Mild Rover wrote:The question remains though, how much evidence would the VR need? I suspect that the Burgess try may well have been chalked off by the VR based on balance of probabilities… but the ref sent it up as a try based on balance of probabilities from his viewpoint, which wasn’t the worst.
Aside from that specific example, if they go with ‘clear evidence’ there’ll be controversies when there’s deemed to be a lack of common sense, and if they go for more of a judgement call, there’ll be complaints about a lack of consistency. Yesterday highlighted a problem with the current system, but other systems have problems too.
A while back the VR system incorporated a 'benefit of doubt' call which effectively amounted to an 'educated guess' scenario in 50/50 calls. That system tended to provoke even greater howls of outrage from those on the receiving end of 'dodgy' calls.
The question surrounds the parameters of decision. What criteria has to be satisfied for a decision to be ratified one way or the other? If it becomes a case of there has to be complete evidence of a ball being grounded, that will most likely cause as many ructions as the current system does, with inconsistency and accusations of guesswork being floated around each week. This is especially true in cases such as last night where, unfortunately, the ball is shielded from camera view by a defender's leg at the precise moment of grounding.
I'm not sure any system is perfect here. Even if the VR rule is altered to 100% evidence = try awarded, 99% evidence = try disallowed, there will still almost certainly be any number of 'controversial' incidents, particularly around ball grounding which is always difficult to see due to the number of arms and legs in camera shot.
