by Paul McNally wrote on 30/4/97:
>>However my biggest complaint of the game was the Bawden try. As far as I'm
>> concerned it was definitely forward. It was obvious that Billy Blunden had seen
>>the forward pass and so stayed on his touch line. When David Campbell asked
>> him he must've said that it was forward and still he went to the Video Ref. After
>>watching all the angles the try was given. Who was the Video Ref cos he wants
>>his eyes testing.
>>I've been all in favour of the Video Ref but this decision stank. At 28-16 we might
>>have had a chance but that score killed us off completely.
>Lloyd, and others for that matter...I thought the video ref was only
>allowed to rule on whether the ball was grounded and not forward
>passes, offside etc... therefore, if I'm right, the V ref couldn't
>disallow the try on the grounds of a forward pass but could only look
>at whether Bawden got the ball down which he obviously did. If this is
>the case it's a mistake by the referee for calling for it in the first
>place and the video ref's hands are tied.
Video Ref was used for incidents in the act of scoring but I'm sure that I've
seen the video ref used to see whether there had been a knock on earlier in
play.
>decpetive. It looked a yard forward to me and you have to say that the
>video ref had to see it so the only reason he would let the try stand
>is that backplay incidents do not concern him and the ball was
>grounded correctly.
have been enough for the ref.