can someone explain the difference between benefit of the doubt and refs call?

The RFL or NRL?







It'll be a long wait though or something incomprehensible

'Benefit of the Doubt' = not absolutely sure, but go on then, it will make the scores more even and the game more exciting.

'Ref's Call' = haven't got a clue on this one, thought I'd give you the job of antagonising at least 50% of the crowd/viewers. i live around here and people know me.

If the ref new the decision he would have given it!!If the VR cant tell after watching 10 times then how the hell is the ref going to know what it is!! It puts unnecessary pressure on the ref.

Only the Aussies

L'Estrange grounded the ball after Silverwood blew the whistle. I've checked the rule book and cannot see how you can award a try scored after play has stopped.
No ask Stuart Cummins available this year?

No he didn't. L'Estrange is on the ground and the whistle is blown.

Actually he blew before L'Estrange grounded it , I've just forced myself to rewatch it, even eddie who hates the Crusaders commented on it but as they say its history now

Ah, Phil Clarke, the man who once said: "We shouldn't let the fact that the ball was passed forward detract from what was a wonderful try". Personally, I find it hard to take anything he says seriously after that.

Not that it was a brilliant game, it clearly wasn't but it did contain ten tries, some of which were quite good ones, and there was a good bit of hard hitting defence (in between all the missed tackles), some clever passes (and a good bit of dropped ball). All in all, whilst never great, it wasn't as bad as it was painted.

In a game between two sides, one of which has just come out of administration and hasn't got its full crew aboard and another which has lost both first choice halfbacks and has virtually brought in a totally new squad (and new coach) [iand[/i it was only the third game of the season, I'll look forward to better things and live with what we got.

I disagree. If there had been no video the ref would have had to make the call. All he has to do is make the same call. It might be right or might be wrong, just like any other decision made by countless referees up and down the land; we all have a cheer/moan and get on with the game. He's just deciding whether, or not, someone scored in a rugby match, not starting world war three.

The Schifcofske try was a perfect example of why benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team. When they replayed the L'Estrange try you could hear Silverwood blow his whistle before L'Estrange crossed the line, so why he then went for the video ref I have no idea.

No he didn't, the audio which was played to the VR clearly shows that the whistle was not blown before the ball was grounded but immediately after.

I think you mean "Isn't it great we now have two Welsh clubs in the pro ranks?"

Is this an anti Bradford thread or what?

Quote ="Starbug"icon_lol.gif'" You obviously struggle to believe that figure Starbug, have a look at this picture and you'll see what the cameras didn't show (i.e. fourth and most populated stand) as they are at the top of it. www.footballstadiumguide.co.uk/i ... xham02.jpg 2600 not great by any means but certainly believable when you see the full picture not what others tell you (something you advocate yourself I believe)

Quote ="Starbug"icon_lol.gif'" You obviously struggle to believe that figure Starbug, have a look at this picture and you'll see what the cameras didn't show (i.e. fourth and most populated stand) as they are at the top of it. www.footballstadiumguide.co.uk/i ... xham02.jpg 2600 not great by any means but certainly believable when you see the full picture not what others tell you (something you advocate yourself I believe)

Try of the season, yet you're all whingeing. Maybe you missed it

Hardly the try of the season, the away stand was in total silence until Silverwood went to the big screen, maybe they missed it too? I think Raynors "try" for Leeds at the Millenium Magic got more of a reaction. But what do I know

If you think that defence is the key aspect of the game then I suggest you may be watching the wrong game.

Rugby League is primarily about scoring TRIES and rewarding the effort for doing so.

Your posts get more and more ridiculous.

If your more interested in seeing people ' defend ' , watch football

RL is one of the few games that you cannot play ' defensibly ' , that's why I watch it

Try telling that to Wayne Bennett.

I'm interested in watching teams defend.

Football isn't defending, it's tackling. It's about stopping the ball from reaching the goal and hoofing it out of the way.

Defence in RL wins field position. You can progress towards the opposition goal line by not conceding as much per defensive set as your opposition.

Who could possibly be into modern RL and not be into watching that happen?

No but you can play negatively.
Defence wins championships, scoring a few flashy tries does not

Ah so scoring more flashy tries against a tight defence than they score against you means you lose?

So you win with GOAL KICKS instead.

Interesting.

You might have something there.

I'm not sure I'd even call it negative. It's taking care of the ball vs looking for breaks, playing safe yardage sets vs throwing the ball about. Both approaches have their merits, and have times when they're the right way to play and times when they're wrong.
Likewise, it's possible to play both an attacking defensive style, and a conservative defensive style.

I remember at the DW a few years back Briers for us just hoofing the ball in touch at the end of every set of 6. THAT was negative