that doesnt say he should give it he didnt see it being grounded, or that he should give it if he doesnt see whether it was grounded or not, simply that on its own, not being able to see the ball being grounded isnt a reason not to give a try.

if the referee doesnt know he has no option but to make his best guess, similarly the video referee if he doesnt know should make his best guess, if he is split either way he can give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side.

If Ganson really was split he is a bloody idiot

thats the thing, its not his opinion or view on it, theres a rule and he made the correct call altho i agree it wasnt a try!!!!

im not sure, this is where the BOTD rule is a bit silly. Luckily it doesnt crop up too much and it didnt have an impact on the outcome. If you gave the benifit to the defending team there would still be this situation. Im not sure what the answer is

well the obvious answer I would think is he gives what he thinks is the correct decision, if he really cannot make a call the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Which is fair enough really.

I just cant believe he honestly thought it was that close

if its impossible for the vr to make the correct call then shouldn't he hand the decision back to the referee?

What's to say it did?
It is logical to suggest that, especially in the second available, the ball couldn't pass through the defender's leg to touch the ground.
It is pure speculation, supported by nothing at all, to suggest that it might have done. What we know is that the path to the ground was blocked, and then in a second the ball has gone UP, away from the ground.


But it does apply. Why wouldn'tt it? The laws are the same for all officials! The reason why this 'try' should have been disallowed is [inot[/i because the VR was in no position to see the ball being grounded, but because there was no reason to belive that it [ihad[/i been grounded. Otherwise you are arguing that it's a try every time the ball disappears from view. Which I hope you're not, as that would be extra dumb.

The reason to believe it might have been grounded was that it was heading towards the ground when it was last visible. Now it might have hit the defender's leg and then come up, it might have slipped down the side of the defender's leg and hit the ground before coming up, it might have been held up without hitting anything. Maybe he briefly lost control of the ball and knocked on. We don't know. I doubt anyone, even the players involved in the tackle, know.
As we haven't seen any reason to disallow the try your only option would be to disallow it because you can't see the grounding.

then youd be making an assumption the ball didnt hit the ground thus giving the botd to the defense once again the ref made the right call lol

You see this is the ultimate reason we'll never agree. We both watched the same thing, but saw something different - as obviously Ganson think she did too. The ball was with respect [inot[/i heading towards the ground when last we saw it, it had very clearly landed on top of the defender's leg. How was it "heading" anywhere south, beyond that?

A quick arithmetical calculation suggests that had the ball been placed on the leg at a speed of at least about 1,830 mph then it may have burst or deformed around the leg enough to likely touch the ground with some bit, or at 16,000 mph probably enough kinetic enertgy to go through the leg, but I don't think either situation applied.

It may have done all these things and more, even things so cool no-one has even imagined them yet. But thats not really relevant.

We have seen a reason to disallow the try, that the ball was on the players leg, we dont have conclusive evidence for that but any sensible opinion would surely be that was the most likely occurrence and as such the try shouldnt have been given.

The only justification for giving that try you have brought, is that there isnt conclusive evidence against it, just some pretty good evidence.

[sizeIF IN DOUBT, THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IS GIVEN TO THE ATTACKING TEAM!!!!![/size

Now what part of that statement as applied here in GB and in Aus are people having difficulty with?

Nope. The last clear shot of it showed it firmly planted on a defenders leg. When next visible it was actually further away from the ground. I understand the BOD rule but IMO there was zero evidence of the ball getting anywhere near to being grounded. If this now constitutes sufficient 'doubt' to be able to award a try (or insufficient evidence to disallow one) then we really are going into uncharted territory.