And here's another one.



Are you answering the question I raised to 21-12 on his behalf, or just wading in with childish insults in the lack of anything better to say?



Classic Goons.

It went in between them, the front on angle it appeared that way and enough of the ball wasnt showing in relation to distance to the ground to figure out without a mathematics degree that it had touched the ground, at absolute worst BOTD. I dont understand why they only looked at that angle once.



The solomona one was a knock on, as much as I wished and preyed it wasnt. Close, but no cigar on that one.

If this is the same angle the "journos" are "tweeting" about, the angle clearly shows Tuson's leg under the ball.



The ball is not on the ground. It would be physically impossible, akin to a Rob Burrow effort from (I think) last year.

I think we'd have to see it again, but from memory I was shocked it wasnt given. But this is now all hearsay really without a link to it.

The video ref just gives his OPINION on what he sees. Sometimes his OPINION is different than yours (and mine) but he's the one employed to give his OPINION, so his is the one that counts. You think his OPINION is wrong and he thinks yours (and sometimes mine) is. I've watched loads of games in the pub with neutral fans and sometimes OPINION is divided 50/50 on whether a try should be given. Having a video ref doesn't give certainty; it just gives another person a chance to look at things with the benefit of replays. He still then has to give an OPINION on what he sees.

The whole concept of 'Benefit of the Doubt' is not helpful in my view when it comes to deciding if a try should be awarded. Simply because it seems to mean different things to different people. For example, it would seem some people's view is that if you can't be 'sure the ball didn't hit the ground' a try should be awarded on the basis of 'benefit of the doubt'. Other people have said to me 'benefit of the doubt' only comes into it if it's a 50/50 call. In other words, if the video ref thinks the chances are that the ball PROBABLY wasn't grounded (say a 70/30 chance against) then no try should be awarded. A couple of years ago in a televised game, the video ref awarded a try to Featherstone's Iestyn Harris because he couldn't see the ball as Harris reached the line surrounded by tacklers. Given Harris's body position, I reckon the chances of Harris having grounded the ball were about 99/1 against (and maybe the video ref did too?!) but he gave the try, presumably because he couldn't be 'sure' the ball wasn't grounded. Was he correct?

Why don't we just say the video ref will give his best judgement based on the evidence before him using his knowledge and experience of watching/reffing/playing rugby league. That's all we ask the on-field ref to do and it's all we can expect of the vid ref. And if it's an absolute 50/50 call in his OPINION (which should be a real rarity) then he'll just have to award the try (personally I'd prefer the defence to be rewarded with a 'no try' actually), or maybe he should hand it back to the on-field ref to give whatever decision he would have given had there been no vid ref there. At no point do I want to see the words 'Benefit Of The Doubt' displayed on the big screen because it's too woolly a concept.

Should have been a penalty to Wigan. Only five Cas men in scrum.

Nevermind, justiced prevailed anyway.

Cheats.

The image is on Twitter. Surprised it isn't on here already.

Which image? The Cas five man scrum?

Try the Cas board.



It proves nothing. Unless Tuson's leg has magically vanished from below the knee, of course.

No, I'm a Cas fan who believes it isn't a true. IMO, you can clearly see the leg of Tuson and there's a good two inches between the ball and the ground.

Fair enough.