No it wasn't. He might have grounded it, he might not have grounded it. From the replays it wasn't clear either way therefore the correct decision was to award the try. The incorrect thing would have been for Ganson to make up what happened and make a decision based on this imagined series of events.

There are very few decisions refered to the VR which are clear, if they were they generally wouldnt be referred (excepting offsides for kicks). The referee and Video ref have to make the decision they think is correct with the information available, not just ignore it because it isnt definitive.

there is a huge difference between imagining and logical thought. To look at the before and after frames, and taking into account what of the incident you can see as well as your own common sense is a process the game does all the time. For instance when reviewing an offside from a kick where the scorer is out of frame and the instant the kick is made. The VR will look at the speed of the kick, the relative position of the chaser when they do come into picture compared with their speed and the distance they have travelled is the information a VR will take into account when making their decision. This is the same. Now you cant be advocating the awarding of a try every time a player is out of shot at the moment the ball is kicked as the VR would need to 'imagine' the information he couldnt see

Ah another fan who needs educating as to how a forward pass is determined.

Was the ball travelling forward at the point it left the hand, either for Sinfield or Donald's passes?

Never mind where it ends up, never mind what the ball does in the air between passer and receiving player. Does it go forward off the hand is the only question that needs to be answered and watching the try back on replay there's an element of doubt in whether Sinfield's pass does.

No argument that it ends up in front of where he passed it, but that's not a factor in making the decision.

If it's the one I'm thinking about it may have been due to a lack of downward pressure

His hand was underneath the ball and he just dropped it down on to the deck

Yup. And when there is insufficient information to give a decision either way they should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Which is what Ganson did.



I don't recall ever seeing a VR (or any other official) rule that a player was offside when they couldn't see that the player was actually offside. I'm pretty sure I would remember such a terrible decision. I have a few times thought players must be offside from their relative position/speed when they came into the picture on initial replays only to then discover they were in fact on side when the appropriate angle was shown.

There was sufficient evidence to make a decision, there is always sufficient evidence to make a decision, there just may not be definitive evidence. Are you arguing that there needs to be definitive evidence otherwise we award a try? or just sufficient evidence?

If you are asking for definitive evidence then that simply isnt available in lots and lots of cases, If there were there would never be disagreement with any VR decision, everyone would have to agree because the evidence was definitive.

If we are just asking for sufficient evidence then Ganson either rules no try or isnt competent to referee. There was comfortably sufficient evidence to rule that the ball wasnt touched down. It just wasnt definitive.

then you should watch more games.

And if there is no angle where the both a winger and a kicker can be seen at the moment the ball was kicked?

but one or two seconds later the camera zooms out to see the try scorer and kicker?

Sufficient evidence. Which wasn't available in this case. There is no reason to believe that, at the point his left side hits the ground, when the defenders legs are visible, he did not ground the ball. There's no reason to believe he did ground the ball. Benefit of the doubt - try.

Maybe it would help you if you had another look at the video?



Try. Unless the winger was in a position he couldn't reasonably have got to in the time available. To rule some as offside you need to know he was offside. To rule someone as held up you need to know he was held up.

Well there is a reason to believe that it wasnt grounded, as we didnt see it grounded and from what we did see it looked unlikely to have been grounded. The only reason to believe that it was grounded is something unlikely may have happened that we didnt see.

So he would need to imagine what is reasonable (and as such likely) to have happened. Like he could to disallow this try

Nothing unlikely needed to happen. He had a clear opportunity to ground the ball, all that needed to happen was that he grounded the ball.

he had clear opportunity to ground the ball if he could make it pass through someones leg or whilst he was lying on his side could somehow simultaneously put the ball down whilst it was clearly clamped to his chest and he was moving away from the ground.

If you want to see those things as likely go ahead. It makes no difference. Most sensible people thought it was a clear no try. You dont. Thats fine, it makes no difference. The point still remains that there is no procedure Ganson can hide behind from what most sensible people saw as an awful decision which was at best incompetent at worst biased

Can I just point out that the VR is not looking for a reason to allow a try? By the rules under he operates, the starting assumption is that a try has been scored [iunless he can see a clear reason to disallow it[/i.

Just thought I'd throw that in to your fascinating debate.

Clearly clamped to his chest? Even though you can't see it, it is clearly clamped to his chest? This is the sort of stuff the referee cannot make up in order to disallow a try. Much as you may like him to. Watch the video, it is clear Ganson made the right decision.

you can see it from one angle hit the leg, then from another angle that the ball is clamped to his chest above the ground, The falling salford player at that angle (gibson) then obscures the ball. Then from the original angle (behind ratchford) you can see that Moore still has the ball on his chest.

Im not sure at what point you think he could have grounded it? He was laying on top of Gibson laid on his side with the ball in his other arm being clamped to his chest by Ratchford

When the left side of his body hits the ground. The same side where he's holding the ball. The view from behind his back shows the ball over the defenders leg and then Moore slides forwards and his body obscures the view of the ball as he hits the ground. From the opposite angle you can see, at the point Moore's body hits the ground, Gibson's legs are level with Moore's hips whilst the ball is presumably in the gap between their bodies. After this the ball gets pulled up.

Moore is always on his leg, he goes forward over it so Gibsons knee is under Moore's lower midriff/hip. Gibsons arm is under Moore, as you can see from the angle behind Ratchford. Ball is clearly inbetween them. Now unless in the 4 or 5 frames between where we can see Gibson underneath him from one angle and the ball being seen in his right hand from the angle behind
Ratchford he has managed to not only put it down, avoiding Gibsons arm which is roughly level with where we would expect the ball to be, but pass it from the hand he is laid on to a an arm held by Ratchford which is being pulled away from him he hasnt scored a try. Personally dont think its very likely at all.