I think the Welsh try was held up - having to give an on-field decision is good, IMO, in that it defines which side of the decision has to be clear and obvious. But in cases like this, it's still guesswork which way to go. Perhaps the default should be on-field decision is held up - most tries are nothing like held up, and clear grounding should be shown for a try?
.
There were two 'held-up or try' decisions.
In both cases the videos were inconclusive (no grounding could be seen, but no definitive held up either, it was impossible to tell for certain)
So in both cases went with the on-field decision, one was a try, one was no-try
Both those two were OK for me
in isolation but it was quite hard watching them one after the other. The evidence was very very similar. It was hard to be completely happy about the differing results. Semed a bit random, was it completely equitable?
Has the
process led us astray ?
I can't help feeling that for both of those, it would have been better to NOT have an on-field decision, but go back to allowing the ref to ask the TMO :"try or No try"
That would have led to No-try in both cases, and felt more equitable.
(don't get me wrong, in general I quite like the concept of on-field decision. But in those two instances, looked at together, it raised questions in my mind)