When I see Ian Kirke selected in our 17 every week by three successive coaches I must admit I wonder if I do have the first clue about the sport I am watching.

I thought it was forward at first showing, because of how far the ball moved forward relative to the ground\. When you look at the replays, and see the direction the ball left Watkins hands, and factor in how fast we was running at the time I can see why it was considered valid. I wouldn't have been distraught if it had been called forward, but can see why its not.

The BOTD rule needs seriously clearing up. Either

A) as has been suggested before, Referee indicates their call & asks for what is effectively a review by the VR of their decision.

I.e. 'When I got there, Zak Hardaker had his arms under the ball, so I believe Westwood's been held up, can you check & see if he did get it down'

The assumption being that, without definite proof of grounding, the call is no try.

This could also be true the other way (assume Westwood had scored) and for other incidents e.g. punching etc (useful for Briers too). Good example of this in a Leicester v Bath Union game that led to two red cards being awarded: [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDG82pyTGdU[/url

B) The assumption is always that a try has been scored unless evidence can be shown of one not having been, so the VR will always need definite proof (e.g. can clearly see Hardaker's arms under the ball) to disallow the try. In which case, the Westwood try could have been given after just a couple of looks because it was obvious there was no angle showing he hadn't scored.

You don't need to understand the physics, just be comfortable that the refs know the rule and how to interpret it. You don't need to understand every facet of the game to enjoy it, or even comment on it, but you can expect to be corrected when someone who does understand them knows you are wrong

Fair post - and do you accept every refereeing decision with such magnanimity then?

All Leeds fans do. We're renown for it.

I mean don't what know you.

Try again...

physicists

eh, can you no raed

There is obviously still a bit of feeling between these two from last years GF when Ablett nullified Briers

I accept they know the rules better than I do. I would only disagree with their interpretation of them. Saturday was a case of interpretation. Many reefs would have given the forward pass on Saturday, but child made a split second decision based on several factors and that decision stands up to scrutiny. If it had been given as forward I don't think we could have complained. Certainly less Black and White than the other two big decisions he got ' wrong'

Most of those forward pass decisions are now called by the touch judge who is line with the initial passer.

This.
Honestly, I don't see what is so difficult to grasp, especially with the very clear video link posted above.

didnt you get one in the final of 2007...

nope

Didn't Leeds get one what? A Benefit Of The Doubt video referee decision?

In the 2007 GF V St Helens, IIRC, only the Jones-Buchanan score about 4 seconds from time even went up to Thaler from Klein. Was that awarded only with Benefit Of The Doubt? I can't recall precisely what the issue was, Wellens was attempting the tackle on Jones-Buchanan who initially landed short and bounced over. Double movement perhaps? but had Wellens fallen off ... not sure but I don't recall any issue over the ball being grounded.

No doubt Stevo declared it categorically as a 'no try' in his unwavering determination to create controversy where none really exists.

Why not simply get rid of this ruling??

The Ref should offer his opinion, and use the VR to allow or deny it

Isn't this the ruling in the NRL or Union?

Its Union, and i agree.

I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.

I suppose "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind!!!

Told you I was no good at Physics, can't even spell it let alone get an O level in it, let alone understand the "momentum" rule.

And me being an Evertonian from when it was known as the "School of Science" (in the 60s)- no excuses really...

...still reckon that pass was 5 yards forward...

Quote ="Biff Tannen"Its Union, and i agree. I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.'" Interestingly, I raised the issue of the NRL system to #AsktheRef and the response was that SL refs prefer 'our' system (quelle surprise) and that the field referee does give his call. When I questioned this last bit, they didn't respond. https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 8479636480

Quote ="Biff Tannen"Its Union, and i agree. I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.'" Interestingly, I raised the issue of the NRL system to #AsktheRef and the response was that SL refs prefer 'our' system (quelle surprise) and that the field referee does give his call. When I questioned this last bit, they didn't respond. https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 8479636480

If the on-field referee does give his call, he must be turning his microphone off before he does and then back on again afterwards. Very rarely do you hear them express an opinion to the VR, presumably for fear of influencing the decision making process.

I normally like the #AskTheRef sessions, but I thought last night's was conducted entirely from the angle of "I was right, and I'm going to find an excuse as to why I was" by both Child and Bentham.

In the space of two answers, the latter went from saying BoD should be used where a try was "feasible" to when it was "likely" - big gap between those two sets of circumstances IMO.

Quote ="Andy Gilder" I normally like the #AskTheRef sessions, but I thought last night's was conducted entirely from the angle of "I was right, and I'm going to find an excuse as to why I was" by both Child and Bentham. .'" Agreed - an interesting response was when JC said he allowed Ben Westwood an incorrect play of the ball because Moon was interfering, so would have been penalty anyway. I'd argue that an incorrect PTB negates the advantage as it's a penalty in itself so it should shoudn't have been play on. https://twitter.com/RFLReferees/status/ ... 5042206720

Quote ="Andy Gilder" I normally like the #AskTheRef sessions, but I thought last night's was conducted entirely from the angle of "I was right, and I'm going to find an excuse as to why I was" by both Child and Bentham. .'" Agreed - an interesting response was when JC said he allowed Ben Westwood an incorrect play of the ball because Moon was interfering, so would have been penalty anyway. I'd argue that an incorrect PTB negates the advantage as it's a penalty in itself so it should shoudn't have been play on. https://twitter.com/RFLReferees/status/ ... 5042206720

Yep, you never hear them say 'In my opinion, it is/isn't' they just specify what they want looking at & it then becomes the opinion of the video referee that is the basis for the decision.

All the evidence showed Ian Smith got the Menzies no try decision wrong, yet another howler from him.

The consistency within the same game is awful and the the week after the same officials do things differently again!!
Until theres some serious accountabillity for their performances and they aren't allowed to waffle and Bull###t when questioned abut poor calls it will continue.
Like AG said even now after the events they insist they're right or come up with some long winded waffle to try and justify a clear error!!