Now I'm confused as when I asked earlier whether the momentum, that was being deemed to have stopped, was before or after Leuluai's involvement you said before.

Never mind, there was no difficulty in interpreting the referee's decision, irrespective of any explanation anyone was giving after the event.

Here, here!

I agree but the test in these instances is not whether the ball or the ball carrying arm has hit the ground with a defender still attached it's whether the ball carrier's momentum has stopped. In this instance if you judge that it hasn't at the point Leuluai joined the tackle then the fact his action prolonged the momentum and propelled Burrow over the line is permitted.

Of course if it's deemed that Burrow's momentum had stopped before Leuluai joined in that opens up the possibility that Leuluai has committed a flopping offence.



Do we have a definitive instruction on what the video referee can and cannot consider when making his ruling. Can he absolutely only look at the specific points the referee asks him to rule on or does he have some latitude?

I like Ian Smith's approach to this where he will often be heard to end his instruction to the video referee with 'and anything else obviously' or a sentiment to that effect.

I think the VR specifically looks at what he's asked to but can advise on anything else he spots.

No, although you can't see the ball, grounding it was an impossibility. Therefore there is no doubt, and it is no try.

it is indeed.

But it was possible for it to have been grounded, therefore what fishta has put is factually incorrect

I thought he got it down, others didnt. The benefit of doubt should have gone with the attacking side.

that is however going on the basis that the rules are applied as we expect them to be.

Would you really be surprised if the refs had an unspoken rule between them that if they say something other than what was reffered to them they would still rule on it despite the rules?

I wouldnt. Wouldnt really care that much either

I really wanted it to be a try, and I've seen plenty given, but personaly I can see why it wasn't.

You are funny, do you even realise what you have written. "...you can't see the ball, grounding it was an impossibility." But you couldn't see it... you are a numpty, funny, but a numpty!

Of course, in principal I can't see why he might not give it. However, that is not the question, the question is that, given the guidance he should have given it because he could not cleary see the ball being held up.

I keep asking the same question of people, can you see the ball and was it clearly held up? Not that it looked like it might of been held up, because the same argument applies the other way and everyone will have a different opinion, some say held up, or some say ball down. But you can see neither, right? I can't see either and I think anyone who says they can is just making an assumption! Ok, then the rule is clear, it has to be a try... doesn't it?

I think you've picked up the wrong quote there. That particular quote refers to the restart option confirming the ruling of Burrow being 'held up over the line.'

In respect of your post, I don't know whether the referees/video referees are instructed one way or the other and was hoping someone might be able to give a definitive reply.

If such a reply is clear that they can only check the specific area they are asked to look at then that is what I expect them to do.

On the other hand I would have no dramas if that rule was ammended to the Union equivalent of 'is there any reason why I can't award the try.'

I don't think there is an answer available in the public domain on the RFL or Super League web site.

What we do know from the rules -

[iReferee unsighted - The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.[/i

[iReferee Sole Judge – 5. Only the Referee, or if available, the video referee,
may award a try, but the Referee may take into
consideration advice given by the Touch Judges
before arriving at his decision. He shall signal that a
try has been scored by pointing to where the try has
been awarded but should only do so after looking at
the two Touch Judges to ensure they are not
reporting a prior incident.[/i

OK, if a player had been on his back, and the ball completely obscured by another player, should a try be given because you can't see the ball?

No, you wouldn't, because it would be physically impossible for the ball to have been grounded.

The same is true here. Before the players roll over there are arms completely enveloping the ball, and Burrows' body is kept in such a way that he cannot physically touch the floor with the ball.

There's no "numptiness" about it. If a player can't possibly have grounded the ball, you have sufficient evidence to disallow the try.

The only way the ball could touch the floor was if it was released, which would have been a knock-on against Burrow. Based on this, I would argue that the video ref DID rule in favour of the attacking side, but not for the impossibility of a try.

Fishsta got there first but I've drafted a reply so I'm posting anyway.



It has to be a try just because you can't see the ball?

I wouldn't say it has to be a try in that scenario. The ball could be hidden from view and remain several inches, in all probability, off the deck. The video referee must be able to use some discretion, can you imagine if the rules said he had to give a try in such circumstances. American Football?