Ian Smith

Quote: DISA "I thought that Peacocks was 50/50 at the time too. But does not the rules state that if you can not categorically see that a try was notscored legitamittly, that you give benefit of doubt? Therefore try rightfully awarded.

Not Sure??? I havent read the Rule book but my understanding is that if the VR "Thinks" that in all probability a Try has been scored but the Video does not prove this then he give BOTD.
If He can't see on the Video though and He Doesn't "Think" a try has been scored he can Disallow it, He doesnt have to give it!
So my understanding of the rule is different to yours but either way I would have give Peacocks.

You are still wrong on the Hock one, and you cant admit it. It is not opinion that the ref was correct or wrong, it is FACT. Read the rules and you will see that it was correct, which makes it FACT.

So No other try as ever been given by the Video Ref were the "Underside" defender came into contact with a Dummy Runner?
I have seen numerous tries given in similar circumstances where the Defender makes no attempt to tackle the attacker but simply chooses the wrong man and makes the Lazy decision as to which runner to tackle.
If we had a rule where every time an attacking dummy runner came into contact with a defender the try was disallowed we wouldn't see half the tries we do now & Saints May never score another try again!
HOWEVER
I Still stand by my statement that I believe it should have been given as a try as any circumstance similar to this would be ajudicated on by the VR and His interpretation of the rule! Otherwise as I said earlier the only way he could decide what to give would be from a Rule Book And EVERY TRY would be disallowed where a dummy runner came into contact with a defender.

Yes, you dissagreeign is opiniion, but that does not change the fact that the try was rightfully dissallowed.

Dissagreeign???? 5.31494140625:10