It was always BOTD to the attacker wasn't it, meaning Burgess' try on Friday would have been awarded unless they could be 100% certain it hadn't been grounded?

If they could be 100% certain, then they could have overturned the live call.

Essentially, I think with that particular try we would have just ended up complaining about the video ref rather than the on field ref. The try would have been given despite there clearly bring a lot of doubt. I personally like that there is still some onus on the match referee to make a decision.

Benefit of the doubt is always to the attacking side and that is correct. Referee should just refer it and let the video ref decide on the footage.

If possible invest in some higher quality, higher frame rate cameras.

Benefit of the doubt is very different to needing clear evidence to overturn a decision in my view. We'll never know but I think there was enough on the video to suggest - and this is a key difference between current and preferred method in my view - that in all probability it was unlikely the ball got down. The video ref wouldn't have to see the ball held up to not award the try - he's got greater ability to apply the percentages in terms of how likely it was a try was scored.

It can't be right that a ref sends a call up to the video ref when he has no idea whether it was a try or not.

....and by the way, I was in favour of this method initially as it meant the referee had to actually make a decision instead of taking the easy way out of 'sending it upstairs'. But as often happens the change caused other problems and has led (IMO) with a method that is worse than it was before. Let's have the video ref and referee communicating together to get the most accurate result, without that initial Try/No Try call.

I think it would be fair for the on-field ref to be able to send them up as try/no-try/don't know. Stick with clear evidence to overrule where the on-field ref is basically sure and just wants to rubber stamp it, and let the video ref use best judgement/apply benefit of the doubt where the on-field ref is less sure.

I'd prefer it to go upstairs without any pre-judgement (as it used to be originally) and have one central permanent video ref who does all matches, so all decisions are consistent. As it stands it's just pot luck as to what you get. It's an unprofessional farce.

Good post. I wondered if Moore could actually see the ball being grounded from where he was stood, which makes me think there should be another option for referees other than try, or no try. He could state that he's not sure and refer it to VR's call, who can then only give a try if they're in absolutely no doubt that a try has been scored.

I like the idea of a permanent video ref, for some consistency, but the problem with that is that games could no longer take place at the same time.

They've been doing this already on some nights this year. Just not for all 6 matches, We've had a central video ref in Media City (not the same one every week like I would prefer though) who gets a feed from all the different games, and refs it remotely. The only issue is that there can be a delay if two games need a decision at the same time.

Only Moore will know what he saw or more accurately (pun intended) what he thought he saw. Looking at some of the views on TV review Moore is on the far side of the potential grounding so I don't think he could see anything, I think it was a hunch.

IF there was a signal of Not Sure/No Idea I wonder what it would look like? A simple shrug has that air of 'couldn't care less' and there's enough arm waving from players protesting an infringement, I'd go with I'm a little teapot.

[quote="Uncle Rico"]Only Moore will know what he saw or more accurately (pun intended) what he thought he saw. Looking at some of the views on TV review Moore is on the far side of the potential grounding so I don't think he could see anything, I think it was a hunch.

IF there was a signal of Not Sure/No Idea I wonder what it would look like? A simple shrug has that air of 'couldn't care less' and there's enough arm waving from players protesting an infringement, I'd go with I'm a little teapot.

The RFL will show no bias by having the "I'm a little teapot decisions" sponsored by Yorkshire Tea.