Quote ="Chris71"What I mean by that is that if the on field ref can not state with 100% conviction and award or deny a try himself, they send it to VR without any pre judgment. Then it is purely down to the VR to rule if it’s awarded or denied based on the evidence they have available.'"
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.
