The video ref rules

As it currently stands, the video ref must have enough evidence (conclusive evidence) to over rule the on field call. Meaning (in tonight's perspective) the on field ref called it a try and the rules states the ref must have evidence to over turn the call, however in my opinion, the referee must have conclusive evidence to go with the on fields refs call. For example, in tonight's game, the video ref could not conclusively say it was a try and should have just over turned the call.Or just revert the rules to the old rules and let the ref decide without the input of the on field ref.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • nice explanation but we would have lost anyway! we had the game-spoilers in #6 & #7..... dont explain this to players; get them to watch tapes of Matt Sing.....
    • I Think we lost it in the creativity department (as you pointed out), thus this try would not have made much of a difference. However this is something I was thinking for the finals as these calls (not making much of a difference to us) could be the difference between a win or a loss for a team.
  • I honestly thought Greg Bird was ref tonight.
    • Yeh that was shocking the influence he had over the ref. Cameron smith, thurston, gallen do it all the time. The refs shake whenever they talk to thwm.
    • So does Tim Mannah.... Sorry couldn't help myself.
  • I think they should keep it how it is but add an "I dont have a clue" rule. When the refs can send it up without the try or no try indication if they really .... like the mcdonald try.... have no clue.
  • I blamed the flag boy for getting the live call wrong.
  • Sorry but comparing today's game to pre video ref is unacceptable as technology has changed and it allows us to get these calls right.

    In the days before the on field calls, the referee would have ruled that as a no try..
  • The video referee would have ruled it as no try
    • In the days of old, before the on-field call, the video referee would of ruled a try.

      The benefit of doubt would of came into this and the ruling was the benefit of doubt would of gone in the way of the attacking team (the titans in this case). Unless a hand/body can be clearly seen under the ball through the process, there was no evidence sufficient enough to make the call PARRAs way

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 replied to Prof. Daz's discussion Game Day Blog R1 vs Storm: Gilgamesh and the Beer Goddess
"Storm fans at 930pm"
26 minutes ago
DYNASTY.LOADING replied to LB's discussion Barnett swap for Lomax
"I think if we end up with Barnett we won't re-up JDB.
 
i love the idea of having Barnett and Morettti, Paulo and Tuivaiti, and Williams with Hopgood as our options. By all reports and trial form Brown, and Doorey look set for first grade roles too…"
1 hour ago
Coryn Hughes replied to LB's discussion Barnett swap for Lomax
"https://www.facebook.com/reel/1583515319610274/?fs=e&fs=e
Maguire went and personally met with Barnett and they are desperate to land him hopefully we have the same sought of pull to land him."
3 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to LB's discussion Barnett swap for Lomax
"We can't send Lomax anywhere he has to want to go on his own volition.
Hes free to negotiate with any team in the nrl that has the cap space to have him on there roster then once that's established then we step in with our release conditions with…"
4 hours ago
More…