Should we keep giving video referees the benefit of the doubt?
Roar Guru By dishes, 11 Jul 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Greg Inglis, NRL, nrl referees, Rugby League, State Of Origin, Wade Graham
Related coverage
The video referees are too far away from the action. Perched up in a box making technical, clinical and cold decisions, in reality, they have never been further away.
Fans, coaches, and even some players are getting disenchanted and it seems to be only getting worse week after week.
In addition, they rarely seem accountable for their decisions. Tries are being awarded that haven’t been for 100 years, while others denied when they’ve always been given.
The tries in Origin need no rehashing and we saw another case of it on Monday night with Wade Graham being denied for a millimetre of supposed “separation” (even though there was a blur between the hand and ball which may indicate there was no separation at all).
And at the end of the day, for people that have watched the game, that has always, always been a try.
What is the problem here? Where did all this stem from?
There isn’t a clearer example than the Graham case of why the benefit of the doubt rule was brought in. Yet, it wasn’t used. This is a rare case however, most of the time the ‘benefit of the doubt’ ruling is over-used, too much liberty is taken, and referees are finding excuses to award tries.
This is all seen as part of the ‘good of the game’ and to make the game more exciting. But all of us that have watched the NRL for some time know that high scoring rugby league is not necessarily good rugby league. Or necessarily more exciting.
So why was benefit of the doubt created to begin with?
All people want is consistency. The only way to restore this is to remove benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team. Either prove you’ve scored, or the try should not be allowed. That is the only way I can see common-sense being restored to video referee decisions.
Think about it: there would have been less drama if the Inglis try wasn’t given (it has been a knock on for ever) and also with the Hodges try, as it has been a shepherd forever.
So I propose a change, benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team. If the video referee is unsighted, it should be sent back as refs call. Plain and simple. If something isn’t broke don’t fix it, if it is, do. Most people would agree that all is not well with the video referee system as it is right now and it needs some changes.
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Greg Inglis, NRL, nrl referees, Rugby League, State Of Origin, Wade Graham
July 11th 2012 @ 7:45am
oikee said | July 11th 2012 @ 7:45am | Report comment
They are awful, i have never seen anyone get so many decisions wrong. They seem to be looking at a different game completely.
Sack the lot of them and bring in a whole new group, they cant do any worse than this mob.
July 11th 2012 @ 10:06am
MemberforDobell/PLANKO said | July 11th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
The is a Marquee moment in Roaring. I agree with Oikee. The money spent on them should be spent somewhere else. I have heard excuses such the TV was not 1080 HD 200 mhz so therefore he should not be judged harshly. The botton line is that most moments/try’s if you slow it down and have 7 angles you could put up a good case either way every time. There are 4 officals out there all “professional” I believe surely this is enough.
July 11th 2012 @ 8:22am
The Barry said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
The doubt rule is a big part of the problem. If the ref sends it upstairs and then the video ref looks at it ten times in super slow mo then there’s doubt by definition and the decision should go whichever way the benefit of the doubt is allocated. It doesn’t.
Refs on the field don’t get that luxury – “I’m not sure if you knocked on but I’m going to give you benefit of the doubt” they need to make a call one way or the other.
We need to keep in context that just because a ref is watching something on video that it’s still a judgement call and not guaranteed to make the “right” decision. What is the “right” decision anyway ?
How many times have you watched footy with your mates and all agreed on every decision ? If Inglis and Hodges tries were disallowed there would of been every bit as much controversy.
There’s too much deflection and focus on refs from coaches. Other than Gallen and Ricky in Origin 3 I can’t recall too many post match conferences where the coaches have said “no blame to the refs, we just weren’t good enough”. It’s always things like “If the ref hadn’t called that knock on in the 32nd minute we would have been right in it. It really changes the momentum.”
July 11th 2012 @ 10:59am
Lovey said | July 11th 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
I agree. I tend to think the video ref might often not indicate benefit of the doubt, because that could open another can of worms. Surely everyone can agree that there was plenty of doubt in both the Inglis and Hodges tries, the continuing controversy shows this. I am personally OK with both of them, from a benefit of the doubt perspective. I also think BOTD should go to the attacking side, I can see problems otherwise. But would the video refs indicate BOTD in either try? That raises the question of what the doubt refers to. That Farah’s kick was accidental, or that Inglis could have reacted anyway and knocked on, or that there might have been some possibility the NSW defenders could have been in different positions if Hodges had not run behind Hannant? These are the doubts, I suppose, but the video ref would be disinclined to rule that way.
It is no use saying these have been tries, or not tries, for the last100 years. They didn’t have the technology then, we have, and should use it. Scrapping video refs, well, it won’t stop all of us replaying the incidents in slow motion, and arguing against the ref’s decision.
July 11th 2012 @ 11:03pm
Anakin said | July 11th 2012 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
> The doubt rule is a big part of the problem. If the ref sends it upstairs and then the video ref looks at it ten times in super slow mo then there’s doubt by definition and the decision should go whichever way the benefit of the doubt is allocated. It doesn’t.
EXACTLY!
On a similar context, if the video ref returns the call to the ref, then that too indicates some doubt (as the video ref cannot decide either way) meaning again, by the letter of definition, that the decision should go the way of BOTD .. yet we then see refs disallow the try. as with the majoiry of these posts, all the fans want is consistency!!!
Go back to in control, and downward pressure, and at best 1-2 replays (at diff angles) are needed to make the call (if the ball touching the ground is unsighted in the tackle). i concur, if the fans can see the result after 1-2 replays, why do the video refs insist on replay after replay. As above, if it cant be seen on the first slow-mo, at each angle, then there is clearly doubt so play that ruling!!
July 11th 2012 @ 8:27am
eagleJack said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
I loved how McGuirk recently said that “benefit of the doubt” is here to stay as fans love to see tries. What baloney. If there is doubt then it should be no try. I don’t judge the quality of a game by the number of tries scored.
I’m also in the corner that there should be one centralised, state of the art, video room that is used for all games. Why do the video refs have to be at the ground? Have this room set-up with every mod con available. At present we have our video refs making decisions on Standard Definition TVs. Unbelievable. The Wade Graham no try was a perfect example of blurred footage denying us an exact decision. It was a pure guess or assumption. If we can have a satellite pick up a 20c piece on Pitt St then I’m sure we have the ability to freeze frame, zoom in and clean up the image to give us a definitive result. Spending money on one room instead of 10 or more at the various grounds is the answer.
July 11th 2012 @ 9:17am
Stretch Neilsen said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
BOTD should be removed. If there is sufficient doubt, then no try, otherwise send it back as Ref’s Call.
July 11th 2012 @ 8:44am
mushi said | July 11th 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I’m about to throw out a pretty out there concept. Is it possible that the we, the couch bound fans, could be wrong.
I know, I know, we’ve watched this game our whole lives, for some of us our dads had the foresight to pipe in a little radio coverage to the womb. Where as I assume the ref only picked it up in March when they thought the uniform looked snazzy.
Also the fan is always right we’re the customer after all, well we’re the customer in the same way that you are face books customer but hey.
But could we entertain for a second that perhaps the untrained casual observer on their comfy seat of choice is misinterpreting the information through the lens of bias rather than the trained professional?
Also if we throw this out to the voice of fandom and get some fair dinkum good refs which fans do we listen to? Every fan of team A thinks it OBVIOUSLY went one way and every fan of team B thinks you’d have to be a dead set moron to believe anything but the opposite. So basically the most popular teams win every game???
Here in this instance the video ref obviously got to the point where he was no longer doubtful, hence no benefit of the doubt. You may disagree but that wouldn’t be the first time in history that the exact same information can be interpreted two ways by two different people it happens in courts of law, in financial markets, with police, hell with any profession you care to mention.
You can only ask for consistency based on the interpretation.
July 11th 2012 @ 9:12am
JazzyJase said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:12am | Report comment
the on field referees need to take some of this stick. There are times when they could not be any closer to the action or have a clearer view yet insist on sending it upstairs for a decision. They need to make a decision, rightly or wrongly and be accountable for it. Don’t offload to some bloke in a box with a grainy tv set that has to view a blurred and misleading tv angle
July 11th 2012 @ 9:12am
Dan said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Great article!! Ofcourse benefit of the doubt should go to the defending team, it’s either 100% a try or it’s not. Simple!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 11th 2012 @ 12:15pm
Nafe said | July 11th 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Agreed. It is either a try or No Try. If you haven’t clearly scored a try in this day and age where once your over the line the ball pretty much needs to end up on the deck by any means, then its no try.
I think the try rule also needs to be looked at which will make this benefit of the doubt issue go away. THey player should need to plant the ball with downward pressure with the hands and in control of the ball otherwise No Try.
Also another question. Why is it when your in your own in goal, or even in the field of play when the arm carrying the ball hits the ground the tackle is completed (or a goal line dropout) while when trying to score a try, the arm carrying the ball hitting the ground is still not a try unless the ball itself hits the ground. A double movement is called when the tackle is deemed complete when the arm carrying the ball hits the ground and the ball carrier promotes the ball forward, even through the ball itself hasn’t hit the ground. Shouldn’t the ball carrying arm hitting the ground be constituted a try noting that the player has full control of the ball and there is also downward pressure.
I would rather see that as a try rather than a player doring a carpwheel with no control on the ball and barely a fingetip on the ball with no downward pressure.
July 11th 2012 @ 1:37pm
steve b said | July 11th 2012 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Put an x player in the box !