Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Anonymous person, post: 2477539, member: 2115"] because if benefit of the doubt wouldve come into it then it matters, like i said. the referee has to give a ruling before handing it to the video referee in case it cannot be ruled one way or the other by the video referee. now instead of being given a benefit of the doubt try it goes back to the refs original ruling. im sorry but i really dont understand how you guys arent getting this lol. the video referee had no doubt that he pulled up short. none whatsoever. thats why he ruled no try. just because you think there was doubt doesnt mean he does, and hes the one who has been given the job of deciding if its a try or not. like i also said, just because a big bunch of people believe something doesnt mean that there is any truth to what they believe. remember, 50% of people didnt think that inglis' origin try last year was a try despite it being an obvious try by the rule book. it was a clear cut "try" decision for those who actually know the rules. just because 50% of the people dont know the rules and then campaign that its "no try" doesnt mean the decision is "polarizing" and not "clear cut". its clear cut to anyone that knows the rules. the video referee was certain it was no try, so he ruled no try. you cant really argue with that. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 41 (members: 0, guests: 41)