With the uproar following Friday night’s gripping game between the North Queensland Cowboys and the Manly Sea Eagles, in particular the ‘hand of Foz’ moment; it’s time to look at the justification under the present rules for allowing the try.
The rules as they stand, state that in circumstances where there is uncertainty in a try scoring play benefit of the doubt must go to the attacking team.
It does not state that a degree of certainty must be attained, or some sort of gut feeling is required; just doubt is enough.
If we look at some of the analyses of the game from various sources on Friday night through to early Saturday evening, and in particular some of the language used in describing the incident, it is patently clear there is some doubt.
Otherwise different language would have been used.
Stuart Raper told The Sunday Telegraph: “It looks like it has touched Kieran Foran’s hand and it was a knock on.”
News Limited’s Paul Crawley and Andrew Webster wrote: “Foran appeared to have knocked the ball forward while jumping up and contesting a Daly Cherry-Evans bomb with Cowboys captain Johnathan Thurston.”
Fairfax’s Brad Walter: “Foran looked to have knocked the ball forward.”
Fairfax’s Chris Barrett: “…which Kieran Foran looked to have tapped the ball forward.”
AAP’s Ian McCullough: “Kieran Foran appeared to knock the ball forward from a Daly Cherry-Evans kick, allowing Jamie Lyon to bundle the ball towards Oldfield.”
Not once in any statement from an official or indeed a reporter do the words – he touched, or he clearly knocked on, or the video clearly shows he touched, or he definitely touched bob up.
In all cases the description of the event is preceded by appeared or looked. Why?
Because the video evidence is inconclusive.
The video does not show without a shadow of a doubt that Foran clearly touched the ball.
The referees in the video box aren’t allowed to assume what happened; they needed conclusive evidence that Foran touched the ball to disallow the try.
They video referees couldn’t find it, and neither could the commentators listed above.
As a result of the benefit of the doubt rule, the try was allowed.
Last night in an attempt to put this whole sordid tale to bed Bill Harrigan said the benefit of the doubt rule required the officials to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team in situations where the evidence was inconclusive.
“In this case, however, we believe there was enough evidence of a touch to move this decision beyond benefit of the doubt,” he said.
Here he defeats his own statement by using the words believe there was enough evidence. Even he can’t bring himself to say there was definitely a touch.
If we are brutally honest with ourselves we can all agree that we are pretty damn sure there was a knock-on, if not 99% sure.
But to unequivocally say that without a shadow of a doubt we are 100% sure is simply not to correctly view the footage available.
In such an incredibly fast sport where minute touches of the ball can result in game changing plays, there is no fool proof path to making the right decision from the available evidence at all times.
In fact, it is nigh impossible.
Nuclear reactors meltdown, oil tankers break in half and drivers crash their cars all from flawed human decision making.
To hold our referees and video referees to a higher standard than the rest of us is grossly wrong.
B.A Sports
sorry thats bollocks. Watch a game of NFL from the US and on a video review call, they will zoom right in on a freeze frame to try and definitively make a decision. Our coverage is just average. As for the article. If Andrew Webster could say "it was an "f'ing knock on" in his article, he would. "Benefit of the doubt" is a freaking oxymoron. The sooner they just let the ref's make the call based on what they think, not bringing in some sort of scaling, the better!
Rellum
Roar Guru
Nice article. I have said it before that I don't think many people on this or any other forum has the moral fortitude to be held up to the standards they demand of referees. One thing I would like to see trailed is the Video ref can only change the ruling of the ref if the is clear evidence in the video footage that the original ruling was incorrect. And that evidence should be viewed as "Clear" when it is beyond reasonable doubt. So in a game situation, a try is scored and the ref then gives what he thinks is the correct call. Then if he wants it doubled checked he can call the video ref into play. The video ref will then only be allowed to over rule him if there is "Clear evidence that it is beyond reasonable doubt" that his ruling is incorrect. Of course that system would only work if all the fans and the commentators and journalists actually view footage through that same guideline. It would take a lot of education to drum it into the heads of some sports fans and commentators in this country but it can't be any worst than the current system.
Keith Chekhov
Guest
Gareth, I think you've nailed the flaw in the video refs' thinking there. And I think it's by design. The current benefit of the doubt rule has led them to approach the Foran decision with a presumption that a try was scored, a presumption that they would only rebut if they were 100% certain that the try was invalidated by a knock on. Whereas in any sane system, you'd start from an objectively neutral position that does not favour one outcome or another, and then you would make your decision based on where the balance of probabilities lay (in this case obviously a no try because the evidence showed it was 99.9% probable Foran knocked on).
apaway
Roar Guru
Does anyone else get the idea that Harrigan is continually belittling his own refs so he can come out of retirement and get back on the field, whistle in hand, saying, "OK, the sherriff's back in town."
kid
Guest
I think you are right but I'm giving Sparks the benefit of the doubt as his arguements were a little unclear....
Gareth
Roar Pro
If a poor decision doesn't end up figuring in things, I'm less likely to be hugely critical of it. There were some absolute clangers in the Raiders game, like Sandor Earl being pinged for not being square at marker, and the decision to award Inglis a penalty try - when you could make a pretty good argument that if Blake Ferguson was able to tackle him before he got the ball, then he'd still be in a position to tackle him *after* he got the ball, and 10 metres out, that might have been enough to stop him. Personally, I think it should have been 10 minutes in the bin for Ferguson, rather than a penalty try - though that might be a tad harsh. But as a Raiders fan, I can say we made too many mistakes and killed our own momentum any time we started to mount a comeback. The Bunnies were the better team, so the contentious decisions didn't make me fume in the same way, even though it was my team being put to the sword. If it happens to any other team, I'll be just as indignant, though in the Storm's case I might chalk it up to karma.
Horatio
Guest
We have been thru this small screen issue before - it allegedly was the reason Harrigan stuffed up a gasnier try last year and supposedly was fixed. Really???
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
it would seem that they only have 4 inch fuzzy black and white screens with ghosting and static. What rubbish - Harrigan could be video ref from his own lounge if he wanted watching the same images that we do. There is no reason why the video ref even has to be flown to the ground - does he physically have to be present?
mushi
Roar Guru
The irony being in real time as ref I would have thought that the contest for the ball was probably a knock on but felt like I'd been bailed out by Lyon definitely passing from the ground.
Shawn Dollin
Roar Rookie
Does anybody know what sized screens the video referees have access to in the box? Also in an interview with David Morrow on ABC Grandstand yesterday, Bill Harrigan mentioned the cabling used as being an issue that needs to be addressed. Anyone with a bit of technical know-how would be aware of how poor the image quality is on a TV if they simply used RCA cables to connect it to the video feed - now I like to think this could never be a possibility in this day and age, but what if they are? What if the video refs only have small screens running of RCA cables to watch replays on? If they are, then that explains EVERYTHING!
Andy
Guest
Dam beat me too it. Bring in hot spot.
Andy
Guest
We need hotspot from the cricket. then we would know.
Razza
Guest
The NRL has adopted the video ref format from Cricket, so maybe get rid of The Benefit Of The Doubt rule and bring in HOT SPOT instead. Thats dead right, the try was awarded because the video ref could not be certain who touched the ball, Thurston or Foran, so the Benefit of the doubt rules applies to the attacking player who was Foran, clear cut, end of story - TRY. Dont blame the Eagles, they dont make the rules, "but they are the team that everyone loves to hate", so that may be why there is so much hoohaaa about it, if the situation was reversed would we be hearing the same yawning, boring crap. Get the rules right and CLEAR with no doubt at all. "GO THE EAGLES "
planko
Guest
Gareth I dont necessarily disagree with you but would you be saying this if you had won like this instead of losing ? If Bowen had picked up the ball and run 95 metres to score would you have a problem with this instead of Lyon picking it up ? Lastly would this be a big deal if it happens again in Souths Vs Dogs game ?
Gareth
Roar Pro
The problem for me is that the video refs don't seem to look at cause and effect. Was there a shot that definitively showed Foran tapping the ball forward? No. Were there multiple shots showing the ball change momentum sharply in the same direction as Foran's arm movement? Yes. Any sane person looks at that and says "there's 99.9% chance that Foran knocked on. No try." The video ref whether by mistake or by design looks at it and says "I can't conclusively say he touched it. Try." The video ref would look at a player who has collapsed from a gunshot wound, and a second shot showing a smoking gun metres away and say there's no conclusive evidence to link the two. It's an issue with both the video ref and the judiciary that gives us insane try rulings and instances where players aren't punished for foul play because they can't rule out the possibility that maybe a player's jaw spontaneously exploded into several pieces from a shoulder charge in the chest. The fix is simple. Benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team, and the onus is shifted onto players fronting the judiciary to conclusively disprove the charges. It won't be perfect, and occasionally a player will be hard done by. But surely that's preferable to the laughing stock that we have now.
eagleJack
Guest
MB, Harrigan did address Lyon passing from the ground. It is perfectly legal to pass form the ground when there isn't a hand on the tackled player. The tackler had fallen off Lyon and was in the process of grabbing him again when he threw the ball. No issues with that aspect of the "try". Although as you say it really shouldn't have got that far.
turbodewd
Guest
I agree. This 'benefit of the doubt' is garbaged and its not quantified. The rule should read 'clear visual evidence that a try is scored', i.e you cant try to imagine what you cant see behind that arm or that leg. If you cant see its a try, its no try.
Maroon Blood
Guest
Never mind the FACT that Foran touched the ball, which he clearly did, why is it that Lyon passing from the ground after he had been tackled there and the tackler still had contact with him being mentioned also? Passing from the ground was illegal last time I looked. There is no way in the world it was a try. Blatanly wrong decision, no DOUBT there at all. Then again, there is no way in the world the Cowboys were the better side on the night, no doubt Manly deserved the win. Shame, once again, the officiating draws the focus away from the footy.
Horatio
Guest
It just goes to show RL is an incredibly hard game to referee and with the 10 metre rule each decision is crucial becuase a bad decision means a team can get up field and be in a position to score a try. Why does no-one talk about the mess that is loose carry, stripped, 2 men in the tackle, barr jarred free decisions which affect more games than the odd knock on...No amount of coaches challenge could make the right call on the lost ball decisions...
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
I think an awful lot of confusion and frustration could be removed by having the video ref explain their decision in the commentary box on air, live. At the moment they exist as the referees imaginary friend, contactable by placing the right hand to the ear, and then miraculously, the decision appears onscreen with no explanation. I think that a more sensible approach would be to make the video occupy the commentary box along side Gould et al and have to explain the rules and decisions to the TV audience.