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.

Between the two shots when it was visible there was time and opportunity for the ball to be grounded. So we have doubt over whether or not a try was scored. The correct decision being to award the try. There's nothing I'm aware of that says that when in doubt the ref should weigh up the various possibilities and decide that the most likely one happened.

so the situation we have is that if the ball goes out of view of the camera for any period of time then the decision is try?
unless there is another person in the video box and then it isnt

No. If the ball is out of view when it could be grounded then it is a try.
There is no change here and it doesn't depend on which ref is making the decision. No ref will disallow a try because they couldn't see the grounding.

you werent aware referee should give the possibility he thinks happened even if he isnt one hundred percent sure?

were you thinking he should give the one least likely to happen? a random possibility picked out of a hat? a try in all situations? a decision based on nothing specific

no referee will disallow a try because the cant see the grounding, they will disallow a try if they dont think it was grounded, regardless of there being a possibility it was grounded.

The reason being there always is a possibility it was grounded, in fact there are endless possibilities, so allowing the try on the basis there was a possibility it was grounded, however ridiculous, small, or nonsensical that possibility would be completely ludicrous, and as such it isnt in the rules.

Sure, but here we're not talking about some nonsensical theoretical possibility of grounding the ball. That would be completely ludicrous. Here we're talking about a situation where there is a realistic possibility that the ball was grounded. It's also possible that it wasn't grounded. Hence the benefit of the doubt decision.

People might want to have a look at rlthisrl. Thirteen minutes in. At the same time Moore's left side (where he's holding the ball) hits the ground the defender's leg can be clearly seen without the ball on it (his legs are level with Moore's hips - not where the ball is).

I await the next try to be not given because the grounding has likely happened but there is no visible evidence on replay

[size(although I am just attempting to copy tvoc's genius)[/size

But it was much more likely it wasnt grounded, and as such to say that we are giving the benefit of doubt to a much less likely possibility because there isnt conclusive evidence either way is nonsense.

The only sensible way to look at it is, Ganson makes his decision on what he thinks happened even if he isnt sure, if he really cant tell the BoD goes to the attacking side, anything else would be ludicrous.


BoD isnt a defence for Gansons decision here.

so.... Mcguires "no try" today
not sure why that wasnt given

So, McGuire's first try today.

Not sure why that was given

because the referee missed a forward pass which wasnt that far forward?

So an official got the decision wrong?

We've answered hopies aswell.

if you want to start a forward pass thread go ahead, that one was most likely forward, just as a few that were given forward werent - this thread is about the interpretation of the grounding rule and the video refs/refs differing opinions