what would you know anyway ........your only a referee

I'm not saying I agree with the decision but I'm saying by the letter of the law it was the correct decision.

I'm just using common sense which some refs seem unable to use. Rangi Chase has his hands on the ball but then due to numbers of other players the sight is lost. Then Rangi raises his hands(why else would he do this if he hadn't stripped it?). I'm no rocket scientist but it's not hard to work out what happened whilst the ball is out of sight.

Ponner your totally missing the point.

Common sense or no common sence the try cannot be disallowed on the assumption that Rangi Chase stole the ball. Are you saying that if I am out refereeing a match on Saturday and the ball comes loose in goal and I have no way of knowing how (i.e. i cant see if hands were on the ball etc) then I should just aware the try because someone could have ripped it out?

The VR protocol for benefit of the dount states (and this is word for word from an RFL document) "In situations where the video referee has viewed all available angles and there is still doubt then the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team and the try should be awarded"

By definition the attacking team isnt the team that has possession of the ball but the team that has territorial advantage - i.e. Castleford in that senario!

I suppose each scenario is different. All i'm saying is that it was obvious on this occasion that Rangi stole the ball from his body language. Had he not been seen with his hands on the ball before it went out of view then fair enough benefit of doubt, but for him to be pulling on the ball then the next thing is him with his hands in the air only means one thing to me and most people.

The law or the ref who had a birds eye view of the incident is an ass then Saying that we didn't deserve to win and in all honesty we were never at the races, a big improvement needed this w/end.

Lets just agree that the correct decision was made!

PB is right Unfortuantely.

Once it goes to the VR, discretion and common sense goes out of the window and they have to apply the laws of the game which means that unless their was clear proof that the try should not be given then the VR has to award the try.


The only person who could give discretion would have been Ganson who i think had doubt about the try and was hoping that the VR would have a better view and would rule it out. Unfortunately the VR had no better view and had to give it as per the rukles.

I guarantee that if you spoke to ganson add Silverwood now they would have preferred to rule the try out

Why would they rule the try out now? Nothing new has happened since the try was awarded. They had enough chances to look at the replays before giving the try so their opinion shouldn't be any different now to what it was then. Can't fault Ganson for going to the video ref but Silverfish needs his old peepers checking.

Lets just agree that the VR concept has utterly and totally failed and should be scrapped.

There is a reason that even the NFL got rid of the idea.

You didnt say that saturday night

Because now he can say i have discretion to give a view ( because the game is over he is not bound by the same rule) where as on friday he did not You need to go back and read PB and my posts as you do not understand why he does not have the discretion to rule a try out.

When it goes to the VR he has to be certain to rule the try out out otherwise it has to be benefit of the doubt.

can you say with 100% certainty that the ball was ripped or only 99% certainty.


I can say from the factual evidence i cannot be certain it was ripped

it is the same difference as convicting someone in court with cold clear evidence as oppose to convicting someone on circumstantial evidence.

No they wouldnt