Waqa Try

[Manifesto]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Benefit of the doubt as a concept is absolutely flawed. The reward for "doubt" is far too great.

It's why in cricket the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Losing a wicket is a HUGE impact on a team, so if there's any doubt that they were out, the umpire says not out.

In rugby league terms, a try is as big as a wicket. If the video referee is not absolutely convinced it's a try, then it should be no try. The only exception being if he can't see either way (due to obscured vision) then refs call and the on field referees' view applies.

Actually, benefit of the doubt goes with the umpire's decision. If a batsman is given out LBW but then reviews it, and on the review the ball is pitching just outside the stumps or hitting the edge of the wickets but still within the 'standard error of measurement', then the bastman is out as per the umpire's call. Same as if given not out and the fielding team reviews it - the batsman would then be not out as per the umpire. Same as for catches - the 3rd umpire has have enough evidence to overrule the umpire, otherwise it goes back to the umpire's decision. The only instance (they may be more, i dunnno) that benefit of the doubt would apply to the bastman would be in the case of a disputed catch, were the umpire's are unsure the ask the 3rd umpire (hence not a player review) - again, the 3rd umpire needs to have strong evdience or definitive proof that the ball carried to give the bastman out.

 

[Kaz]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

They should get rid of the benefit of the doubt rule.

It's majorly flawed.

Or just get rid of the video ref, there are more & more stuff ups with it.

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Actually, benefit of the doubt goes with the umpire's decision. If a batsman is given out LBW but then reviews it, and on the review the ball is pitching just outside the stumps or hitting the edge of the wickets but still within the 'standard error of measurement', then the bastman is out as per the umpire's call. Same as if given not out and the fielding team reviews it - the batsman would then be not out as per the umpire. Same as for catches - the 3rd umpire has have enough evidence to overrule the umpire, otherwise it goes back to the umpire's decision. The only instance (they may be more, i dunnno) that benefit of the doubt would apply to the bastman would be in the case of a disputed catch, were the umpire's are unsure the ask the 3rd umpire (hence not a player review) - again, the 3rd umpire needs to have strong evdience or definitive proof that the ball carried to give the bastman out.

I'm not talking about the third umpire in that respect, I'm talking about the general rule of giving batsmen out in cricket (ie, the field umpire's initial decision).

Frankly I think we should have a similar use of the video referee. Referee has to award the try/disallow the try, and then use the challenge rule. And then the same rules apply, it's only changed if it's definitively wrong.

Forces the on field ref to make a decision, and leaves it up to the captains to judge their challenges.

 

[Porthoz]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

not at all. im not obsessed with it, its just the truth. im not gonna say that 2+2 doesnt equal 4 just because you say i keep saying it equals 4. the gillett/taylor thing proved without a shadow of a doubt that you have very little knowledge or understanding of the game of rugby league, or even common sense.

Yeah, tell that to the Qld selectors and Mal Meninga sweetheart. :loool:

So yeah, that obsession... It's unhealthy you know?
I may start looking differently at WRX's on the road, just in case one of them is being driven by a stalker... :001_unsure:

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Benefit of the doubt as a concept is absolutely flawed. The reward for "doubt" is far too great.

wont get an argument from me. im simply pointing out that there was doubt about the direction of the ball when it came out of waqas hand, hence the 'benefit of the doubt' on the big screen along with 'TRY' because thats what the rules dictate should happen when theres doubt.

Yeah, tell that to the Qld selectors and Mal Meninga sweetheart. :loool:

So yeah, that obsession... It's unhealthy you know?
I may start looking differently at WRX's on the road, just in case one of them is being driven by a stalker... :001_unsure:

oh so the selectors ALWAYS choose the best 17 for the job, and those 17 are the best 17 players available for that state AT THEIR BEST (like you loved to point out)? epic lolz.

interesting that you mention stalkers, but also that you know I drive a WRX........something that I cant even remember the last time was mentioned, if ever, on here. pot kettle black?

 

[Jeba]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

You look at that drop ball and you immediately think knock on. That holds more weight than the possibility that it might've travelled backwards by 5mm.

 

[Porthoz]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

interesting that you mention stalkers, but also that you know I drive a WRX........something that I cant even remember the last time was mentioned, if ever, on here. pot kettle black?

I wasn't going to reply anymore, because this discussion generates as much interest for the other forum members as a tooth ache, but FTR, and so that we're clear about who stalks whom... you mentioned the WRX in the discussion about the BMW 330D a while ago.

As for the discussion, this is the end of it. I'm tired of your petulant behavior and the thinly veiled insults every time you answer one of my posts.
Apparently, the only way to deal with you, is by treating you like a stubborn 10 y/o, so ignore me, and I will in turn do my best to ignore your dribble... This is not optional!

 

[broncos4life]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Arguing with AP is like arguing with a child. When someone's logic is "I'm right because I say I'm right", whats the point?

 

[Porthoz]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Arguing with AP is like arguing with a child. When someone's logic is "I'm right because I say I'm right", whats the point?

I know I've got no right to point it out after being guilty of getting into a petty argument myself, but please don't make the same mistake mate. Stick to the topic, thanks! :thumbup1:

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

You look at that drop ball and you immediately think knock on. That holds more weight than the possibility that it might've travelled backwards by 5mm.

i didnt look at it and think knock-on, i looked at it and thought 'damn it went backwards to his torso'. by the rules, unless you can say for fact that it was a knock-on 100% for sure then it has to be given benefit of the doubt. watching that replay, you cannot say that.


More dribble...

 

[Bucking Beads]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Clear no try IMO. What would I know though.

 

[noisetheory]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

you can't drop the ball in front of you and it NOT be a knock on, simply because it goes 1mm backwards. that is just not how the game works. i dont care if TECHNICALLY the ball went 1mm backwards. that is not rugby league, as its been played and interpreted through common sense since its inception.

if the ball is passed to player standing flat footed, who drops the ball cold, straight down to his feet. 'technically' the ball has probably gone backwards, from his hands out in front of him to his feet, but it is, quite simply a knock on, every day of the week. it happens all the time when players throw offloads to guys who arent ready. there is simply no question that it is NOT a knock on.

the same applies here.

 

[Son Edo]

Fair try, nothing we can do about it.

 

[Son Edo]

Stubborn as mule, you blokes.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

you can't drop the ball in front of you and it NOT be a knock on, simply because it goes 1mm backwards. that is just not how the game works. i dont care if TECHNICALLY the ball went 1mm backwards. that is not rugby league, as its been played and interpreted through common sense since its inception.

actually common sense dictates that the rules are the rules. the rules say it has to go forwards from the hands to be a knock-on. backwards is not forwards. a knock-BACK (back as in backward) is not a knock-ON (on as in onward). dont try and use some "fabric of the game" argument. again, rules are rules. the rules state that dropping the ball backwards from your hands, even by only 1mm, is a knock-back.

 

[noisetheory]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

dont try and use some "fabric of the game" argument.

why not? it IS how the game is played. players knock it back all the time but if the ball remains in front of their body it will be and always is deemed a 'knock on', because thats just how it is in rugby league.. why should it be any different in the case of waqas try

 

[subsbligh]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

They should get rid of the benefit of the doubt rule.

It's majorly flawed.

Or just get rid of the video ref, there are more & more stuff ups with it.

This doesn't make sense. The ref would still "give benefit of the doubt" to a team when a 50/50 call was presented before him, but just wouldn't delcare that he engaged the "benefit of the doubt" rule to come to that conclusion

 

[subsbligh]

There is just something wrong with crying in your cups about a try that, if not awarded, would have been sheer luck for the Broncos.

If a player sprints 95 metres from an intercept pass and knocks in on over the line, you're not applauding the other team for throwing the pass? You're counting your lucky stars and worrying as to why the pass was thrown in the first place.

Bottom line is it didn't cost us the game.