Re: Refs : Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:20 pm  

meast wrote:

I'm not so sure, for me, there was no evidence that he grounded the ball, other than the ball was on the ground at some point, i can't believe we are now awarding a try based on the fact that ball, or some part of it is on the ground under a mass of bodies.
Benefit of the doubt? maybe but in that instance i would want good defence to be rewarded.

But if the ball is clearly on the ground, which it was, then surely a try has to be awarded. You can't say "Well the ball was on the ground, but it was a pretty good defensive effort to try and stop it so we won't give the try."

Re: Refs : Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:16 pm  

number 6 wrote:

im guessing your a wire fan, of course you will like the 'is it a try, not a try?', your team has benefitted twice from questionable tries, lets see if you still have the same opinion when a couple of these go against you that costs you the game

We had a few last season.

Re: Refs : Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:50 pm  

Thelonius wrote:

But if the ball is clearly on the ground, which it was, then surely a try has to be awarded. You can't say "Well the ball was on the ground, but it was a pretty good defensive effort to try and stop it so we won't give the try."

There's a difference between the ball, clearly being on the ground and how it got there.
you can't just award a try because the ball is on the ground, or at least in my opinion you can't, but it seems anything goes these days.

Re: Refs : Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:18 pm  

meast wrote:

There's a difference between the ball, clearly being on the ground and how it got there.
you can't just award a try because the ball is on the ground, or at least in my opinion you can't, but it seems anything goes these days.

King went into the challenge and for the line with full possession of the ball and shortly after the ball could clearly be seen on the ground. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King had at any time lost control of the ball and I'm assuming, because he awarded the try, that the referee at no point called held. Maybe it was a great effort by the Catalan players to prevent the try, but it wasn't enough. Having the try awarded by Child before being passed up there was absolutely nothing the VR could have seen to disallow it.

You suggest that good defence should be rewarded, but shouldn't a good, strong, determined and ultimately successful attempt to ground the ball be rewarded too?

Re: Refs : Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:42 pm  

both defence and attack should be rewarded, but when there is no evidence that he actually grounded the ball then, the defending side should get the B.O.D, for me, anyway.