Benefit of the doubt.

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

Stevo

First Grader
Just a question to discuss. This one has bugged me for a long time.

Why does the benefit of doubt go to the attacking team? Do we say "well that's close enough, we'll just give it"?

Shouldn't it only be a try if you can prove a try has been scored?

Shouldn't it be assumed that the try has been saved by the defending team if there is no proof of a try has been scored.

It's either a try or it's not.
 
I don't see it that way at all Fro. How can you award a try you can't prove has occoured?
 
Maybe that situation should be considered a "draw". Both teams get 2 points each and no kick for goal.
It's a stupid rule. I guess if there was any possibility at all that the ball touched a single blade of grass they go with a try. I'd like to see the rule changed to a play the ball maybe 5 meters out, even if it was the 6th tackle.
 
because they want to see points scored, not denied.

didn't it used to be benefit to the defending team?

in cricket, there is no rule giving benefit of the doubt to the batsman.. And yet ......
 
It's simple really, 15 teams Benefit of the doubt against Manly. Whereas Manly, there's no doubt, its no try.
 
Fro said:
chicken and egg really.

your point is valid, as is the other side of the coin.

I don't know Fro, it's six of one , half a dozen of the other. But at the end of the day it's all swings and roundabouts.

From memory they made a conscious decision when they bought in the "benefit of the doubt" rule that it would favour the attacking team. Just like the benefit of the doubt always favours the batsman in cricket.
 
Stevo said:
I don't see it that way at all Fro. How can you award a try you can't prove has occoured?

As i said I see your point.

Conversely the question could be phrased "how can you disallow a try you can't prove WASN'T scored"

As someone said scoring is what they want to see.
 
Fro said:
Stevo said:
I don't see it that way at all Fro. How can you award a try you can't prove has occoured?

As someone said scoring is what they want to see.


That was ME. I JUST SAID THAT!!

"someone". Good grief!
 
I always liked your hat better :)

And the benefit of the doubt in cricket goes to the batsman because he only has one "life", once he is out he is out, whereas the bowler gets more chances to get that "life"

Doesn't really follow for tries.
 
It always seems to me that the video ref is always looking at how NOT to award the try to Manly........
 
Chip and Chase said:
Fro said:
chicken and egg really.

your point is valid, as is the other side of the coin.

I don't know Fro, it's six of one , half a dozen of the other. But at the end of the day it's all swings and roundabouts.

From memory they made a conscious decision when they bought in the "benefit of the doubt" rule that it would favour the attacking team. Just like the benefit of the doubt always favours the batsman in cricket.

But the batsmen is a defender defending his wicket. They only give batsmen out if he's out, not if "it's close enough". Not the same at all really.

Fro said:
Stevo said:
I don't see it that way at all Fro. How can you award a try you can't prove has occoured?

As i said I see your point.

Conversely the question could be phrased "how can you disallow a try you can't prove WASN'T scored"

Because the whole point of the game is to score trys. "Not to nearly" score trys.
 
You were right, this has obviously bugged you for a long time :)

And i didn't realise that "discuss" actually meant agree with you or else you are wrong lol.
 
hehe fair enough.

I'm just trawling my memory to think of a try Paul had disallowed or one allowed when he was defending or something :)
 
Fro said:
I always liked your hat better :)

And the benefit of the doubt in cricket goes to the batsman because he only has one "life", once he is out he is out, whereas the bowler gets more chances to get that "life"

Doesn't really follow for tries.

boooo!

I say no benefit of the doubt allowed.

Toss a coin instead.

No flaws to this.

Plus e for effort, a for achievement.
 
Get a room you two!

Fro said:
hehe fair enough.

I'm just trawling my memory to think of a try Paul had disallowed or one allowed when he was defending or something :)

Can't remember. He had a ripper disallowed against Melbourne years ago where the ball had bounced over the sideline and he kicked it back in and ran around the corner post and scored. It used to be on bigpond video on the NRL site but i'm not sure it goes back that far now. If any one could find a copy of that i would be stoked!!
 
and all the noobs are going "who's Paul" :)

I vaguely remember the one.

hell I can remember him scoring a couple years ago against (i think) the Cowboys
 
Scored 3 against the Dragons that day we pumped them in the first half and they came back and beat us. Most of the dragons supporters left at half time and missed it. I'll never forget the streams of white and red pouring out of the ground only to miss the comeback.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom