

It's not because he's playing an early April Fools joke

It's because it does really matter, or is at least supposed to

Either that, or Anderson's a moron, and frankly I doubt that's the case

because if benefit of the doubt wouldve come into it then it matters, like i said. the referee has to give a ruling before handing it to the video referee in case it cannot be ruled one way or the other by the video referee. now instead of being given a benefit of the doubt try it goes back to the refs original ruling.

BINGO :thumbup1:

im sorry but i really dont understand how you guys arent getting this lol.

the video referee had no doubt that he pulled up short. none whatsoever. thats why he ruled no try. just because you think there was doubt doesnt mean he does, and hes the one who has been given the job of deciding if its a try or not.

like i also said, just because a big bunch of people believe something doesnt mean that there is any truth to what they believe. remember, 50% of people didnt think that inglis' origin try last year was a try despite it being an obvious try by the rule book. it was a clear cut "try" decision for those who actually know the rules. just because 50% of the people dont know the rules and then campaign that its "no try" doesnt mean the decision is "polarizing" and not "clear cut". its clear cut to anyone that knows the rules.

the video referee was certain it was no try, so he ruled no try. you cant really argue with that.

 

[Kimlo]

I wonder if BHQ will still be arguing the McCullough no try in round 26.

 

[Anonymous person]

probably, since if we dont get dugan we probably wont score too many more :P

 

[subsbligh]

AP, you have to accept that there is a different threshold in the McCullough situation to be applied by the video ref in overturning a TRY than there is to overturn a NO TRY? If not, why not?

"Sufficient" is a subjective test - not the video ref saying "I think there is sufficient evidence" but what would a reasonable person decide in viewing the video evidence - is it "sufficient"?

The video ref should be asking the question could two reasonable people differ about the evidence, regardless of what my initial reaction was? If so, then there is not sufficient evidence to overturn the on-field decision. The very fact the video ref looked at it a number of times is telling. If he looked at it once, saw clear and sufficient evidence then overturn the decision.

Whether or not you or the video ref thought McCullough did or did not touch the line is largely irrelevant. It's what you think that the reasonable person, the punter at the game, the man in the street, the average Rugby League fan would consider that evidence "sufficient" to overturn the on-field referee's decision. The fact we are debating it stands to reason that it was not sufficiently capable of a decision on the spot.

For the record, I believe if the on-field ref ruled NO TRY, the right decision from the video ref would be NO TRY. But because the on field ref called TRY, the decision should have been upheld. The whole intent of the rule change is to put the decision back in the hands of the on field ref and the burden of proof on the video ref to almost prove beyond reasonable doubt that the opposite is true.

They got the process wrong.

 

[Anonymous person]

Ummm no, it's not "what would a reasonable person think?", its "what does that specific video referee think?". He's not deciding what the majority of viewers would think, he's deciding what it looks like to him and him only.

They got the process 100% right. The ref made a decision, the video ref overruled after looking at it. You can think the decision was wrong as much as you want, but everything was by the book.

 

[subsbligh]

So the same test is applied evenly to no try and try rulings by on field referee?

 

[subsbligh]

Read my post properly. I agree that it probably wasn't a try. Fact of the matter is on field ref called it a try (and for what its worth was standing closer and with better vision than the televised coverage) and the video ref ummed and ahhed and applied last years "video ref is god" rules and fucked up.

The intent of the rule change is to put the game back in the hands of the on field.

 

[Anonymous person]

The intent of the rule change is to put the game back in the hands of the on field.

No, the intent was to remove benefit of the doubt. By doing that, it gives the on field referee a bit more power.

 

[subsbligh]

Let's take another recent controversial decision - the Foran try from last year's final against the Cowboys.

Hypothetical 1 - Under 2013: On-field ref rule "Try", no knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

Hypothetical 2 - Under 2013 rules - On-field ref rules "No Try", knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

 

[OXY-351]

I wonder if in big games like origins and finals whether they should have 3 video refs in the box ruling on tries based on a majoirty, to reduce the effect of only one video refs viewpoint.

 

[Coxy]

Let's take another recent controversial decision - the Foran try from last year's final against the Cowboys.

Hypothetical 1 - Under 2013: On-field ref rule "Try", no knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

Hypothetical 2 - Under 2013 rules - On-field ref rules "No Try", knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

Assuming the video referee feels the same as he did in 2012 in that he couldn't be sure it was a knock on, and thus ruled benefit of the doubt, then:

Hypothetical 1: Try
Hypothetical 2: No Try

 

[Anonymous person]

Let's take another recent controversial decision - the Foran try from last year's final against the Cowboys.

Hypothetical 1 - Under 2013: On-field ref rule "Try", no knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

Hypothetical 2 - Under 2013 rules - On-field ref rules "No Try", knock on from Foran.

What's the correct video ref ruling?

coxy hit it on the head.

i dont really know how many more times or different ways i can say it, its really that simple - the only time its different to last year is if the video referee would rule benefit of the doubt. thats it.

 

[subsbligh]

coxy hit it on the head.

i dont really know how many more times or different ways i can say it, its really that simple - the only time its different to last year is if the video referee would rule benefit of the doubt. thats it.

Well, in previous years, what gave rise to a "benefit of the doubt" decision?

 

[Coxy]

Well, in previous years, what gave rise to a "benefit of the doubt" decision?

When it was very unclear whether something happened or not. The other situation was where there was no clear evidence at all, in which case it was refs call.

Instead of benefit of the doubt try, now it's benefit of the doubt whatever the on field referee said.
Instead of refs call, it's whatever the on field referee said in the first place.