Prove it!

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by RoyalBlueStuey, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Proving a negative is a pretty arduous task let me tell you. I work in IT so the impetus is on me to test my stuff until I can be sure that there isn't any problems...this is fiendishly tricky. In this case it's the way it has to be. The same applies to criminal cases. The prosecution has to prove that there isn't any doubt that a defendant did the crime whilst the defence merely has to prove that it's possible that he/she didn't do it. Again this is the way it has to be.

    Should proving a negative be applied to more areas of life...for example should I have to prove I'm telling the truth whenever I say everything or should things be taken at face value. Taken further if when claiming a lottery win should I have to prove that at the last moment before handing over my ticket I didn't suddenly rip the ticket up thus invalidating it.....okay I'm being facetious now however it struck me that that was what Northampton were having to do in Saturday's crunch match against Bristol.

    Saints had clearly breached the Bristol line and flopped on top of the ball...the video replay couldn't see whether the grounding was true and so denied the try. I know that's the rule but is it correct? In going to ground in the try area with the ball under control haven't Saints done as much as is humanly possible to score a try. Should the fact that the camera angles couldn't prove that there wasn't a Bristol arm underneath the ball be enough to chalk off their efforts. It's just counter-intuitive. The try has been scored, the only thing that should chalk it off is evidence of a brilliant bit of defending....the brilliant bit of defending should be assumed just 'cause it can't be disproved surely. I mean if the ball is squirming about or it mightn't actually be over the line then fine go for the replay but don't just do it 'cause you can and then disallow the try 'cause you can't prove a negative. The phrase "benefit of the doubt" needs to be looked at...at the point the replay was asked for there is no quesiton whatsoever that the ball was over the line and under a Saint...the only doubt was if Bristol had held it up. I know there's never going to be a 100% method on getting this right but surely given where there is doubt you need to err on the side of the team that's basically done it's job.

    Am I just naive on this or in this case is the ref and the video ref bottling it 'cause they don't want to court controversy.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. melon

    melon Guest

    Thats a good argument and i know exactly where you're coming from...but anyway...if people KNOW its a try, then why not? do we really need 100% evidence??? oh well i guess i guess the politics of rugby will always say yes.
     
  4. But they are always takling about encouraging teams to be more positive. Basically in incidents like the one in the Saints/Bristol game the video ref just means "if the camera can't see the ball it's no try".
     
  5. melon

    melon Guest

    Yeah i no...its a bit of a pickle isnt it! lol
     
  6. If there was no video ref to go to then I think that try would have been given.

    I actually thought there was one angle from which you could see the ball and unless any Bristol players have paper thin arms, nothing underneath it. The guy next to me in the pub was wearing a Saints shirt and he thought so too.
     
  7. It's just a cop-out..."Couldn't be sure it wasn't held up so no try". It's a nonsense, surely it's got to be "Couldn't see it being held up so try given". I can see why "Couldn't be sure it was over the line" or "Couldn't be sure he had control of it" should always be No Try but in this case it just seemed like totally the wrong decision.
     
  8. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    Very good point.
    "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"
    Bennifit of the doubt saved OJ.
    [​IMG]
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page