When Ganson is involved?

That's why I included the word 'should'

Fair enough

I'll invite a load of bile by saying there was one angle that hinted very strongly he had lost the ball beneath his body just before it grounded. What was odd for me was they only looked at that angle once, while they looked at every other angle several times, all of which looked a certain try.

I can see why it wasn't given based on that angle, but personally I'd have given it.


I think it's more to do with the roadworks around J11 on the M60.

One good thing emerged at least: Cummings sounded genuinely embarrassed.

At full speed it's a try all day. At slo-mo it's still a try. From no angle is it not a try.

From one angle, there is a suspicion that the ball was coming loose, but no image shows the player lose possession and the main shot very clearly shows a hand on the ball as the ball is firmly on the ground.

Ganson has now made a number of totally maverick VR decisions and is clearly not able to do the job. He can't be let loose on the VR again, he's dangerous.

As Sky/RFL are so keen to let us see and hear more and more of the VR, I'd say they should put a slot in Boots n All where the VRs attend, and show the fans what it is they say they saw that made them reach their decision. It has to be rational, and based on some sort of evidence. So what?

Much of the problems with the VR stem from the way the VR is asked by the on-field ref. Usually, the field ref simply says "check the grounding" or "check the obstruction" which, in many cases, means nothing.

I'd like to see us adopt the system used in the NRL, RU and American Football where the field referee has to commit to a decision, which the VR has to conclusively disprove. If it can't, the decision stands - no "benefit of doubt" nonsense.

As a system, it is much more transparent for the fans, it makes contentious decisions easier to accept (eg, if there was no VR, the try would stand) and it increases accountability for referees. That said, the latter benefit is probably why the RFL is reluctant to introduce it.

Time to go, along with full time officials, standards are at an all time low along with the disciplinary panel. Absolute laughing stock!

To be fair to Ganson it was Ian Smith who made the decision. Ganson was just the VR operator.

Still a good awful, unmitigated disaster of a decision, absolutely terrible unacceptable decision from someone who is apparently coaching our next generation of refs.

First of all, lets not go down the conspiracy route (Koucash paying Sky etc, etc)
The VR is supposed to be the back stop when the ref doesn't get a clear view.
The "no try" decision was an absolute shocker and there should be a public apology from the RFL for that.
The VR is becoming no more reliable than the ref and his touch judges used to be, before all the technology came in and that being the case, we should go back to the ref's decision.
Ok, he will still make some mistakes but, last night was embarrassing.

When I first saw the live try I thought it was a dropped ball, on the replay though it was hard to see any gap between hand and ball and there seemed then to be downward pressure by the torso.

In the remit of this game the decision is inconsequential however, if it had been the difference between winning and losing we would be up in arms.

The ref making a bad decision, although not good, is understandable. Its a split second decision that he gets one view and a word with assistant. There is absolutely no excuse for the VR to not give the correct decision.
The fact virtually no one has agreed with the decision to disallow the try on here speaks volumes.

Armchair match officials. Moan moan moan but do sod all about it, and show that maybe they could do better.

The opportunities are available.

FWIW match officials, players, coaches, fans, commentators ALL make mistakes. That just happens to be part of sport and life.

Looks like Koukash has made a couple of marquee signings in the video refs' booth.

Too late for this season but I like the system they use in the NRL. Make the ref call it and then it's on the video ref to prove him wrong.

Is that your solution to the embarrassment some of these idiots are causing to the game?

Quite apart from being too old, I'm able to live wth the odd mistake made by video refs. But I'd prefer them (and the big screens) to be scrapped as I find they add zilch to the entertainment. I accept that this would result in more refereeing errors but my primary motivation for watching the game is to be entertained, not to scrutinise the minutae of every other try that's scored/not scored.

What the hell? So because we don't want to be a referee we shouldn't be able to criticize their mistakes?

You are correct, everyone makes mistakes but given the public nature of their role here we have every right to criticize and seek clarification when mistakes happen.

Slightly disagree on that part. The video referee can add drama if it is used correctly. There are plenty of decisions that, on review, can go either way and the decision causes plenty of (justifiable) debate and drama. Similarly, the VR can highlight outstanding pieces of skill - I remember an Ali Lauitiiti try for Leeds against Wigan that, without the video replay, would never have seen an outstanding piece of agility be rewarded. I suspect similar with Kallum Watkins' try at Magic Weekend last season.

The problem is that there is just too much emphasis on the VR, and officials as a whole. Sky seem insistent on looking for controversy and focusing on officials so much that they are almost becoming celebrities and personalities themselves - at the expense of the the real "stars" of the show.

I don't like the focus on video replays, such as hearing them during the decision process, or seeing them tap at a touchscreen. I almost want to see them as a "Deal or No Deal banker" sort of persona.

Torso pressure is tbf in this case not relevant though. You can only score a try that way by dropping on a ball that is in play and already on the ground. In this case, had the ball come loose from the hand before it touched the ground, then that is a knock on, which subsequent torso pressure onto the ball could not negate. The only way to rectify a loose ball is to regather it before it touches the ground.

Although a few years back, we did have a thousand page thread following some incidents where a player had clearly lost control of the ball, in that usually it had clearly been lost from a one-handed grip, but tries were more than once given as contact with the ball may never have bee 100% lost; for example it might appear that at the point of contact with the ground, the player might well still have had one fingertip touching the ball. I always thought that was a bad way to interpret the law, if a player clearly loses any grip of the ball, but that was the position.

I mention it now as things must clearly have changed - the tryscorer (well, not tryscorer as it was ruled) absolutely definitely did have an unbroken contact with the ball and his left hand, until after it touched the ground. Any question I had was how much control he had of the ball (though to me there is no reason to say he didn't have enough).

I AM an active referee. It was a bizarre, inexplicable error. I can only think that someone actually pressed the wrong button by mistake.

This is a perfect example of why the 'benefit of the doubt' business is such a bad idea. Unfortunately, it seems that it is quite a difficult concept.
So what we're saying is that if it looks like someone PROBABLY didn't score but there's a chance, however slight, that he did, a try should be awarded. Even if we think a player ALMOST certainly didn't score? Is that what benefit of the doubt means? And if so, is that what we want?
Or does it mean that only if the vid ref thinks it's a 50/50 call he gives the try?
When I've discussed this with most people they think the latter. 'Roy Haggerty' clearly disagrees. (I'm not having a go at you Roy by the way, just pointing out the confusion that arises).
The vid ref's remit should be just to 'use his knowledge and experience (hopefully) to give his best judgement based on what he can see'. That doesn't mean he won't get it 'wrong' (in other people's view) sometimes because he is just a person. Anyway, the tie-breaker in the event that he thought it was 50/50 should be to hand it back to the ref as per the Aussie system. That would seem sensible especially in a system where we don't have vid refs at all games.