Because as has already been stated: reason must be found to disallow a try, if no reason can be found to disallow, then a try is awarded.

How can you give "benefit of doubt" to something that may have happened to disallow the try but you have zero evidence of it happening?

Which rules are those?

And if you don't think he scored, as would any fair person, then what sort of rule is it that contradicts reason?



if he didn't get it down, then it's (obviously) the wrong call!

And the fact that the ball can't be seen in every frame is irrelevant. The evidence the VR has to go on is that the ball is on top of the defender's leg, and then a second later it has travelled up and is well clear of the ground. What I am saying is that you need to speculate that somehow, he got the ball through the defender's leg (impossible) or else found some other way to move it sideways around the leg to ground it, in the short time before it ended up visible 'on top'. This isn't 'benefit of the doubt' There was nothing at all to support such wild speculation. The only evidence (and clear evidence) was that the ball was plainly not in contact with the ground and valid reason (defender's leg) to suggest it never was even in the second it was out of view.

It just goes to show we are playing to two different sets of rules in Super League.

Games with the VR
Games without the VR.

Either All games should have one, or NO games should have one.

Or two games a week should have one.

So you advocate a two tier rules? With those unlucky enough not to have the VR (Or lucky enough, depending on your PoV) playing to a different set of rules to the rest of the weeks games?

you make the false assumption that all games with the VR are played to the same "rules" - and that all games without the VR are played to the same "rules"

No, but it is far less subjective to say that the VR games are reffed to different rules.

and by less officials who thought that was a good idea?!

whats to say the tip of the ball didnt hit the ground? we couldnt see in the frames available?

yep you said it

Which is fine, IF that rule is followed consistently throughout the season. But when even the same video ref as not done that, then it is a cause for concern.

The fact that the obstruction try could be argued as incorrect is just clutching at straws from Saints fans. That sort of incident has been dissallowed consistently throughout the season, and therefore there was no way he was going to give that one. This smacks in contradiction to the benefit of doubt one.

All the armchair match officials out again!

This seems reasonable and I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to the Video Ref.

no one, but surely benefit of doubt only becomes an issue if Ganson is split 50/50 as to which way to go.

if he is 99% sure he didnt ground it then he cant give the try on the basis something somewhere he cant even see may have happened. means its a try, it would mean the VR could do nothing but give a try, there would be no point in even asking him.

If Ganson thought it didnt touch the ground its no try, regardless of if he isnt sure 100% his opinion is the right one. If Ganson truly believed there was enough doubt in those views to cloud his judgement to the level of giving the benefit of doubt he isnt fit to referee. There is no technical get out clause here, he doesnt need to prove conclusively the other way, he just needs to give his opinion.

It was a poor decision that he should be embarrassed about, and that Cummins should bring him up for. Though we all know that isnt really likely to happen