Adjudicating the Impossible

Monday's Super League clash between Hull FC and Warrington was a close fought battle settled by Manu Ma'u's late try. But this reopened a debate about the role of the video referee.

Ma'u crashed over the line, surrounded by Warrington defenders. The ball was obscured and Ma'u's arm raised with triumph. Chris Kendall took his time and referred the decision to the video referee, awarding an on field decision of try.

The replay showed the ball was not grounded initially before Ma'u's weight forced the ball in a downwards motion. It was impossible to tell whether the ball was grounded and a try scored. On the basis of Kendall's on field decision, a try was awarded. With minutes to go, this ultimately decided the outcome of the match.

This brought about much debate about how such situations should be settled. Warrington coach Daryl Powell was frustrated at what he perceived as a guess from Chris Kendall determining the match.

Sky Sports reporter Jenna Brooks asked Powell a pertinent question. What alternative would he like? Powell paused before saying "anything but this". This was a telling answer. He had no alternative. Because none are palatable. As I see it, there are four options.

On-Field Call

We could keep things as they are. The positives are that it puts more control in the hands of the on field officials. There is less discrepancy between televised and non-televised matches.

The negative is that it may force referees to guess whether a try is scored when they are unsighted. Also, if more than one matter is ruled on, things get complicated. If, say, offside and a grounding is adjudicated on, then a 'no try' is awarded on field, the negative burden applies to both aspects of the decision. That is even if a referee suspects offside but a clean grounding.

An alternative is to allow a referee to say if he is unsure, to allow a neutral burden. But this may lead to inconsistency.

Benefit of Doubt

Where there is uncertainty, there can be an automatic presumption in favour of the attack or defence. This means decisions are likely to be more consistency.

The drawback is that it does not overcome the perception of a guess. If angles are inconclusive, then the problems of the on field call are not overcome.

Ref's Call

For a while in the NRL, if a video referee could not make a call, he would not award a try or no try, but "ref's call". The referee would then make a decision.

In effect, it is the on field call in reverse. I've heard worse ideas and overcomes the burden of proof issue currently placed on video referees.

In the same vein, in rugby union, there is a more open dialogue between referee and TMO. Questions such as "Is there any reason that I should not award this try?" are asked. 

No Video Referee

One way of solving the conundrum altogether is to scrap the video referee. Let the referee make a call and get on with the game.

There would be more errors though. And our fans unhealthy obsession with referees means this would probably be a non-starter.

When it comes to certain try-scoring incide to there is no panacea. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the best approach, so do leave a comment or get in touch via Twitter!