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?

I thought I'd just answered that by saying the rule should be chucked in the bin.

In this specific example, I don't think FC should have been awarded a try automatically just because a flawed rule says they should. That ball was nowhere near the ground.

In favour of what?



In your opinion and others which share your opinion, but not in the opinion of others who do not share that opinion.

Would you consider it a flawed rule if the benefit of the doubt was always given to the team defending?

If the ball was 'clearly' not grounded then the BOFTD rule should have never been used and that was an error in the video referee's part, nothing wrong with the rule itself.

Again, as I've already said...if the video ref isn't sure whether it's a try or not, then hand the decision back to the on-field ref.

I just don't think that in that situation generally (and especially in the example we saw today) that a try should automatically be awarded.

Yes, I would.

part of the problem regarding video refs decisions is that they only get the video feed not any sound, the whistle might have been blown before long made the final effort and grounded the ball but the video ref wont know that

Although initially it was clear Cockayne had held the ball up I thought there was enough reason to suppose Long got some part of the ball down as he legitimately struggled to do so.

He couldn't see whether the ball had been grounded but it was reasonable to suppose that it had. It was therefore a correct call and precisely why Benefit Of The Doubt should be available to the video referee.

What purpose would be served by handing such decisions back to the on-field referee?

You said he couldn't see if he got the ball down. This is the point. You said supposed I would say he guessed and that's wrong.

Agreed, that's exactly what I said and that's why it is awarded as Benefit Of The Doubt.

There will always be occasions when the ball is obscured under bodies, where the referee, the in goal judge or the video referee will have to make an educated guess.

Just because no-one can see the ball touch the ground doesn't mean that it hasn't.

How many times do we watch seemingly endless repeats of the same thing when the vidio ref is "in action"? If he has to look at it more than once there is "doubt" or why the replay
As benefit of the doubt has to go to the attacking team surely any try that needs looking at more than once is a try.
Thus, a stupid rule