Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="subsbligh, post: 2694009, member: 1950"] Unfortunately mate (my jaded view) is that the judiciary form seems a bit more arbitrary. We think it was bad therefore we'll fit the definition somehow. A bit like the video referees not understanding the burden of proof of "conclusive" and just making the TRY/NO TRY call based on their interpretation of the video evidence (which personally I think sits somewhere higher than "balance of probabilities" but lower than "beyond reasonable doubt"). Every week I blow up royal about it when I'm sitting with my mates, a try is awarded on field, the video ref takes 7 looks at it and determines that it somehow takes 7 different reviews and angles to say something is "conclusive" (all the while 3 or 4 seasoned commentators can't form an aligned view of evidence, suggesting in itself there is not a conclusive call one way or the other as between reasonable minds (or in fact expert minds) based on the video evidence). There might be suggestive or persuasive evidence, but no "conclusive evidence" exists, therefore revert to on-field ref and live with it. GI Origin II try was the classic case in point. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 344 (members: 0, guests: 344)