Page 2 of 2
Re: Warrington vs St Helens
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:12 pm
by Mike
Southern Softy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:27 am
They looked like two sides on the slide. The Percival try was ludicrous. The footage was so inconclusive, the video ref had to agree with the original decision which was guess work. Better to have an onfield option that says the ref cannot be sure so it would have been ruled out because there was no evidence of the ball being touched down. Anything other than that is tampering with the principles of the game where a try scored is the most important thing.
Ref thought he got it down which is why he sent it up as a try. As simple as that. No VR = try as well.
Re: Warrington vs St Helens
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:55 pm
by Firestarter
Mike wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:12 pm
Southern Softy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:27 am
They looked like two sides on the slide. The Percival try was ludicrous. The footage was so inconclusive, the video ref had to agree with the original decision which was guess work. Better to have an onfield option that says the ref cannot be sure so it would have been ruled out because there was no evidence of the ball being touched down. Anything other than that is tampering with the principles of the game where a try scored is the most important thing.
Ref thought he got it down which is why he sent it up as a try. As simple as that. No VR = try as well.
You reallythink the ref THOUGHT he got it down mike or do you think he guessed? A honest question
Re: Warrington vs St Helens
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 6:02 pm
by Charriots Offiah
Firestarter wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:55 pm
Mike wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:12 pm
Southern Softy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:27 am
They looked like two sides on the slide. The Percival try was ludicrous. The footage was so inconclusive, the video ref had to agree with the original decision which was guess work. Better to have an onfield option that says the ref cannot be sure so it would have been ruled out because there was no evidence of the ball being touched down. Anything other than that is tampering with the principles of the game where a try scored is the most important thing.
Ref thought he got it down which is why he sent it up as a try. As simple as that. No VR = try as well.
You reallythink the ref THOUGHT he got it down mike or do you think he guessed? A honest question
On the balance of probability he wasn’t sure
Re: Warrington vs St Helens
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 9:34 pm
by Mike
Firestarter wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:55 pm
Mike wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:12 pm
Southern Softy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 25, 2025 9:27 am
They looked like two sides on the slide. The Percival try was ludicrous. The footage was so inconclusive, the video ref had to agree with the original decision which was guess work. Better to have an onfield option that says the ref cannot be sure so it would have been ruled out because there was no evidence of the ball being touched down. Anything other than that is tampering with the principles of the game where a try scored is the most important thing.
Ref thought he got it down which is why he sent it up as a try. As simple as that. No VR = try as well.
You reallythink the ref THOUGHT he got it down mike or do you think he guessed? A honest question
Doesn't matter, he has to say one way of the other with or without a VR, You use the evidence of your eyes and you experience - i.e. ignore the players reactions - to make a decision you think is the best. TBH he probably had a much better view than the VR and is being over the top of the pile looking down towards the ball. You're advocating for a system where there has to be conclusive evidence that a try was definitely scored otherwise it should always be disallowed, which is worse than what we have now.
