Video referee

[OXY-351]

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

The presence of enough doubt that a player may have actually scored?

I think the point Coxy and AP are trying to make was that in this particualr case, the video ref was in no doubt that he was pulled up short of the line. Even disgregarding the new rules and assuming it was 2012, the video ref would have still ruled no try rather than a benefit of the doubt rule as, in his mind, there was no doubt.

I disagree with the video refs ruling, as I personally thought there was enough doubt to stick with the on field refs decision, which just happened to be a try, but that's just it - it comes down to a personal perception of what took place. if you put a different video ref in that box that night, it may have been a try. That's why i think they should have more video refs in big games, so it comes down a general consensus rather than a single viewpoint.

 

[Coxy]

The presence of enough doubt that a player may have actually scored?

I think the point Coxy and AP are trying to make was that in this particualr case, the video ref was in no doubt that he was pulled up short of the line. Even disgregarding the new rules and assuming it was 2012, the video ref would have still ruled no try rather than a benefit of the doubt rule as, in his mind, there was no doubt.

I disagree with the video refs ruling, as I personally thought there was enough doubt to stick with the on field refs decision, which just happened to be a try, but that's just it - it comes down to a personal perception of what took place. if you put a different video ref in that box that night, it may have been a try. That's why i think they should have more video refs in big games, so it comes down a general consensus rather than a single viewpoint.

^^ Exactly. And I think they do have 2 video referees in the box.

 

[subsbligh]

The presence of enough doubt that a player may have actually scored?

I think the point Coxy and AP are trying to make was that in this particualr case, the video ref was in no doubt that he was pulled up short of the line. Even disgregarding the new rules and assuming it was 2012, the video ref would have still ruled no try rather than a benefit of the doubt rule as, in his mind, there was no doubt.

I disagree with the video refs ruling, as I personally thought there was enough doubt to stick with the on field refs decision, which just happened to be a try, but that's just it - it comes down to a personal perception of what took place. if you put a different video ref in that box that night, it may have been a try. That's why i think they should have more video refs in big games, so it comes down a general consensus rather than a single viewpoint.

To put it another way, there was insufficient doubt in the video refs mind to change his mind from NO TRY.

I don't believe the video ref was so certain; and I put it down to first round teething problems. If the on field ref had called NO TRY, I'd be happy with the video refs decision. I am setting myself up for a season of howlers if the video refs need more doubt in the evidence than was presented in the McCullough try.

A certain mind filled with sufficient evidence does not need more than 1 look at the video.

 

[Porthoz]

^^ Exactly. And I think they do have 2 video referees in the box.

Actually, they don't most of the time.

 

[Kaz]

Actually, they don't most of the time.

I think this year they do.

 

[Big Pete]

Nah, it's just one video referee.

Check out NRL stats.

I think the pre-season threw some people.

 

[Coxy]

Nah, it's just one video referee.

Check out NRL stats.

I think the pre-season threw some people.

I distinctly remember one of the games the last weekend they said "video referees" and named 2 people.

 

[Coxy]

http://www.nrl.com/TelstraPremiersh...d/10999/Default.aspx#matchid=3302&tab=Preview

Match Officials: Referees – Ben Cummins & Chris James; Sideline Officials – Paul Holland & Jeff Younis; Video Referees – Bernard Sutton & Adam Gee.

And from our game against Manly:
http://www.sportsnews.com.au/nrl/brisbane-broncos-vs-manly-sea-eagles-preview-nrl-2013-round-1/61741

Match Officials: Referees – Shayne Hayne & Alan Shortall; Sideline Officials – Russell Turner & Chris Butler; Video Referees – Paul Mellor & Neil Wharton.

 

[Big Pete]

I've been deceived!!!

Not for the first time either, damn NRL stats. bastards.

 

[Fozz]

One to make the decision, the other to channel the thoughts of SBW.

 

[OXY-351]

A certain mind filled with sufficient evidence does not need more than 1 look at the video.

I completely agree. I can't remember exactly how many looks the video ref had at the time, but I remember thinking he's had too many to be convince himself it's a no try, especially if reviewing the same angle multiple times.

 

[Porthoz]

I've been deceived!!!

Not for the first time either, damn NRL stats. bastards.

This! :witchhunt:

 

[Coxy]

I completely agree. I can't remember exactly how many looks the video ref had at the time, but I remember thinking he's had too many to be convince himself it's a no try, especially if reviewing the same angle multiple times.

Yep, totally agree. Should get 1 look at each available angle and make a call.

 

[Mr Fourex]

The Cronk no try tonight

What a howler !!!

The vid ref should be stood down for that decision......

 

[Organix]

The Cronk no try tonight

What a howler !!!

The vid ref should be stood down for that decision......

Terrible ruling. In this case but Gus Gould ranting about how bad the obstruction rules are just irks me.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Gould irks me fullstop.

 

[Morkel]

Just reviving this thread because I have believed all year that the the Video Ref process to award / deny tries is flawed and it was only a matter of time before the Broncos were dudded by it. My colourful thoughts from incident:

Video ref is bull****. They ****ed it up when they decided the on-field refs held the power to make a decision on something even if they didn't see what happened. The problem wasn't the previous rule of 'benefit of the doubt to the attacking team', it was because ANY doubt, even 5%, was given as a try (eg, Cowboys Manly game last year). The solution should ALWAYS have been if it's 50/50, benefit to attacker. 51% over-rules it. If the ref tonight ruled a try before going to the video ref, it would have been a try. But with this stupid ruling, he has to make a call on something he didn't see, and that determines the outcome regardless of what % it looks to be a try. That to me was 90% try, 10% no try. Benefit to the attacker, any day of the week. These ****en dinosaurs who believe that the refs are just human and mistakes are to be tolerated, **** off. If there's a better way, a more accurate way, ****en do it.

IMO, one of the biggest instigators for the change in process was the 'Hand Of God' situation between the Cowboys and Sea Eagles in last years finals. It was clear to everyone that Foran (?) had gotten a hand to the ball and knocked on, but because the 'Benefit Of The Doubt' rule meant that anything below 100% certainty would be ruled a try. The stupid thing is, the new process changes nothing. If the ref, on this occasion, had ruled it a Try before going to the video ref, there would still not be 100% evidence showing Foran got a hand to it, so it would still have been awarded a try.

As I've said before, and I will keep saying until the morons in charge get it right, the Benefit Of The Doubt should only be in place for absolute 50/50 rulings. The Foran situation looked to me 10%:90% Try:No Try. The Maranta example on the weekend 90%:10% Try:No Try. No benefit of the doubt because it's not a 50/50. I seriously can't comprehend not only the stupidity of getting the BOD interpretation wrong in the first place, but then having the 'fix' for it just as flawed? Idiots.

 

[Porthoz]

Agree Morkel, but that requires common sense, and I'm not sure it's available in abundance at the moment...