Try again...

physicists

eh, can you no raed

There is obviously still a bit of feeling between these two from last years GF when Ablett nullified Briers

I accept they know the rules better than I do. I would only disagree with their interpretation of them. Saturday was a case of interpretation. Many reefs would have given the forward pass on Saturday, but child made a split second decision based on several factors and that decision stands up to scrutiny. If it had been given as forward I don't think we could have complained. Certainly less Black and White than the other two big decisions he got ' wrong'

Most of those forward pass decisions are now called by the touch judge who is line with the initial passer.

This.
Honestly, I don't see what is so difficult to grasp, especially with the very clear video link posted above.

didnt you get one in the final of 2007...

nope

Didn't Leeds get one what? A Benefit Of The Doubt video referee decision?

In the 2007 GF V St Helens, IIRC, only the Jones-Buchanan score about 4 seconds from time even went up to Thaler from Klein. Was that awarded only with Benefit Of The Doubt? I can't recall precisely what the issue was, Wellens was attempting the tackle on Jones-Buchanan who initially landed short and bounced over. Double movement perhaps? but had Wellens fallen off ... not sure but I don't recall any issue over the ball being grounded.

No doubt Stevo declared it categorically as a 'no try' in his unwavering determination to create controversy where none really exists.

Why not simply get rid of this ruling??

The Ref should offer his opinion, and use the VR to allow or deny it

Isn't this the ruling in the NRL or Union?

Its Union, and i agree.

I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.

I suppose "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind!!!

Told you I was no good at Physics, can't even spell it let alone get an O level in it, let alone understand the "momentum" rule.

And me being an Evertonian from when it was known as the "School of Science" (in the 60s)- no excuses really...

...still reckon that pass was 5 yards forward...

Quote: Biff Tannen "Its Union, and i agree. I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.'" Interestingly, I raised the issue of the NRL system to #AsktheRef and the response was that SL refs prefer 'our' system (quelle surprise) and that the field referee does give his call. When I questioned this last bit, they didn't respond. https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 8479636480

Quote: Biff Tannen "Its Union, and i agree. I Think the ref says that he believes its a try,or not a try,and sends it up to the VR for confirmation.If confirmation cannot be given then the ref's origonal decision is given.A better way of doing things IMO.'" Interestingly, I raised the issue of the NRL system to #AsktheRef and the response was that SL refs prefer 'our' system (quelle surprise) and that the field referee does give his call. When I questioned this last bit, they didn't respond. https://twitter.com/rflreferees/status/ ... 8479636480

If the on-field referee does give his call, he must be turning his microphone off before he does and then back on again afterwards. Very rarely do you hear them express an opinion to the VR, presumably for fear of influencing the decision making process.

I normally like the #AskTheRef sessions, but I thought last night's was conducted entirely from the angle of "I was right, and I'm going to find an excuse as to why I was" by both Child and Bentham.

In the space of two answers, the latter went from saying BoD should be used where a try was "feasible" to when it was "likely" - big gap between those two sets of circumstances IMO.