Er.. no.



So let's say the VR on this occasion got it wrong?! So what. You didn't asked me that. You asked what people thought of the BoD rule. And I think it's the correct rule. Whether or not referees are capable of implementing the rule is a different discussion. The RULE is correct.

I'm 100% sure there was an element of doubt involved.



Therefore it's a TRY.

I didnt ask you anything

shouldnt the call be handed back to the ref then?

Grow up mate. You just started a thread about Benefit of the Doubt, and asked if it was a silly rule. That's it. So technically you asked us all. I didn't even know the match was on, let alone that a dodgy call had been given.



Perhaps you should've put... Just watching the Hull derby. That was a dodgy call wasn't it! Is anybody else watching it? What do you all think? Should that really be BoD?!

and if you read what i said to you originally, I suggested going to watch that moment and come back to me- not having a pop at all





get off your high horse

It's been established there was doubt. So why are you arguing for the benefit of the doubt rule not to be applied on this particular occasion?

more doubt that certaintity IMO

Do you think Sean Long grounded that ball?



It's a daft rule. If video evidence isn't conclusive, hand it back to the ref. Video evidence on this occasion was, IMO, conclusive that that ball was NOT grounded. Therefore, Hull KR should have benefited from outstanding defence.

Was the correct rule applied? YES or NO?



Whether you or I think it's daft or not is an irrelevant diversion.

You will find my answer at the top of the thread

YES, the correct rule was applied.



Further evidence that that rule needs chucking in the bin though if today is anything to go by. So, to answer the original question in the thread, YES benefit of doubt is the most farcical tool used by the video referee.