it is indeed.

But it was possible for it to have been grounded, therefore what fishta has put is factually incorrect

I thought he got it down, others didnt. The benefit of doubt should have gone with the attacking side.

that is however going on the basis that the rules are applied as we expect them to be.

Would you really be surprised if the refs had an unspoken rule between them that if they say something other than what was reffered to them they would still rule on it despite the rules?

I wouldnt. Wouldnt really care that much either

I really wanted it to be a try, and I've seen plenty given, but personaly I can see why it wasn't.

You are funny, do you even realise what you have written. "...you can't see the ball, grounding it was an impossibility." But you couldn't see it... you are a numpty, funny, but a numpty!

Of course, in principal I can't see why he might not give it. However, that is not the question, the question is that, given the guidance he should have given it because he could not cleary see the ball being held up.

I keep asking the same question of people, can you see the ball and was it clearly held up? Not that it looked like it might of been held up, because the same argument applies the other way and everyone will have a different opinion, some say held up, or some say ball down. But you can see neither, right? I can't see either and I think anyone who says they can is just making an assumption! Ok, then the rule is clear, it has to be a try... doesn't it?

I think you've picked up the wrong quote there. That particular quote refers to the restart option confirming the ruling of Burrow being 'held up over the line.'

In respect of your post, I don't know whether the referees/video referees are instructed one way or the other and was hoping someone might be able to give a definitive reply.

If such a reply is clear that they can only check the specific area they are asked to look at then that is what I expect them to do.

On the other hand I would have no dramas if that rule was ammended to the Union equivalent of 'is there any reason why I can't award the try.'

I don't think there is an answer available in the public domain on the RFL or Super League web site.

What we do know from the rules -

[iReferee unsighted - The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.[/i

[iReferee Sole Judge – 5. Only the Referee, or if available, the video referee,
may award a try, but the Referee may take into
consideration advice given by the Touch Judges
before arriving at his decision. He shall signal that a
try has been scored by pointing to where the try has
been awarded but should only do so after looking at
the two Touch Judges to ensure they are not
reporting a prior incident.[/i

OK, if a player had been on his back, and the ball completely obscured by another player, should a try be given because you can't see the ball?

No, you wouldn't, because it would be physically impossible for the ball to have been grounded.

The same is true here. Before the players roll over there are arms completely enveloping the ball, and Burrows' body is kept in such a way that he cannot physically touch the floor with the ball.

There's no "numptiness" about it. If a player can't possibly have grounded the ball, you have sufficient evidence to disallow the try.

The only way the ball could touch the floor was if it was released, which would have been a knock-on against Burrow. Based on this, I would argue that the video ref DID rule in favour of the attacking side, but not for the impossibility of a try.

Fishsta got there first but I've drafted a reply so I'm posting anyway.



It has to be a try just because you can't see the ball?

I wouldn't say it has to be a try in that scenario. The ball could be hidden from view and remain several inches, in all probability, off the deck. The video referee must be able to use some discretion, can you imagine if the rules said he had to give a try in such circumstances. American Football?

well that would be a different circumstance. One where there was clearly something between the ball and the ground/
he doesnt need to. He just needs to touch the ground with his ball carrying hand. No players arm is the width of the length of a ball. It is quite easy to have your arm underneath the ball and pressure on either side causes the ball to tilt with either end then touching the ground. What is physically impossible is to have your arm completely envelope a ball

he could possible have grounded it. This is clear. Whilst i respect your opinion that he didnt. To say he couldnt possibly have done so is nonsense
Or the ball could have tilted either way. Or not being positioned directly on the Arm. Or touched the ground in the movement of rolling Burrow from his back onto his front

Ok, it was probably not my best explaination. In the case that Fishsta mentions above, well of course you and he are both correct, but in that case there would be reasonable doubt on the scoring of a try and so it would be fairly clear that he could not have grounded the ball.

However, Fishsta is saying that it was impossible that Rob grounded the ball for the reasons he mentions above. I of course do disagree, I think it was posible that he was held up and possible he got the ball down. I don't have an opinion either way, just that both are possible for me, sorry! Now, I am sure that Thierry will now tell you he was certain that Rob did not get the ball down. I think that was too close to call and because it is not clearly held up, because you can't see the ball, then as I understand it, a try must be given.

Now, Fishsta is saying that he is certain Rob was held up. He is of course entitled to that opinion. I think he is wrong, but he can continue to state that, so we will have to agree to disagree.

PS. The rule above is the only place, as far as I can see, where the term 'video ref' is used in the rules of the game.

I think the 'benefit of the doubt' in video ref decisions is derived from the rule that says he can not disallow a try if he was unsighted.

SmokeyTA has put it better than me, and I agree with his opinion 100%.

I agree in this particular case, it was a close call. Your previous general point re a hidden ball just needed clarification.



I noted in a recent game (let me think, somebody added weight to assist the grounding of the ball and Clarke went apoplectic 'this isn't fooking Union with a rolling maul', the details of which will come to me later) that Eddie Hemmings refered to a crib sheet which appeared to contain specific instructions pertaining to the video referees and their interpretations of such situations.

You'd think such a sheet would be a usefull aid to supporters understanding. No chance of seeing that then.

That said there is no logical reason why it would be any different to the laws of the game, it was just the way Hemmings prefaced it's introduction that caught my attention. It's not that often he has something interesting to say.

Good, I suspected we were on the same page.



I understand that such a guidance sheet does exist and gives guidance and specific intereptations of the rules that video ref's should follow. The problem is, as you point out, it would not appear to be in the 'freely' available public domain.



Yes, the rules are the rules, but the interpretation of the rules is something entirely different! This years, a player is deemed to be held if just one leg is lifted as opposed to two, is one such example! They have not changed the rule, just the widely accepted interpretation of the rule!

What, like 6 arms?



Since when?? I am sure you have to actually ground THE BALL.



But we're talking multiple arms, bodies and all. I'll have to have a look later, but I suspect even touching the ground with his arm would have been impossible, but before I say that DEFINITIVELY, I will check the footage again.



Whilst we're on about poor video ref decisions, anyone see the Hull KR one at Catalans where the try was given?

I have strong doubts that decision was correct.

Don't disagree in principle. I looked at it and thought it was slightly more likely he hadn't grounded the ball than he had grounded the ball. But only slightly, so I can understand why a video ref might have thought there was just enough doubt in the grounding to not then give the benefit to the attacking side.

Having said that, I thought he would give it. I can almost imagine him sitting in his TV box flipping a coin it was that close.

The Jake Webster one in the corner?

Another really tight call. I think from the angles we saw, it was just about a try as he appeareared to land on his knees in field, bounced up over the sideline and was airborn at the point the ball touched the try-line.

Nobody said it was easy being an official.

Re: The Burrow 'No Try' at Wigan.

There will probably be another similar incident later in the season only this time the video referee will say 'Try'. It will probably involve St helens and it will probably involve a certain Mr Ganson.

When it happens will somebody bring this thread back to the front page.

You forget to mention it would probably be at the Willows ..... what an idiot.

I don't disagree but he did disallow the Eastmond effort for obstruction when IMV he didn't run behind his own player.
It was obviously Ray Tennant's turn for a weekend in the sun of Languedoc-Roussillon, since he was this week's VR for the Dragons.

Can a moderator please verify this post is as originally posted?

Amazing foresight, and worse of all, this was EVEN MORE of a clear cut case of "No Try" than Burrow's effort was.

Shocking decision.