Give over, that isn't what happened, Dixon didn't pass him the ball and he wasn't running in front of him to block tacklers, he was an unused dummy runner who the Salford defender made a poor call on and decided to tackle. Eastmond ran parallel to a dummy runner. The Salford defender bought the dummied pass and stuck his shoulder into a dummy runner who was hitting a gap in the line. That's poor defending, he chose to tackle Dixon, Dixon didn't run into him.

But the Moore try decision should be explained by Ganson or whoever on Boots n All. I'm all for BOD, but you need some doubt to apply that surely? I'd also like to know how all those officials missed the Leon Pryce knock on for another of the Saints tries.

It all backs up what I've said for ages, the officials in SL are just there because they've put their hands up to do it. There is no consistency at all and it's all very amateurish.

That is exactly what happened, bar the fact he didn't pass the ball, which is actually irrelevant. Dixon went further downfield than Eastmond and so was immediately offside and blocked defenders sliding across.
If Dixon had stayed behind Eastmond the try would have been legitimate.

If the Salford player (Holdsworth?) went for Eastmond I'd agree with you. He tackled Dixon, that's not obstruction, it's poor defending. He didn't even attempt to tackle Eastmond.

But he was blocked from even attempting a tackle on Eastmond by a St Helens player in an offside position.

This is the whole point than the wannabe armchair refs cant comprehend. Its benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. No one knows for sure other than the players involved if the ball was grounded or not. The armchair refs on here will claim it wasnt grounded but the ball disapeared and its impossible to say with any certainty. Therefore the correct call was made by the letter of the law, benefit of the doubt to the attaqcking team

Because that's the rules??

I'm a salford fan who desperately wanted that try not to be given, but same as Iain, it was the decision I expected being at the ground - and I think the correct one

Sometimes....

Because as has already been stated: reason must be found to disallow a try, if no reason can be found to disallow, then a try is awarded.

How can you give "benefit of doubt" to something that may have happened to disallow the try but you have zero evidence of it happening?

Which rules are those?

And if you don't think he scored, as would any fair person, then what sort of rule is it that contradicts reason?



if he didn't get it down, then it's (obviously) the wrong call!

And the fact that the ball can't be seen in every frame is irrelevant. The evidence the VR has to go on is that the ball is on top of the defender's leg, and then a second later it has travelled up and is well clear of the ground. What I am saying is that you need to speculate that somehow, he got the ball through the defender's leg (impossible) or else found some other way to move it sideways around the leg to ground it, in the short time before it ended up visible 'on top'. This isn't 'benefit of the doubt' There was nothing at all to support such wild speculation. The only evidence (and clear evidence) was that the ball was plainly not in contact with the ground and valid reason (defender's leg) to suggest it never was even in the second it was out of view.

It just goes to show we are playing to two different sets of rules in Super League.

Games with the VR
Games without the VR.

Either All games should have one, or NO games should have one.

Or two games a week should have one.

So you advocate a two tier rules? With those unlucky enough not to have the VR (Or lucky enough, depending on your PoV) playing to a different set of rules to the rest of the weeks games?

you make the false assumption that all games with the VR are played to the same "rules" - and that all games without the VR are played to the same "rules"

No, but it is far less subjective to say that the VR games are reffed to different rules.

and by less officials

who thought that was a good idea?!

whats to say the tip of the ball didnt hit the ground? we couldnt see in the frames available?

yep you said it

Which is fine, =#FF0040IF that rule is followed consistently throughout the season. But when even the same video ref as not done that, then it is a cause for concern.

The fact that the obstruction try could be argued as incorrect is just clutching at straws from Saints fans. That sort of incident has been dissallowed consistently throughout the season, and therefore there was no way he was going to give that one. This smacks in contradiction to the benefit of doubt one.

All the armchair match officials out again!

Are you suggesting a person sitting down and watching a tv screen cant make accurate decisions? if so you are in agreement with the majority of the posters int he thread

This seems reasonable and I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to the Video Ref.

no one, but surely benefit of doubt only becomes an issue if Ganson is split 50/50 as to which way to go.

if he is 99% sure he didnt ground it then he cant give the try on the basis something somewhere he cant even see may have happened. means its a try, it would mean the VR could do nothing but give a try, there would be no point in even asking him.

If Ganson thought it didnt touch the ground its no try, regardless of if he isnt sure 100% his opinion is the right one. If Ganson truly believed there was enough doubt in those views to cloud his judgement to the level of giving the benefit of doubt he isnt fit to referee. There is no technical get out clause here, he doesnt need to prove conclusively the other way, he just needs to give his opinion.

It was a poor decision that he should be embarrassed about, and that Cummins should bring him up for. Though we all know that isnt really likely to happen

that doesnt say he should give it he didnt see it being grounded, or that he should give it if he doesnt see whether it was grounded or not, simply that on its own, not being able to see the ball being grounded isnt a reason not to give a try.

if the referee doesnt know he has no option but to make his best guess, similarly the video referee if he doesnt know should make his best guess, if he is split either way he can give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side.

If Ganson really was split he is a bloody idiot

thats the thing, its not his opinion or view on it, theres a rule and he made the correct call

altho i agree it wasnt a try!!!!

there isnt a rule, for there to be so would make the VR pointless. To say he has to have conclusive evidence before he can rule no try is nonsense, it would mean he would have to give nearly every decision as a try as there will always be doubt either way.

there isnt a benefit of doubt on something he doesnt think is a try, either he cant tell either way in which case the benefit of doubt is given or he he thinks it is or isnt a try.

He cant judge that he doesnt think its a try and then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side, he is then deliberately giving a decision he thinks is incorrect.

id also ask what evidence he is expected to produce to back himself up, surely he would just show the video and say in my opinion he didnt get it down. What other evidence can he possibly give?