The end of the on-field call?

Yesterday's play off between Hull KR and Warrington was a blood-and-thunder encounter between two sides who gave their all to reach the Grand Final. In a tense and thrilling match, Hull KR came out on top by two points.

There were two tries scored by each side with Joe Burgess' try sparking a fresh debate about the referee making an on field decision and the video referee having a high threshold to overturn that call.

The mood music suggests that this method of decision making will change for next season. Let's start by looking at the incident in more detail.

It appeared that the ball was grounded initially short of the try line but then ended up raised, over the try line. Whether at any stage between those two moments any point of the ball touched the try line cannot be determined.

Sometimes this happens in Rugby League. In amongst a mass of bodies, the ball ends up over the line but no camera angle can see it. Reaching an evidence-based determination as to whether a ball was grounded becomes impossible.

This presents a specific dilemma that we have wrestled with for decades.  

When the video referee was introduced in 1996, in situations such as this, benefit of the doubt was given to the defending side.

In the 2000's, we changed that interpretation. That was because we deemed it unjust that a try could be disallowed simply because enough defenders may have obscured a grounding from the camera's lens.

Instead, we gave benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. In the 2010's, we changed that interpretation. That was because we deemed it unjust that a try would be routinely awarded simply because sight of the ball was lost.

Now, we have a situation where a referee must make a 'live' call and, where sight of the ball is lost, the video referee will likely stick with that call.

That is unjust as we are asking a referee who was likely unsighted to make a guess at a decision. Though, it must be said, absent a video referee, that is exactly what would happen anyway.

If none of these systems dealt with this scenario adequately, it is reasonable to ask if there is an alternative.

The only other method I can think of is to have no on-field steer from the referee, no "benefit of the doubt" either way and the video referee makes his best judgement. One of my Twitter followers has suggested using a "balance of probabilities" test. 

I think this seems the most reasonable and balanced solution. But I do have concerns that this would lead to the thing that all Rugby League fans claim to hate more than anything; inconsistency.

In situations where it cannot be accurately be determined whether a ball has been grounded or not, a decision still has to be made. And I cannot see any way that the decision will not leave one of the two sides feeling wronged.

You may implement whatever system you choose. We will probably do something different next year (or, something that we have tried before and deemed to have failed).

But in situations where the ball is obscured, you won't solve the problem. In other situations, removing the on field call may be a benefit. There are situations, far easier to determine than Joe Burgess' try last night, where the threshold for over-turning seems too high, as one example.

Last night, this unpalatable situation arose where the stakes could scarcely be higher. The spotlight naturally draws to trying to find a solution to something that is at best suboptimal and at worst unfair.

But for those who expect the likely scrapping of the 'on-field' call to solve this problem come 2025, don't hold your breath.