The most farcical tool at the hands of the video ref?

Agreed,stupid rule imho.

Never got near grounding it

No. I think it's spot on.

The video refs job is to prove why it IS NOT a try. Unless you're not 100% sure that is ISN'T a try, then it should be awarded as a try. Simple as that.

It has to be that way. Otherwise you're relying on the quality of the broadcast team to decide the outcome of the match.

So you think that BOD was correct on this occasion then? Cos I sure as hell don't. You could clearly see the ball was never anywhere near the ground!

So, your telling me that Long grounded that ball?

Cockayne clearly held that up

Indeed. His effort deserved the correct VR decision, shame he didn't get it.

I'm at work. Not watching the match. So I have no clue whatsoever.

Doesn't change my opinion on the rule being correct.

It might once you've seen the incident. joke of a decision.

when you finish work, try and watch the Long try, then come back to this thread

TBH, I would have given it BoD. It seems to be going against the grain here, but I thought in slow motion you could see the ball being held up on the leg. Then a clear push downwards between the Cockaynes leg and Longs body. You couldnt see it touch the ground, but on the balance of probabilities I thought it would have.

Er.. no.

So let's say the VR on this occasion got it wrong?! So what. You didn't asked me that. You asked what people thought of the BoD rule. And I think it's the correct rule. Whether or not referees are capable of implementing the rule is a different discussion. The RULE is correct.

I'm 100% sure there was an element of doubt involved.

Therefore it's a TRY.

I didnt ask you anything

shouldnt the call be handed back to the ref then?

Grow up mate. You just started a thread about Benefit of the Doubt, and asked if it was a silly rule. That's it. So technically you asked us all. I didn't even know the match was on, let alone that a dodgy call had been given.

Perhaps you should've put... Just watching the Hull derby. That was a dodgy call wasn't it! Is anybody else watching it? What do you all think? Should that really be BoD?!

and if you read what i said to you originally, I suggested going to watch that moment and come back to me- not having a pop at all


get off your high horse

It's been established there was doubt. So why are you arguing for the benefit of the doubt rule not to be applied on this particular occasion?

more doubt that certaintity IMO

Do you think Sean Long grounded that ball?

It's a daft rule. If video evidence isn't conclusive, hand it back to the ref. Video evidence on this occasion was, IMO, conclusive that that ball was NOT grounded. Therefore, Hull KR should have benefited from outstanding defence.

Was the correct rule applied? YES or NO?

Whether you or I think it's daft or not is an irrelevant diversion.

You will find my answer at the top of the thread

YES, the correct rule was applied.

Further evidence that that rule needs chucking in the bin though if today is anything to go by. So, to answer the original question in the thread, YES benefit of doubt is the most farcical tool used by the video referee.

I'm pleased we've finally established that the rule was applied correctly.



Earlier, you were claiming that Hull KR ought to have benefited from outstanding defence, despite the fact it had been established there was an element of doubt as to whether it was a try or not.

So what are you arguing for?

A change of emphasis so that the benefit of the doubt rule applies to the defending side instead?

Or the scrapping of the benefit of the doubt rule completely?