I still can not see a clean holding up of the ball from the floor but neither can I see the ball hitting the ground. You can just see a flash of the ball but that is it. I think 90% of the time that would have been given because you can not see a clean holding up of the ball and of course the guidance would suggest that benefit of the doubt should have been the decision.

I have said before that occasionally video ref's seem to lose sight of the RFL stated principal in that they are supposed to be looking for clear proof that it WAS NOT A TRY and not clear proof it was a try, there is a difference! The reason that benefit of the doubt exists is that the video ref is supposed to be able to see, beyond a doubt, it was not a try, otherwise it is a try. In this situation when it does not appear clear, either way, even if Mr Alibert suspects he might not have grounded it, if he can't clearly see the ball being held up, then he has to give it.

As some of my lawyer friends are fond of saying, I don't care about the truth, I just care about what I can prove to be true or untrue.

He didn't get anywhere near the ground.

My missus was out at work, I got her to watch it when she got in, not giving away whether it was a try or not, (She's independent of this and hates Wigan more than Leeds) and she said it was nowhere near too.

She also couldn't believe they carried on looking at the grounding for Webb's effort later on after Burrow knocked on.

Despite my opinion, however, I expected it to be given because usually the video ref DOES make poor decisions.

Your missus don't know what she is talking about. Never ask a woman.

My missus said the same thing, but then she did not realize that try's get given like that most weeks, on a number of occassions by the same video ref. Every time my missus see's 50/50 calls she say's no tries, but we all know that is not how it works.

The bottom line is, although you can't see the ball, you CAN see there is no Earthly way he could have got it on the floor AND still be in control of the ball. Assuming then that he didn't lose the ball, it has to be held up over the line, surely?

You must live in a different galaxy then, as far as I can see there is no way anyone can say he did not get the ball down, more likely he did.

I was under the impression the explanation back was that it was dissallowed not because of the grounding, but because he felt momentum had stopped before he was pushed back round. You know like nearly all of the tries Cunningham gets given.

Are you talking before or after Leuluai got involved?

Did you see the ball touch the ground?

If not then it would be quite easy for someone to say he did not get the ball down, including you.

But that means it has to be a try then, according to the rules and video ref guidance? The video ref can't assume that the ball was not down, he has to be able to see, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ball was held up or not grounded.

This is the point, we can all speculate that he may of may not have got the ball down, but every one seems to agree you could not see if either was true. As such, he has to give a try if he is following the guidance. There would be no point of having 'a benefit of the doubt' call by the video ref if he could use doubt to make a negative call.

Didn't think it was a try myself. Leuluai got his hands under the ball.

Before.

Then why did Alibert/Ganson restart the game with a 10 metre play the ball to the attacking team? That is the correct restart when a player has been deemed to have been held up over the line (except in an instance where that play is on the last tackle.)

If Burrow was tackled short of the line then Leuluai should have been penalised for a flop just as happened later in the game when Alibert/Ganson ruled Bush had been pushed back over the line after the tackle had been completed.

I am not saying what I said above was correct, that was just my understanding of the later explanation.

But regardless from what I can remember Burrow is on his back with Richards underneath over the try line, not before it. Then that split second Leulaui joins in and pushes him over Richards.

I am absolutely convinced with no shadow of a doubt that there was enough to suggest the ball touching ground to give benefit of doubt. But I could understand a ref saying that Burrow's momentum had temporarily stopped before Leulaui joined, although I have seen double figure tries scored by Cunningham just like that.

No matter how anyone interprets the event what counts is the referee's ruling and the restart indicates very clearly what that ruling was.

I know, which falls in line with what I understood the explanation to mean. Play had stopped over the line, not before the line.

Even though I started this thread I do actually think, on reviewing the video, that Burrow was tackled (his ball carrying arm hit the deck with him being held onto) and if Leuluai had not come into the tackle Burrow would have never made the line. As such, Ganson should either have spotted that and called a penalty straight away or asked Thierry to look at this and rule on it. However, because he didn't and that is his call, Thierry has to rule on try or no try. I think that he got this wrong as you can't be sure that the ball was held up, so it should have been a try.