Quote: --[ WW ]-- "--"You could say the same argument the other way. If you scored a perfectly good try and the ref chalked it off because he hadn't got himself into a position to see it you'd be fuming. It's why we used to give benefit of the doubt to the attacking team'"
I know what the reason behind it is, but that doesn't make it right or even sensible.
I agree that's it's a no-win situation, and that someone will always lose, but on balance, I'd say that crowds are more used to seeing tries being disallowed - for forward passes, shepherds, off-sides etc (some of them very contentious) - than they are to seeing tries awarded that are not tries. So, they'd probably be more accepting of a 'no try - play on' rule.
I'd also suggest that if neither the on-field ref nor the video ref are able to tell whether it's a 'perfectly good try' or not, the vast majority of everyone else in the stadium will be in the same boat.
Hull KR might have felt aggrieved last night if that try had been chalked off, but seeing as they only had Joe Burgess's assurance that he'd scored, probably not for very long. Most likely, they'd just have got on with the game and mounted another attack. But as it was, instead of both teams remaining in the same position as before, Rovers were handed a game-changing advantage.
I just can't accept that a referee, who by his own admission didn't see what happened, is allowed to add "but it was probably a try".
