Benefit of the Doubt

[Jazza]

Is it just me, or do you guys think that Benefit of the Doubt is just an excuse for incompetent video refereeing, or the referee not knowing what to rule?

Ive never been a fan of it but I just think it can sometimes lead to tries that really we know shouldnt be awarded.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Properossi]

Any doubt should go to the defending team, but saying that it was a fair try.

 

[Jazza]

Any doubt should go to the defending team, but saying that it was a fair try.

Thats what I thought when they initially brought it in.

A bit like how in cricket benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman and not the wicket taker.

 

[ron_burgandy]

what doubt was there though? he either tackled him with the ball or without it, seemed pretty black and white for me

 

[Guest]

Any doubt should go to the defending team, but saying that it was a fair try.

It wasn't fair, you're not allowed to tackle a player without the ball. It doesn't matter that Minichello couldn't pull out of the tackle, he got Ryan without the ball and it should have been a penalty.

 

[Centaur]

what doubt was there though? he either tackled him with the ball or without it, seemed pretty black and white for me

My thoughts exactly. Either there was an infringement or not.

I personally thought (with a bit of bias) that Ryan was taken out. Regardless of whether he knocked on or not, he is allowed every opportunity to recover the loose ball, and if he was not taken out he would of collected the loose ball.

Anyways, Tigers should of won by 40 today, we were all over them for 75 minutes.

 

[Long_Distance_Tiger]

Totally agree with you Willow. Not allowed to tackle a player without the ball. Having said that, we should have been ahead by at least 20 at that point

 

[wicked_j]

well they missed lawrence getting tackled in the air so maybe they thought it was okay to tackle players without the ball..

 

[Marshall_magic]

well they missed lawrence getting tackled in the air so maybe they thought it was okay to tackle players without the ball..

You can tackle an attacking player in the air, not a defending player (ie someone taking a bomb in their own half). Otherwise there would be no way to stop a try once someone takes a bomb over the line.

As for the Carney try, easily a try. Minichiello has every right to take him out in that situation, happens all the time after someone knocks it on, they get smashed.

 

[supercoach]

Direct your anger at a bloke who picks a team thats really had very little hope and his use and selection of his interchange was diabolical. From where I was sitting a few feet away it was a fifty fifty call, they could use the argument Ryan was taken out by accident. Anyway their is a bloke on mega bucks making bad calls every week and has been for along time and just happens to be the Aussie coach

 

[Guest]

well they missed lawrence getting tackled in the air so maybe they thought it was okay to tackle players without the ball..

You can tackle an attacking player in the air, not a defending player (ie someone taking a bomb in their own half). Otherwise there would be no way to stop a try once someone takes a bomb over the line.

As for the Carney try, easily a try. Minichiello has every right to take him out in that situation, happens all the time after someone knocks it on, they get smashed.

It shouldn't have been a try. Read the rules, an opposing player is not allowed to tackle another player without the ball. Ryan was denied any attempt to try and regather the ball.

 

[matty_tiepie]

It was 50/50 for me but being bias i thought ( maybe hopeful ) that it was no try. funny thing is though i bet if it had of been us in the same situation it would be given no try. we jsut never seem to get hose calls go our way

 

[larrycorowa]

I would love to hear Finch's explanation. Would probably say that they were both going for the ball, therefore no interference. Over a season these decisions normally even out.

 

[prattenpark]

We should have had the game wrapped up by that stage, but the more I think about it the less 50-50 i see it. Firstly, benefit of the doubt? my a#*e. either he took him out or he didn't. Secondly, if Beau Ryan had been a player kicking the ball and was dealt with like that after the kick what would the result have been? penalty tigers for a late hit on the kicker. So, why is it different for a player defending a bomb? Surely, he was taken out late and without the ball - mini should have allowed himself time to pull out of the tackle.

But, we were our own worst enemies yesterday.

what really riled me though, was the smug smile and general demeanour of the video ref after he made the call. i dold've killed him.

 

[system]

Finch won't be asked for an explanation.

Our coaching staff is on a Kangaroos holiday.

I would say it is good Folkes can rip in but our two biggest on field failures are off on rep duty

 

[Marshall_magic]

well they missed lawrence getting tackled in the air so maybe they thought it was okay to tackle players without the ball..

You can tackle an attacking player in the air, not a defending player (ie someone taking a bomb in their own half). Otherwise there would be no way to stop a try once someone takes a bomb over the line.

As for the Carney try, easily a try. Minichiello has every right to take him out in that situation, happens all the time after someone knocks it on, they get smashed.

It shouldn't have been a try. Read the rules, an opposing player is not allowed to tackle another player without the ball. Ryan was denied any attempt to try and regather the ball.

So Minichiello has to stop, wait, make sure Ryan has caught the ball, then make the tackle? He has every right to assume Ryan will catch the ball. Fair try, that sort've thing happens after almost every drop ball. Only reason you would think otherwise is tiger bias or just hoping we would get the call.

 

[ron_burgandy]

minichello had time to pull out, because afte he tackle ryan he knew exactly where the ball was, it should of been a no try, its irrelevent that beau dropped it bottom line was he wasnt in possession of the ball and was taken out.

but we should of had 30 on the board by then so IMO for the way we played we deserved a bad call against us

 

[Yossarian]

what doubt was there though? he either tackled him with the ball or without it, seemed pretty black and white for me

Spot on Ron. Benefit of the doubt was never supposed to apply to a foul, it was meant to be for groundings where it was very probable the ball was grounded but you couldn't definitely see it and other such things.

As you say there are two options - Mini tackles Ryan without the ball = penalty
- Mine does not tackle Ryan without the ball = try

The whole benefit of the doubt option for video refs is a giant wank anyway. It's still worth the same as a normal try so who cares?

 

[Marshall_magic]

but we should of had 30 on the board by then so IMO for the way we played we deserved a bad call against us

Plus, Ryan should've taken the bomb. In RL, and all sport for that matter you make your own luck.

 

[tomcat]

ryan taking the bomb and mino tackling him all spontaneous…good try ...