I've never liked this rule, and I like it even less now.
If the ref on the field has grounds to consider it a try, shouldn't he just award the try?
On the other hand, if he didn't see enough to award a try at the time, why hand it on to the video ref with an opinion that the try should probably be given?
It doesn't make sense. What he's in effect saying is: "I didn't see him score, and if you didn't see him score either, we should declare it a try anyway".
The video ref's role in disputed tries should be to step in if the on-field ref didn't see what happened. It should simply be: "I didn't see it ... have you got a better view?", and if no decision is possible, it's play on.
I wonder if this will change after last night? I don't think that is the first time this stupid rule has had a potentially very serious impact on an important game, but if I was a Wire fan today, I'd be apoplectic.
Statistics: Posted by Cruncher — Sat Oct 05, 2024 10:25 am
